Historical Record Indicates a Significant Acceleration of Evolution

[dr.syntax]

JillSwift is being nice. The bottom line, however, is that this forum is not a personal sandbox in which you can put in some random thoughts of yours.

Read this http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/announcement.php?f=59&a=13.

I have pointed to obvious flaws in your arguments and you resort to tantrums. I did choose to ignore you because evidently I am less patient than Mokele. Mokele (repeatedly) counterpoints your arguments and you start getting personal again. Please revisit your arguments and address his points, otherwise you are just stating personal opinions without any value.

 

REPLY: I had been cutting you some slack in hopes we had reached some sort of uneasy peace accord. Is it not you who has been often promoting the idea that to one degree or another that it is the amount genetic information any particular species carries about with it is somehow important in determining how complex an organism is ? Sysiphus put the lie to that notion. An onion has 12 times the DNA of a human AN AMOEBA HAS 200 TIMES as much DNA as a human being. And yet you keep promoting the notion that the amount of DNA an organism has is an important part of defining how complex it is. You also suggested that it was possible sexual reproduction was actually not a positive adapted trait. You quoted some obscure source of some bizarre theory that sexual reproduction somehow or another in fact retarded evolution. And you accuse me of tossing about silly notions I dream up. Get back ! ......Post Script: See post number 12, your post begins with the title:"May I suggest as the measure, the total amount of genetic information". I remind you an Amoeba has 200 times as much DNA information as you do, an onion 12 times as much. Are you less complex than an amoeba, an onion ? ...Dr.Synstax

Edited September 26, 2009 by dr.syntax

[CharonY]

Is it not you who has been often promoting the idea that to one degree or another that it is the amount genetic information any particular species carries about with it is somehow important in determining how complex an organism is ?

Nonsense. I argued against it. Read the posts again. And the post above mine. Read up what quote tags are.

 

You also suggested that it was possible sexual reproduction was actually not a positive adapted trait. You quoted some obscure source of some bizarre theory that sexual reproduction somehow or another in fact retarded evolution.

The two-fold cost of sexual reproduction is a known fact to anyone even remotely familiar with evolution of sexual reproduction. In fact, it follows common logic.

 

If you really want some reference read, go get some wikipedia article. Alternatively, try that for starters:

Arkhipova IR Cytogenet Genome Res. 2005;110(1-4):372-82.

Wright and Finnegan Curr Biol. 2001 Apr 17;11(8):R296-9.Click here to read

 

There are also a number of reviews around, though I won't look for them, given the fact that chances are low that they will help you understanding the issue.

Also, try to get the Futuyma. Then we can talk.

[JillSwift]

Reply: It`s just about anything I say. I posted something about some concept a number of scientists from different fields are working on. It`s called THE LATE HEAVY BOMBARDMENT. I read about it at the Absolute Astronomy website. I told about a concept a number of these scientists were looking into. He claimed they didn`t say some of the things I said they did. I told him where they did say these things. Now he says I am supposed to come up with some proof. I pointed out how I HAVEN`T SUGGESTED ANYTHING,these other people have. He never never acknowledges any mistakes he makes. He rejects any research findings of other qualified scientists out of hand. Who does he think he is ? If you want to suck up with him because he is a moderator go ahead. I don`t. ...Dr.Syntax

Ok, being nice isn't cutting it, let's try blunt:

 

Evidence is everything. It makes no difference whether an idea is uttered by a Nobel Laureate or a high school dropout - without evidence the idea is valueless.

 

Why are your ideas, and the ideas you bring with you from others, so heavily questioned? Well, let's see:

 

 

• Arguments from authority - meaning you think that just because a "scientist" said it, it immediately has validity.
  
• Extrapolation from one or a very few data points. That is, coming to conclusions before you can really know anything from the evidence at hand.
  
• Arbitrary measurements. Taking any factor and labeling it indicative of all other factors is a fabulous way to end up with a lot of incorrect conclusions.
  
• Uncorrectable assumptions. Assuming that evolution is all about going from the simple to the complex in the face of the fact that it is a trend only, and examples of simplification can be found - albeit "complex" and "simple" are arbitrary judgments anyway.
  

On top of that, you take criticisms of your ideas personally, as if the only reason your ideas are being criticized is because "no one likes you". Science isn't social networking, it's a methodology.

 

As one of my professors said to me once, "Get over it."

[mooeypoo]

Thread moved to Pseudoscience/Speculations.

 

Dr. Syntax, you're making a claim here,the burden of proof is on you. It means you need to supply evidence, not just empty claims or logical fallacies.

 

Please refer to the Speculation policy and, more improtantly, to our "rules of engagement" for more information on what is required of you to support your own theory.

~moo

[dr.syntax]

Nonsense. I argued against it. Read the posts again. And the post above mine. Read up what quote tags are.

 

 

The two-fold cost of sexual reproduction is a known fact to anyone even remotely familiar with evolution of sexual reproduction. In fact, it follows common logic.

 

If you really want some reference read, go get some wikipedia article. Alternatively, try that for starters:

Arkhipova IR Cytogenet Genome Res. 2005;110(1-4):372-82.

Wright and Finnegan Curr Biol. 2001 Apr 17;11(8):R296-9.Click here to read

 

There are also a number of reviews around, though I won't look for them, given the fact that chances are low that they will help you understanding the issue.

Also, try to get the Futuyma. Then we can talk.

REPLY: Post # 12 WRITTEN BY YOU IN THIS THREAD IS TITLED: " May I suggest as the measure,the total amount of genetic information". ANYONE WISHING TO CHEK INTO THAT SCROLL BACK AND READ IT FOR YOURSELF.

...Dr.Syntax

[JillSwift]

REPLY: Post # 12 WRITTEN BY YOU IN THIS THREAD IS TITLED: " May I suggest as the measure,the total amount of genetic information". ANYONE WISHING TO CHEK INTO THAT SCROLL BACK AND READ IT FOR YOURSELF.

...Dr.Syntax

I did just that, and what do you know? CharonY argued against that, just as he said.

 

(The quote "May I suggest as the measure,the total amount of genetic information" in that post is from Mr. Skeptic, here.)

[CharonY]

Reading... hard.

[dr.syntax]

I did just that, and what do you know? CharonY argued against that, just as he said.

 

(The quote "May I suggest as the measure,the total amount of genetic information" in that post is from Mr. Skeptic, here.)

 

well maybe when quoting someone else you should indicate it in some way shape or form instead of leaving it to seem as though it is YOUR TITLE. It`s the poster`s responsibility to see that it is presented clearly,not the readers. I still find her argument against sexual reproduction down right wierd. I guess somehow or another becauase some intellectual dreams up some inexplicable reason why sexual reproduction harms evolution in some way. We should ignore the fact that sexual reproduction has been chosen by natural selection since multicellular life forms emerged as the way to get things done.She states :" In addition,the often assumed benifits of sex to fitness,are as I have already mentioned in a number of posts,LARGELY UNPROVEN."[emphasis mine] Largely unproven !! What about that 1.2 billion year or more experiment called life on Earth that natural selection has put to the test over and over again. Sometimes adding into the test things like THE BIG FREEZE,THAT VOLCANIC ACTION THINGY and a few other notables. Sexual reproduction has been tested plenty and seems to be doing it better than anything other that may have been tried. I know about asexual reproduction and that it still works fine for bacteria and such. Perhaps for a few scientists out there also. They may be cloning themselves. I am sure many of them would see fit to do that. Whatever, ...Dr.Syntax

Edited September 27, 2009 by dr.syntax

[iNow]

Whatever, ...Dr.Syntax

You seem to like signing off many of your posts with that word. It does not speak well to your stature or credentials. You really need to relax, but that's just a nickel's worth of free advise. Also, with a username like "Dr.Syntax" you should consider more properly formatting your posts... perhaps become better friends with the carriage return and avoid the "wall of text," for starters.

[JillSwift]

well maybe when quoting someone else you should indicate it in some way shape or form instead of leaving it to seem as though is YOUR TITLE.

You mean, like having it in a quote box? (As it was.)

 

 

It`s the posters responsibility to see that it is presented clearly,not the readers.

Communications is something of a two-way street. The communicator must be clear, and the communicatee must understand the standards of the communications medium.

 

I still find her argument against sexual reproduction down right wierd. I guess somehow or another becauase some intellectual dreams up some inexplicable reason why sexual reproduction harms evolution in some way. We should ignore the fact that sexual reproduction has been chosen by natural selection since early multicellular life forms emerged as the way to get things done.She states :" In addition,the often assumed benifits of sex to fitness,are as I have already mentioned in a number of posts,largely unproven." Largely unproven. What about that 1.9 billion year experiment called life on Earth that natural selection has put to the test over and over again. Sometimes adding into the test things like THE BIG FREEZE,THAT VOLCANIC ACTION THINGY and a few other notables. Sexual reproduction has been tested plenty and seems to be doing it better than anything other that may have been tried. I know all about asexual reproduction and that it still works fine for bacteria and such. Perhaps for a few scientists out there also. They may be cloning themselves. I am sure many of them would see fit to do that. Whatever, ...Dr.Syntax

No one said sexual reproduction harmed anything. It just makes the spread of mutations slower, possibly drowning them out.

 

You have some very odd ideas about evolution, and I think those odd ideas are getting in your way of understanding the criticisms of your idea here.

[mooeypoo]

Dr Syntax, our request for actual science is not really up for negotiation.

 

Stop talking out of thin air; either start supporting your statements with actual science or admit your theory is unsupported myth.

 

Your appeals to emotion are not helping your case.

 

Did you go over the links I put up about the rules of Speculation and the "Rules of Engagement"? You should. They're part of our rules, and as such, they're also non negotiable.

 

~moo

[dr.syntax]

Dr Syntax, our request for actual science is not really up for negotiation.

 

Stop talking out of thin air; either start supporting your statements with actual science or admit your theory is unsupported myth.

 

Your appeals to emotion are not helping your case.

 

Did you go over the links I put up about the rules of Speculation and the "Rules of Engagement"? You should. They're part of our rules, and as such, they're also non negotiable.

 

~moo

 

REPLY: worried about the rules of engagement when posting to me. They call me anything they wish to and if I respond in kind I get told about these rules of engagement. I treat people the way they treat me. ...Dr.Syntax

[Mr Skeptic]

Hm, look what wiki has: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_complexity

[mooeypoo]

Dr Syntax, the post was deleted for a reason. Keep it deleted.

 

Everyone should keep their temper in check (that goes for EVERYONE participating, not just dr.syntax). BE NICE and CIVIL.

 

Dr Syntax, the burden of proof is on *YOU* and not anyone else. Stop shifting it to other people - either put up the science or stop complaining that everyone calls you up on your theory being unproven crap.

 

It shall remain unproven until *YOU* bring forth something to PROVE IT.

 

 

 

~moo

[dr.syntax]

Dr Syntax, the post was deleted for a reason. Keep it deleted.

 

 

Everyone should keep their temper in check.

 

Dr Syntax, the burden of proof is on *YOU* and not anyone else. Stop shifting it to other people - either put up the science or stop complaining that everyone calls you up on your theory being unproven crap.

 

It shall remain unproven until *YOU* bring forth something to PROVE IT.

 

 

 

~moo

 

REPLY:Why is Inow allowed to seek me out for ridicule ? Why is his posting not deleted ? It is like I said the rules are applied against me. Anyone can post any nasty smarmy remark about me they care to and that is all just fine,the rules no longer matter with you people. WHATEVER, Dr.Syntax

[mooeypoo]

REPLY:Why is Inow allowed to seek me out for ridicule ? Why is his posting not deleted ? It is like I said the rules are applied against me. Anyone can post any nasty smarmy remark about me they care to and that is all just fine,the rules no longer matter with you people. WHATEVER, Dr.Syntax

NO ONE is allowed, did you read what I wrote? I asked everyone to be civil.

Now, please, stop with the petty "he said she said" and let's go into science.

 

Show us some ACTUAL science, or this thread will be closed. I will not participate in a whining party.

 

So, to make things clear:

 

TO ALL PARTICIPANTS OF THE THREAD: Be civil. Every one of you.

 

 

 

 

Move along, please.

 

~moo

[dr.syntax]

NO ONE is allowed, did you read what I wrote? I asked everyone to be civil.

Now, please, stop with the petty "he said she said" and let's go into science.

 

Show us some ACTUAL science, or this thread will be closed. I will not participate in a whining party.

 

So, to make things clear:

 

TO ALL PARTICIPANTS OF THE THREAD: Be civil. Every one of you.

 

 

 

REPLY:Why is Inow`s smarmy remark about the way I sign off left there. What does that have to do with science. It is a personal attack on me totally unprovoked. He is an arrogant smarmy little creep and I have had it with his personal attacks on me.Was there any science in his critisism of the way I choose to sign off at times. What if someone took it upon themselves to do just that to you ? How would you react ? He has made a habit of this carping behavior towards me and I need to be able to stand up for myself. For you to allow his personal attacks on me to remain posted and not allow me to respond is so far beyond the bounds of fairness and you know it. ...Dr.Syntax

Move along, please.

 

~moo

 

Start being fair,remove his post or allow my response.

[mooeypoo]

Dr Syntax, you are not a moderator, I am a moderator. I have done things publically and non-publically, and I am notifying you that this is the last I will hear of it.

 

 

 

Seeing as the thread deteriorated to a whining match, it is hereby closed.

 

 

~moo