OT- Still no answers on Darwin??
 

C'mon NOBBY where's that 150 hours of biology & science getting you?
Surely you know the answer?

Tom, you seemed interested... not even a guess?

Am I going to be proven right... again?

DSK

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:18:11 -0400, DSK wrote:

C'mon NOBBY where's that 150 hours of biology & science getting you?
Surely you know the answer?

Tom, you seemed interested... not even a guess?

Am I going to be proven right... again?

Um...I missed the question again. With all the OT nonsense, I must
have lost the thread. In fact, I was going to ask you about it

I promise - I'll give it a shot when I return - only could you restate
the question again in this thread which I will place a watch marker
on?

Thanks.

He asked:

"What key point about differentiation of species did Darwin get wrong?
Hint: it has to do with traits of offspring."

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote
Um...I missed the question again. With all the OT nonsense, I must
have lost the thread. In fact, I was going to ask you about it


OK. You did, actually, but there a lot of OT posts at the moment. Not
all of them are nonsense though ;)

I promise - I'll give it a shot when I return - only could you restate
the question again in this thread which I will place a watch marker
on?



Doug Kanter wrote:
He asked:

"What key point about differentiation of species did Darwin get wrong?
Hint: it has to do with traits of offspring."


Thank you, Doug. Didn't know you were listening too. And I bet you know
the answer... ssh!
;)

BTW it should be mentioned that this mistake of Darwin's in no way
lessens the scientific validity of the "theory" of evolution.

Regards
Doug King

"What key point about differentiation of species did Darwin get wrong?
Hint: it has to do with traits of offspring."


Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
What do you mean "key" point? He got almost everything wrong.

Horse puckey.



1 - The fact that nowhere in "Origin of Species" did he actually give
an example of the origin of any species?


Wrong. That was the part of the puzzle filled in by his visit to the
Galapogos Islands.

2 - Speciation because any genetic grouping will tend to inbreed
rather than outbreed even if there is opportunity?


???
Are you from West Virginia?
I'd be interested if you have any references showing Darwin said this.


3 - The fact that Darwin proposed a theory of natural selection and
not evolution?


Uh huh. Lots of people started calling it "Survival Of The Fittest"
within Darwin's lifetime, a mis-statement he detested.


4 - The fact that Darwin never actually developed a methodology of the
origin of natural selection?


Actually, he did.

Pick one - any one.

Want some more? :)

Not really, I have limited time for imaginary bull****. Did you google
this crapola from creationist web sites?

Darwin was one of two of the the foremost biologists of his century. The
other one also formulated a theory of how species arise, but didn't
publish it. He also avoided the key mistake I'm alluding to. Do you know
who that is?
Hint- he has a geographical feature named after him, near Australia.

You more than struck out Tom.

Here's the real deal.
Darwin proposed (did not claim it was proved, which was a good thing for
him) that parents pass on *acquired* traits to their offspring.

And there you have it. Welcome to the Nation of Idjits, you're right at
home.

Common friggin' sense: If you don't understand a piece of machinery,
keep your hands off the buttons. If you don't understand a piece of
science, don't make proclamations about it.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
C'mon NOBBY where's that 150 hours of biology & science getting you?
Surely you know the answer?

What was the question?

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:18:11 -0400, DSK wrote:

C'mon NOBBY where's that 150 hours of biology & science getting you?
Surely you know the answer?

Tom, you seemed interested... not even a guess?

Am I going to be proven right... again?

Um...I missed the question again. With all the OT nonsense, I must
have lost the thread. In fact, I was going to ask you about it

I promise - I'll give it a shot when I return - only could you restate
the question again in this thread which I will place a watch marker
on?

Thanks.

He asked:

"What key point about differentiation of species did Darwin get wrong?
Hint: it has to do with traits of offspring."


Pangenesis.

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote

What do you mean "key" point? He got almost everything wrong.

1 - The fact that nowhere in "Origin of Species" did he actually give
an example of the origin of any species?

2 - Speciation because any genetic grouping will tend to inbreed
rather than outbreed even if there is opportunity?

3 - The fact that Darwin proposed a theory of natural selection and
not evolution?

4 - The fact that Darwin never actually developed a methodology of the
origin of natural selection?

Pick one - any one.

Want some more? :)

You're playing word games again. None of those make sense.

-rick-

"What key point about differentiation of species did Darwin get wrong?
Hint: it has to do with traits of offspring."



NOYB wrote:
Pangenesis.


Very good.

Now explain your answer in your own words.

DSK

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
You know Doug, you are a complete and total ass.

Why, because you've made a lot of proclamataions about things you know
little of, and I showed you up?



I tried to be civil.

No, you didn't. You tried to fake knowledge, and gain credibility by
spouting BS. Now your mad at me because I said, "put up or shut up" and
I wasn't bluffing.

... Just plonk me and leave me out of future
discussions with you.

I'll do the same.

Tell you what. Don't pretend to know things you don't, and I won't come
along and rub your nose in your ignorance..

The problem with you... and many many many people these days... is that
they're convinced if they believe something, it must be true. It affects
their politics, it affects their attitudes... but it doesn't affect the
real world.

The problem is when you try to base real world actions on fairy tales &
bull****ting. Doesn't work, never has.

Regards
Doug King

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
I knew where Doug wanted to go and was just prodding him in a
different direction.

Really?

Ya think so?

All you proved is that you know little about evolution & biological
science, and that you're willing to try & bluff.


... Doug's assumption is that everybody is stupid
but him

Wrong.

I assume a lot of people are at least as intelligent & well educated as
I am. It's a fact in the real world.

However, I can spot a BS'er from miles away and while I don't mind a
little harmless story-telling, you tried to make scientific
proclamations to make yourself seem smart.

Now you're mad because you got caught. Must be my fault, huh?

DSK

Doug,
You are beginning to sound more and more like Harry.

--

Starbuck

.... Beethoven was the first to do it with a full orchestra.


"DSK" wrote in message
...
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
You know Doug, you are a complete and total ass.

Why, because you've made a lot of proclamataions about things you know
little of, and I showed you up?



I tried to be civil.

No, you didn't. You tried to fake knowledge, and gain credibility by
spouting BS. Now your mad at me because I said, "put up or shut up" and I
wasn't bluffing.

... Just plonk me and leave me out of future
discussions with you.

I'll do the same.

Tell you what. Don't pretend to know things you don't, and I won't come
along and rub your nose in your ignorance..

The problem with you... and many many many people these days... is that
they're convinced if they believe something, it must be true. It affects
their politics, it affects their attitudes... but it doesn't affect the
real world.

The problem is when you try to base real world actions on fairy tales &
bull****ting. Doesn't work, never has.

Regards
Doug King

"DSK" wrote in message
...
"What key point about differentiation of species did Darwin get wrong?
Hint: it has to do with traits of offspring."



NOYB wrote:
Pangenesis.


Very good.

Now explain your answer in your own words.

When you were little, you were a cheerful, happy-go-lucky young lad. But
years of abuse in getting kicked around on rec.boats has turned you bitter
and wrinkled your brow. Your kids will inherit that wrinkled-brow look.

Now explain your answer in your own words.


NOYB wrote:
When you were little, you were a cheerful, happy-go-lucky young lad.

Actually, I wasn't. I had (still have) red hair and redhead's classic
temper (which has mellowed).

Since you're talking about somebody else, possibly yourself, please
continue....

... But
years of abuse in getting kicked around on rec.boats has turned you bitter
and wrinkled your brow

Sorry to hear that. You shouldn't take usenet so seriously.

... Your kids will inherit that wrinkled-brow look.



Will your children tend to fall under the hypnotic sway of politicians
spouting religious babble? Will they tend to make foolish financial
gambles on overlavish housing? Darwin would have said yes!

Anyway, you've explained Darwin's error rather well. Excellent!

Regards
Doug King

NOYB wrote:
"DSK" wrote in message
...
"What key point about differentiation of species did Darwin get wrong?
Hint: it has to do with traits of offspring."



NOYB wrote:
Pangenesis.


Very good.

Now explain your answer in your own words.

When you were little, you were a cheerful, happy-go-lucky young lad. But
years of abuse in getting kicked around on rec.boats has turned you bitter
and wrinkled your brow. Your kids will inherit that wrinkled-brow look.



You guys are hilarious. See parable about the blind men and the
elephant. (I think it's from the Hindu tradition). One of you seems
hung up on "how" things happened and the other seems hung up on "why".
I believe that the universe as we perceive it is an expression of a
cosmic thought that begins, continues, and ends in a manner that we
would characterize as simultaneously- although within the cosmic
thought itself there is no such thing as "time."

Many cosmologies, including Genesis, support that idea. Genesis says
that
energy (light) was simply thought/dreamed/willed into being with a
cosmic "let there be....." and observes that energy took different
forms ("one to rule the day, another to rule the night"). Genesis
continues with matter being drawn out of a universe that was originaly
"without form and void" (meaning no presence/form or absence/void of
matter- not "shapeless and expired") If the universe is a cosmic
thought and there is no such thing as time, the Bible thumpers and the
guys in the white lab coats are on the same page and have been all
along. :-)

Blind men and the elephant.

Where is your doctoral degree? If you are such a ****ing genius you should
have one otherwise keep you ****ing mouth shut.

Talk about know-it-alls! You appear to be the biggest know-it-all of the
group which includes Harry.



"DSK" wrote in message
...
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
I knew where Doug wanted to go and was just prodding him in a
different direction.

Really?

Ya think so?

All you proved is that you know little about evolution & biological
science, and that you're willing to try & bluff.


... Doug's assumption is that everybody is stupid
but him

Wrong.

I assume a lot of people are at least as intelligent & well educated as I
am. It's a fact in the real world.

However, I can spot a BS'er from miles away and while I don't mind a
little harmless story-telling, you tried to make scientific proclamations
to make yourself seem smart.

Now you're mad because you got caught. Must be my fault, huh?

DSK

Bert Robbins wrote:
Where is your doctoral degree? If you are such a ****ing genius you should
have one otherwise keep you ****ing mouth shut.

Do you kiss your mother's cheek with that mouth?

BTW I am not saying whether I have a doctoral degree. Make your own
assumptions.

However, those with two brain cells to rub together will observe that
I'm not hte one claiming to know something and trying to pull off some
made-up BS.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:
Where is your doctoral degree? If you are such a ****ing genius you
should have one otherwise keep you ****ing mouth shut.

Do you kiss your mother's cheek with that mouth?

Yes, I do kiss my mother with my mouth!

BTW I am not saying whether I have a doctoral degree. Make your own
assumptions.

The assumption is that you are a college drop out and that you are so ****ed
at the rest of the world that you can only find fault in what others do.
Stop being a prick all of the time.

However, those with two brain cells to rub together will observe that I'm
not hte one claiming to know something and trying to pull off some made-up
BS.

I can speak authoratively on serveral subjects but not all subjects. You
appear to believe that you are the smartest SOB on the fact of the earth.
But, you spin yourself into corners all of the time and people call you on
it.

Bert Robbins wrote:
I can speak authoratively on serveral subjects

Like what? Obviously not evolution or biology.


.. You
appear to believe that you are the smartest SOB on the fact of the earth.

Hardly. You're just mad because by now it's obvious to everyone...
especially you... that while I may not be smarter than everybody I am
definitely a lot smarter than you are.


But, you spin yourself into corners all of the time and people call you on
it.


Yeah, that happens all the time, doesn't it? When was the last time?

DSK

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote ...
"-rick-" wrote:
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote

What do you mean "key" point? He got almost everything wrong.

1 - The fact that nowhere in "Origin of Species" did he actually give
an example of the origin of any species?

2 - Speciation because any genetic grouping will tend to inbreed
rather than outbreed even if there is opportunity?

3 - The fact that Darwin proposed a theory of natural selection and
not evolution?

4 - The fact that Darwin never actually developed a methodology of the
origin of natural selection?

Pick one - any one.

Want some more? :)

You're playing word games again. None of those make sense.

All true though - he never did any of those things - ever.

And none of them are a valid criticism of what he did.

I hope you feel better.

-rick-

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:
I can speak authoratively on serveral subjects

Like what? Obviously not evolution or biology.

Skydiveing, Computers and a few others. I never said I was ana expert in
biology. However, I am a believer in the possible rather than

.. You appear to believe that you are the smartest SOB on the fact of the
earth.

Hardly. You're just mad because by now it's obvious to everyone...
especially you... that while I may not be smarter than everybody I am
definitely a lot smarter than you are.

You put yourself out there as a genius of all trades and in reality you are
a genius of none.

I don't come here seeking your approval. I come here to **** a few people
off every once in a while.

Smart is important but, successful is a better measure. There are a lot of
smart people that can't succeed at what they do.

But, you spin yourself into corners all of the time and people call you
on it.


Yeah, that happens all the time, doesn't it? When was the last time?

You continue to try and prove your point, past the point of relevancy, in
every thread you join. You just can't help yourself because you have to
prove to everyone how "smart" you are.

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote ...

Yes they are valid - perfectly valid And as to your assertion of
"word play" - words are all we have my friend - it's how we function
as human beings.

You confirm my suspicion.

take care,
-rick-