> > 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...
> Since I have no interest in becoming a legend, shall I ignore
> your entire post?
Since you have an interest staying a lesson in your own mind,
I will guess you will not ignore my entire post.
> > >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.
>
> In other words, appeal to authority? I thought you were against
> that sort of argumentation.
Just what I thought. You can't appeal to anything: Common sense,
authority, etc. You can only appeal to your imagination. I rest my
case John.
> I thought we had already agreed upon that. If you propose to
> change your stance now, then please explain why you think whatever
> caused the extinction of the trilobites was not due to the random
> environment.
You said it was random, but I said you ddin't even have the slightest
clue as to why the trilobites went extinct...and I was right again!
You are making wild-ass guesses just so you can be right. What
kind of meme are you harboring that would make you do that?
> I never suggested anything of the sort. In fact, since it is
> so laughable, I have assumed it is NOT the case. (Reread what
> I wrote, please.) The (assumed) fact that it is not the case
> argues strongly that QUALITY does not exclude quantity, which
> is all I'm saying.
This is typical for you John. This isn't logical at all. Quality does not
include quality. Period. Quality does not equal quality. Period. The
two are not dependant on the other, they are separate entities.
> It is your inability to accurately read what I'm saying that is
> causing the most problems here. You always seem to add to what
> I say, and then condemn this addition, which I did not even say!
> Then you call me 'stupid' and/or 'illogical' to cap it off! Is
> it any wonder I'm ending the discussion!?
Because you can't keep up with me?
> > 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.
> A very scientific approach to determining a 'truth'. Yep.
Oh yes it is. I have proved that you are gullible beyond a doubt.
> Nobody claimed that the sky was falling. They have used a consis-
> tent theory to explain facts.
The theory of the invisible pink elephants can explain everything in
the universe as well. Now we have invisible pink memes?
> > 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.
> You mistake speculation for belief. And did I not admit repeatedly
> that memetics is not hard science? That horse died a long time ago!
> Quit kicking it!
It isn't a science. Period. I want to see science and not speculation.
> You have blind faith in science, and have been intemperate to
> memetic's "attack" (as you evidently perceive it) on science.
It is a bogus and ineffective attack.
> > 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.
>
> Who called whom 'stupid', 'illogical', 'irrational', 'know-
> nothing', 'gullible', 'one with blind faith', etc... first?
You.
>>I only mirror what I am shown.
Why aren't you logical then?
> You see no value in memetics, and have said nothing of value
> about it. True enough. But simply because you see no value
> in it, does not mean it has no value. It means only that you
> are blind to its value.
What value? Your artificial one? Prove it has "value".
> > 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.
> Arguable. See above.
Not so. Look at the archive and let's see who started what.
> > 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?
> If you wish to see the value in memetics, I think it is you who
> must change. Wait: you just asked, "How do you like that meme?"
> I like it very much, if I may take your use of the term as an
> indicator that you are coming to accept that memetics is in fact
> a useful tool.
I would like to see something useful from it, but people somehow
don't like other's to question their beliefs. How can you learn anything
if you don't doubt and question? I doubt that memes isn't a fad, can
anyone come up with something to allieviate that doubt?
> Translation: you're unwilling to admit that you know nothing of
> quantum theory or oncompleteness, so you are calling my discussion
> of them "nonsense dribble" and ignoring it altogether. How very
> scientific of you. (This is, of course, speculation; maybe you
> were planning on writing up another post. I doubt it, though.)
Oh Puh-lease! I am studying from the text book "Quantum Chemistry
of Atoms and Molecues" by Philip S.C. Matthews. I didn't want to
get completely off the subject, a subject that not many people understand
or can appreciate. This is proof that you are a legend in your own mind.
Don't flatter yourself. You may think you are sooooo knowledgable about
quantum mechanics but I can tell an intellectual phony when I see
one and you are one John!
> > What is a gene John (use a dictionary please to keep it simple for
> > yourself)? What is the difference between a gene and DNA?
> What, don't you know the answer to these? Sheesh!
No, you don't! Thanks for proving my point completely.
> > Why do you think that Mendal was called "the father of genetics"
> > and not "the father of DNA"?
> Did Mendal improve our understanding of DNA by improving our
> knowledge of what it contains? Maybe in addition to "father of
> genetics", we may call him "architect of DNA"?
Nope. No one will ever call him that...except you. But what do
you know?
> > Why do you think that geneticists refer to genes and not DNA
> > when discussing inheritance?
> The gene is the smallest unit of hereditary information. To have
> the most control, we work with the smallest unit, hence the gene.
> But the gene is contained in the DNA so the geneticists should
> know a thing or two about it.
Wrong again. Genes contain DNA, not the other way around. I
told you to look it up.