Mokele

Well, I haven't seen that, but I *have* seen a sloth-fight. It took a total of 10 minutes, during which a grand total of 3 blows were exchanged, each of which took longer than 5 seconds to deliver. They eat animals, and none of the nearly 3000 species is even omnivorous, let alone heribvorous. They respond primarily to chemical cues. Visual and (in some species) heat cues provide additional stimulation, but it's scent first and foremost. And we now return you to our regularly scheduled thread. Mokele

Maybe, or maybe not. One has to wonder why mammals lost the infinite sets of teeth of their reptilian ancestors. Maybe it was just chance, but maybe there's also some selective pressure, a subtle one, that prevents such regeneration. Like perhaps such regenrative capacity also leads to increased susceptibility to various bone (or other)cancers? Mokele

Well, mystery solved: Metatron is just another creationist troll, evidently, albeit a very inept and circuitous one. I repeat: *Learn* about evolution before you try to "fix" it. Mokele

Wrong, we have a thorough grasp of mutation. I would dispute "pattern". There is a correlation between periods of rapid change and environmental change, but no overall pattern to either. Once again, you prove you do not understand PE or NS. NS does *not* have to be progress; it can select *against* the extremes, preventing a shift in the mean value of a trait. This is seen in times of environmental stability. Go back and review the post I linked to for more details. NS is dependent upon environment. Until the selective pressures change (due to changes in environment), you will not see any changes in the selection organisms undergo, including stabilizing selection (the one described above). The fossil record is an imperfect record. It can contain huge gaps simply due to things not fossilizing, those sediments having already eroded away, etc. This is *especially* true for the early fossil record, and is simple to prove: The longer a rock is around, the greater the chance that it will be exposed to an environment (like, say, the surface of earth) that can destroy it. Furthermore, not everything fossilizes to begin with, *especially* soft-bodied organisms. This entire point in your arguement is nothing but arguement from ignorance. Just because we don't know what's there and have no record does not mean that nothing was there. Really? You certainly haven't shown me one in this post. In short, you are totally uneducated and unqualified to make any sort of claims about your new theory and evolution. Thanks for confirming my suspicions. Seriously, hostility aside, I can recommend a very good textbook (the one I used in my Evolution course, in fact) that can help you remedy some of your oversights. Also, have a look at the existing papers and material. Chances are that any question you have has already been asked and answered, and by looking at the papers you can avoid having to "re-invent the wheel". Your "fossil" is just a rock. Deal with it. Once again, baseless assertion. You cannot just *say* "My discovery shows this". You have to say *why* it shows that. You have to show that it truly does show that, and isn't just being mis-interpreted. For instance, if I said "My experiments have shown that cycle duration of arboreal concertina locomotion in snakes is strongly affected by incline", you could justifiably call that unfounded. But if I make that claim at the end of a paper in which I elaborate what I tested, how I tested it, how I gathered what data, how that data was analyzed, and that the statistics show a highly significant effect, *then* my claim is worth something. You have not shown didly squat about your "fossil", only claimed it, and sheathed those claims in technobabble. Explain what a dissipative structure is, explain what an oolithic sphere is. YOU are the one presenting, and you are presenting to an audience (so far as I can tell, though I can speak only for myself) of biologists who don't know squat about systems theory. Explain stuff, and tell us *how* you've shown something. Don't just assert that you have and move on. Once again, assertions without basis. How? Why? Why not consider genes and mutation instead? What about the obvious flaws in your understanding of PE? Most importantly: Where is a single scrap of proof that this phenomenon even exists, and where is the empirical evidence for these "pulses of genetic information"? No, it is not. There is no cyclical regularity to PE, only correlation with environmental change. There is no sudden, instant pulse of genetic information that makes a new species, just good old natural selection. One of the most famous pieces of evidence for PE shows this. There are several layers of sediment. In the bottom is Clam A, then Clam B appears out of nowhere, spreads and supplants it totally. Where did Clam B come from? When the entire deposite was looked at, a small area was found, isolated but in the same levels. In it, Clam A arrives, and slowly, gradually changes through many intermediate steps into Clam B. The final form of Clam B appears in this isolated area, then appears in the main deposit. *THAT* is PE. An isolate sub-population, exposed to different environmental pressures, evolved into a new form, and then at a later date recolonized, all in a geological instant. So, in summay, there is no problem that needs to be solved, and you have provided nothing but baseless assertions and technobabble. Mokele

That you should read, not skim, my post, so that you notice I explicitly denoted that stem-cell research is technically legal, but has been "kneecapped" to the point of being nearly impossible. Furthermore, do you really doubt that a full-out ban is what the Religious Reich wants? When did I state that anything in the name of science is ethical? In fact, I never once even implied that. Again, *read* the post, don't skim. Furthermore, the potential that something will work is better than no potential at all. And we'll never know if we don't try, will we? I highly doubt that *any* ethical system can actually give the OK to forcing people give up a potential treatment based on values they do not share. Why does it even matter? My views are my own. Your views are your own. If I think an embryo is a person, I can refuse treatments using stem cells, or accept them if I don't hold that belief. Notice that I am not forcing my beliefs on others. *That* is the issue. Mokele

Fine, then show me these waves. Show me documented, peer-reviewed proof of these *particular* waves (not waves in general) exist. Bullshit. Molecular biology more than adequately explains life, without needing to deal with the quantum crap. Mokele

And that is why it is psuedoscience. Whether or not this spiritual, non-physical link is present or not is irrelevant: it's unobservable, and therfore it's *religion*, not science. Mokele

Banning stem cell research (or restricting it to the point of it being banned for all practical purposes) is not only stupid from the medical POV, it's outright unethical and immoral. For instance, say I have a disease, and stem cells offer the only potential hope of curing me. Then the Religious Reich bans (or kneecaps) research. In doing so, they have imposed *their* moral values onto me, without any consent on my part. If they're opposed to stem cells, then they're free to refuse treatments based on them. But they do *not* have the right to impose their morals on me, possibly to the detriment of my health and life. Mokele

Re-read this, then go back and look at every post you've made on this forum. Notice something?

Because, in spite of the fact that you mentioned the two magic words, your question alone indicates that you do no understand it. Ever hear of the "Shotgun strategy" to test taking? It's when a student has no clue how to solve a problem, so they simply write down every equation they can think of and hope that the prof will give them at least some partial credit. Generally, those papers get zeros, because, although they know the equations, they don't know how to use them. Same thing here. ID is not science. It's nothing but creationism, designed to sound scientific and fool people. It was *explicitly* created for this purpose. As for Behe, he's been wrong about *EVERY* instance he proposed. A batting average of 0 doesn't get you into the major leagues. See, this is absolutely useless. You're hiding behind technobabble rather than actually explaining what any of this *means*, which, as the person making the claim, is YOUR responsibility. I can make a post about snake biomechanics that's absolutely right, but so filled with unexplained technical jargon that nobody can make heads or tails of it. That's not going to convince anybody. Alternatively, I can make a post claiming I'm Q from Star Trek, and cover it in enough technobabble to make it sound good. If your idea had any merit, you would be willing to actually put it out there in plain english, in an understandable format. Instead you hide behind jargon (probably incorrectly used), unwilling to put your ideas forth in a form which can be examined, because you *KNOW*, deep down, that your ideas are BS, and that exposure to rational analysis wll destroy them. So keep hiding behind your jargon while we laugh at you, crackpot. Lots of books have been published on string theory, that doesn't make it anything more than unsupported speculation. Here's a novel idea: If you actually know this shit so well, why don't you actually explain it? Oh, that's right, because it would allow us to see what a joke your ideas are (as if we didn't already). Yes, so let's start: Have you *ever* taken a college-level course in Biology? Have you *ever* taken an upper-level course in evolution? Have you *ever* taken any formal courses in this so-called "systems theory"? Do any of your ideas spring from something other than "Science for dummies" volumes you find at Barnes and Nobles and random rocks you find? Do you have any peer-reviewed sources to back this up? Have you ever actually had that rock of yours examined by a competent paleontologist or geologist? So, let the honesty begin, eh metatron? Or are you too cowardly to answer these? Mokele

So do your kidneys. So does your liver. So does your bladder. The simple presence of receptors to hormones or even autonomic neurotransmitters does not mean that part of the body is liked to any sort of emotion. By your logic, you can also feel love through your bladder, since it has about as many receptors are the heart, and is, in fact, more responsive to them (as anyone who's ever drunk more than 3 cups of coffee within a few hours can tell you). The heart is a muscule pump that responds to hormones and *autonomic* nervous system stimulation. It generates some feedback, but generally what we feel (scared, for instance) affects the heart, not the other way around. Exceptions are, for instance, when massive blood loss causes hypovolemic shock. I feel thinks in my skin too, like when I get goosebumps. It's the same thing: an *effect* of processes in the brain, not a cause. I don't even think metatron knows what he's posting half the time. Mokele

The only "face" of that sentiment is a bunch of whiny goth teenagers congregating at the local coffee shop to complain about how nobody thinks their irrational, poorly-conceived and unsupported ideas are brilliant. Mokele

And why do I, or anyone, give a crap what "the general populace" wants to know? If they want to know it so badly, then they can go to school and get a psychology degree and solve it. Strawman fallacy. Furthermore, as for what to test, it's blatantly obvious from the animal's evolution. You don't test a sloth running through a maze, nor do you expect a snake to be positively reinforced by a carrot. You can predict the sorts of behaviors that can be used simply by physiology, ecology, and evolutionary history. That doesn't mean it can't be of use. You can't *prove* most of science, since it's based on empirical observation. But you *can* reduce the chance that you are wrong to less than a tenth of a percent with suitable experimental design, even in correlational studies. You mean like your own ignorant dismissal of psychology because you can't understand it? I'd bet you've never even actually taken a psych course. Psychology is under no obligation to test every 2-bit crackpot philosophy, and, under certain circumstances, these philosophies are simply untestable wastes of time. No, experienced philosophers don't. You have done both of these. Your homework is to complete this logic sequence. Mokele

Right here, in response to a question which is actually the perfect example of the phenomenon of PE. That you had to ask that question indicates that you did not understand or possibly even know of PE. No, "Truth" is for the philosophers. *Data* is what science is all about. It's explaining what we see in this world through observation and experimentation, with a reliance on empirical evidence (which you have never provided). You never did, nor did I claim you did. I said it, because I'm ridiculing you and your "fossil". If that holds true, why are you posting about evolution? Mokele

True, my bad. What I was generally getting at is we're salty water, though, and fairly close, even if not on the nose. Mokele

Aside from the fact that a sample size of 1 is pretty much useless, if you're referring to that unremarkable rock you posted pics of (and have as your icon), that's not a fossil, it's just a rock. You mean in spite of the fact that the Cambrian explosion is one of the most-studied paleontological events ever? Are you seriously suggesting that none of the legions of paleontologists have ever looked at these strata? Aside from your little ad-hominem, you should realize that the only "filtering" peer-review does is filtering out bullshit and poorly-done work so we don't have to waste our time with garbage like, say, your posts. I find it absolutely hilarious that someone is lecturing me about doing active science from the POV of paleo. Gee, look, I'm doing my own experiments. Yes, *experiments*, those wonderful essentials of science that allow us to actually establish causality, which paleontology (on account of dealing with dead things) cannot do. Try dealing with *live* things. You can't understand life from just studying rocks and dead bones. AHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! A creek bed? And you havent considered that maybe, just maybe it's *not* from there, but instead transported from elsewhere? Like, say, a driveway? In fact, have you even actually had this rock examined by any knowledable professional paleontologist? Or even a good amateur like a fossil dealer? Or did they tell you it's just a rock, and you came here hoping that maybe someone would believe your ridiculous ideas? Is systems theory psuedoscience? No. I've heard of it, I'm passingly aquainted with it, and it seems to be interesting. Can it be applied to biology? Probably, especially in embryogenesis. In fact, I seem to recall a similar approach solving a great mystery of embryology. However, both of those do *NOT* mean that your particular theory isn't psuedoscientific bullshit. For instance, nuclear physics isn't psuedoscience. Nor is it's application to fusion. But if I claim that I can initiate fusion around my body from the hydrogen in the water in the air via psychic energy in order to become the Human Torch, that's still psuedoscience. Your claims, so far as I understand them, are that there is some sort of overlying pattern to evolution that is not explained by current knowledge and our growing knowledge of evolutionary developmental biology. You have not backed this up with any evidence from the fossil record except a stone that you only delude yourself into thinking is a fossil. If you claim such large-scale patterns exist, I want you to tell me one (in a short and simple way) and tell me a) why the current explanation does not fit the data and b) why your explanation is superior and accounts for more data more effectively. So far, all you've done is gibber about your personal God of "systems theory", without giving any sort of concise explanation of why it's even needed. Occam's razor, the least complicated explanation should be preferred. Given that I had to explain punctuated equilibrium to you in another post, I sincerely doubt you know enough to actually make a convincing case. Until you actually use evidence and facts like those of us who are *real* scientists, your gibberish will continue to be treated like the psuedoscience that it is. Mokele

No, that's an urban legend. Actually *every* part of the brain is used for something. We just only use 10% at any given time (much less for most people). Mokele

I wear the skins of my enemies.

Frankly, metatron, if you were to post 2+2=4 tommorrow, I'd ask for peer-reviewed sources, simply because it's *you* posting. You're attempting to construct an entire theory that's not needed, not supported by empirical evidence, and based on a rock from your driveway. Hey, I found a discarded beer can! Watch as I extrapolate a completely new theory of all biology from it! Mokele

While the US has some problems, and some oppression, I don't think any of it can seriously hold a candle to telling a woman "You were raped, so it's *your fault*, and, furthermore, to preserve our bullshit family honor, we're now going to stone you to death." Mokele

One of the stupidest things I've ever done: "Huh, I need 2 years of a foreign language to graduate. I've always been interested in Japanese, so I'll take that. After all, how hard can it be." I liken that chain of thought to "Let's invade Russia with foot-soldiers during the winter!" Mokele

Agreed, who cares what his sexuality was, it doesn't in any way enhance or detract from his works. Mokele

Don't forget the particles. The first two should read: "butsurigaku ga tanoshii ja arimasen. butsurigaku ga hidoi desu." The third should be "butsurigaku ga wakariyasui desu", and leave off the "Watashi", as that's generally understood. If you do want to add it, to be specific, you should have added it to the first sentence, then omitted it from the last two. Also, "Watashi" needs to be followed by "wa" if it's the subject. "Kichi" is "good fortune". If you're asking if it was good, "ii" is the appropriate word for just "good". Demo, anata wa nihongo o hanshimasu no ga ii desu. Mokele

Many have only historical, evolutionary links to the environment that produced them via natural selection. However, in more complex organisms, there arises the ability to modify instincts. This does not, however, detract from their genetic basis; many animals have geneticly based decision-making systems of "If this environmental stimuli, do this, if not, do that" which are soley genetic. Just because you computer games react to your input does not make them any less programmed. I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. That a trait is mutable and can be altered by environmental stimuli does not make it non-existant, as you seem to think. So, according to you, the color of Siamese cats is not a trait? That's *exactly* what you just said. You said that a trait cannot be malleable. Therefore you claim that color of Siamese cats is not a trait. See, what makes a cat (or just about any animal) black is a pigement called melanin. And, geneticly, Siamese cats are 100% black, all over. However, they have inherited a protien in the melanin synthesis pathway that is very temperature sensitive. So sensitive, in fact, that it cannot function at skin temperature over the body core, only at the skin temperature of the extremities, which is why you only see black on these cats in their extremities. So, here we have a purely genetic trait which has it's expression dictated by the environment. Let's look at another: In fruit fly larvae, there are two behavioral phenotypes, sitters and rovers. The sitters don't move very much in the search for food, while the rovers do. The trait is controlled by a single gene, and is entirely controlled by that gene. However, if you deprive a sitter of food, it becomes a rover, and reverts once it's in high-food environments, while rovers are *always* rovers. Here, once again, we have a 100% genetic trait that reacts to input from the environment, and results in a modification of behavior. I know far more about Behavioral Genetics than you, as evidenced by this thread. While you restrict yourself to a single, comparatively uninteresting species, I learn from *all* animal life, and can apply what I learn there to humans easily, as we are results of the same evolutionary process. And malleability does not indicate impermanence or instability. For instance, I have the personality trait of being rather introverted, in that I tend to prefer my own company to that of others. However, I have friends and interact with those friends. Does that mean I'm not really introverted? No, it simply means that I have a *general tendency* towards introversion, but can "come out of my shell" in the right environmental situation. Interaction with trait and the environment does *not* make it "unstable" or "not a trait". Or do you *really* want to claim that Siamese cats have no "trait" for color? Mokele

Well, you can't have evolution without variation. Perhaps there's an underlying heritable factor to your (and everyone's) preferences, just as there may be for breast size, and males who prefer the "right" breast size are those that have the highest fitness? That there is such variation, in my eyes, makes it hard to explain the attraction in cultural terms; if it's based on us learning "what's attractive" from the culture, shouldn't there be little, if any, variation among individuals, since they're all seeing the same message from the culture? Mokele