Well John, you seem to be a legend in your own mind. I'm going to
give you that opportunity to prove that either you really are a
legend or not. For example...
>Schneider John wrote:
>Did it ever occur to you that QUALITY might include quantity?
>It was a RANDOM disaster that did the trilobytes in...I will
>wager that very same disaster also finished off some other
>lifeforms which reproduced under different strategies - hence
>NOT preferring one method over the other. (Please note! I
>could be wrong: maybe every other species BUT the trilobites
>survived. I sincerely doubt it though.)
All you have to do to end any part of these discussions John, is just
quote *some* evidence. Find a reputable book on the subject and quote
from it. It is a very easy thing to do. But all you have done
throughout this thread is assert your make-believe faith in memes and
falsehoods about evolution and the scientific method without giving
evidence that you know what it means to think in logical and rational
terms. Unless memes can be validated (which is all I've been asking
all along) you are just spouting dogma and dogma is the realm of
blind-faith gullible type of people. Are you or are you not one? Here
is your chance to show that you are not:
What random disaster "did the trilobites in"? What makes you think it
was a disaster and that it was random?
What other lifeforms disappeared along with the trilobites? Since
that question is irrelevant to this discussion, I will leave that as
a optional question. What is relevant is that despite the supposed
greater probablity of quality trilobites existing amongst the great
quantities of trilobites existing at that time, there were no quality
trilobites able to survive. The extinction of the great quantity of
trilobites makes it very plainly obvious that quantity does not equal
quality. I rest my case.
Your lame attempt at logical reasoning is laugable as well, John.
Show me any textbook or scientific abstact...hell! even a National
Enquirer article that claims that the trilobites survived and every
other species died! You can't and I rest my case, again.
You could have at least tried to read or look up something somewhere
so you wouldn't make such plainly obvious blunders, John! If you
cannot respond with evidence or facts for these four questions, I
will call your bluff and offer this as evidence that you are no
smarter than those who believe in God(s) or UFO abductions.
========
>(Please note that I myself am rather a newcomer here, and I also
>thought memetics was a crock just a few months ago.)
It is obvious John that you are a newbie not only to memes, but to
common sense reasoning and logical thinking. Look, I am here because
I find the concept of memes interesting. I've seen hundreds of
articles on it in various magazines and books. People use it to try
and explain everything from how the mind works on a neurobiological
level to the evolution of societies and cultures. Now just because I
come along call everyone's bluff and says "the sky isn't falling
chicken little!" is no reason for people to get their feathers all
ruffled up. Why do you act that way, John? I couldn't do that in a
email list about polymer science...there is just too much *hard
evidence* instead of only having just mere explanations to believe
in like you do. Isn't the purpose behind Richard's book, Virus of the
Mind, to question the validity of *all* ideas? Including his? Isn't
that exactly what the scientific method teaches us also? So why
aren't you putting it into effect? When you start challenging
people's blind-faith, like I have, people respond with anger and by
cussing and calling names...just as you have done. I also do that but
only after I have been called names first. My philosophy is
"tit-for-tat" so if you don't like the way I respond to your email,
it is because you don't like yourself. I only mirror what I am shown.
Look at all of my posts and all the queries to them and all the
replies. I have always responded back in the same way I was
addressed. If you don't like the way I respond, then that means that
*you* are the one who must change. You are looking into a mirror
John and I am a reflection of you. How do you like that meme?
=======
As a common courtesy to other in this email list, I am not going to
respond to the rest of your nonsense dribble in this post.
Well...maybe one more comment (I can't resist, sorry!).
>>If replication were inexact, there would be no such thing as a
>>science of heredity since whether an organism inherited a trait or
>>not would be random and not predictable. Mendal and his genetic
>>experiments proved you wrong many years ago.
>Replication of DNA is inexact in some lifeforms, and exact in
>others. Did Mendal show this to not be the case? (This may,
>once again, be our mix-up in DNA vs. genes)
What is a gene John (use a dictionary please to keep it simple for
yourself)? What is the difference between a gene and DNA? Why do you
think that Mendal was called "the father of genetics" and not "the
father of DNA"? Why do you think that geneticists refer to genes and
not DNA when discussing inheritance?
You said that replication (and evolution) are inexact or random. Then
what is it that causes replication to be exact in some lifetimes and
inexact in others? What forces replication to be non-random in some
lifetimes and random in others? This is such a blatant contradiction
and wrong-headed speculation on your part John, that it is laughable.
Hehehe!