Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.

"JAE" <jae@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1119296454.692712.269910@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> > Let's list the 'items of decline' as regards
> > human evolution over the last 150 years.
> > What did Darwin know that has been
> > forgotten by modern PA:
> >
> > 1) Natural selection.
> >
> > Jason has reminded us here recently how
> > PA no longer knows what this is nor how
> > it works, and how it has been replaced
> > with 'drift'.
>
> As usual, you've got your head a couple of inches into your large
> intestine. You really should familiarize yourself with something a bit
> more current on evolutionary theory than your half-assed recollection
> of what Darwin wrote 150 years ago. Drift has not "replaced" natural
> selection, you schmuck. I never claimed it did.

As you wrote to Algis on 1 june 2005 in
news:1117600788.380560.254860@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > It's uncertain certainly. With this much uncertainty, we have to be
> > careful and conservative with our hypotheses and we have to be mindful
> > of the reality that drift is always working and as such, it's the null,

Like the rest of PA, you have FORGOTTEN
that selection is working all the time.

How is such a thing possible?

> It is, however, a
> mechanism of evolutionary change that is always at work in any finite
> (read: real) population. If you don't buy it, it's your problem.

Of course, I 'buy' it. But it is a statement
of almost total worthlessness -- of almost
no relevance. It's like saying that when we
consider the cost of heating, or the effects
of global warming on climate, we should
remember that atoms in hotter substances
move with greater energy. It's a statement
from a different (and largely irrelevant)
dimension.

You (and PA generally) have simply given
up on all serious scientific work. The core
of it (if you did any) would be about the
workings of selection. But you can't handle
it. So you've drifted (pun intended) into all
sorts of other fields -- mostly near-mindless,
-- where you can pretend to be engaged in
complex 'intellectual' work.


Paul.




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why Ray Martinez Should Accept MicroEvolution
    ...  All of his descendants had bent little fingers (he had five ... Selection acts to better ... Because Darwin said that NS acts favorably, or for the good, or to ... only force that drives evolution, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Adolph Hitler-Nazis were staunch Darwinists: the evidence.
    ... Darwin said natural selection was the main but not the exclusive means ... racist ramblings of Hitler one finds him talking about the *evolution* ... of humans by the process of *natural* selection. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Mayrs Way
    ... occurs if there are no forces at all is called random genetic drift. ... Louis Dollo in 1890 that states that evolution is not ... important for selection because mostly temporarily isolated demes provide ... Dr Moran's argument represents a mathematicians rehash of the discredited ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Evolution confuses an observation with a theory
    ... Darwin did'nt use the phrase "Random Mutations" or random anything ... Do you think that evolutionary science *stopped* when Darwin ... The basic ideas of "neutral evolution" were most fully initiated by ... In the presence of selection one will either get ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Survival of the Fittest: What was Darwins pragmatics?
    ... Selection they are in the words of Wolfgang Pauli not even wrong. ... Absolutely nothing because you wouldn't know the authors intent. ... what Darwin meant since he knew not of genes and Darwin never used the ... What we are dealing with here is the Shtulman Theory of Evolution not ...
    (talk.origins)
Quantcast