You don't have to explain or answer it any further: you stated it like it is - evolution is not goal oriented. Thermodynamics can account for the organization of structure - you may or may not want to call it a "driving force" - and the direction of time, but there is no end goal to evolution.jonmitz said:
Evolution - please explain
- Thread starter root
- Start date
If you are allowed to repeat yourself, then so may I.
No it isn't a driving force of evolution.
and no it cannot explain life's diversity...
No it isn't a driving force of evolution.
and no it cannot explain life's diversity...
And if I am allowed to repeat myself again to alleviate your deafness, I already said that "thermodynamics cannot be applied to the diversity of life," but "yes" it is a "driving force." A doctorate student who does not understand thermodynamics and how it can be applied to evolution, should immediately become curious about it and find out for themselves through study and research: not through unsubstantiated continual denial.spuriousmonkey said:
Uh.
No.
One is a dinosaur.
One is not.
They lived similar lifestyles this doesn't mean that "there is no longer a clear distinctive absolute division between the two clades."
(Hey, guys. Ready for some more wriggling? Let's see how he gets out of this one.)
No. Welcome to the world of gross misunderstandings (your world.)
Why bother googling when your statements are patently absurd? The problem isn't your 'research'. It's your misunderstanding of the research. As we've all said time and time again.
No. You actually do all your 'reresearch' for your own motivations. It's not our fault that you constantly misrepresent everything you read. That's a personal problem. Yours.
What should we do? Ignore your constant misuse of references? Why should we?
"Round and round the mulberry bush.
The monkey chased the weasel..."
You are a troll. I have little doubt of it anymore. No one could be as obtuse as you really.
Oh well. One more round the mulberry bush and then I leave you to your clandestine amusements.
1.) I did display a degree of curiousity and blah blah. You killed it by being you. By being so dense and obstinate and wrong.
2.) Vulgarity. Criticism. Obscenity. Meanness. And any one of the thousand other things that you seem to think 'real scientists' don't do are not related to science in any way shape or form. A scientist can be vulgar. A scientist can be polite. A scientist can fuck your mother while injecting your son with botulism. Your arguments, as I've repeatedly stated (but which have received absolutely no response from you), on the subject of vulgarity and science are inane. Not only inane, but they are red herrings and strawmen.
Well. It was mildly interesting. Somewhat. It was hardly groundbreaking or anything. But, I'll admit that if it weren't for your gross misrepresentation of it then it might have been somewhat interesting. It certainly fits the topic better than most of your 'citations'. But, with your gross misunderstanding of the article, it just becomes annoying.
Alright.
Hey. What fresh inanities appear to my eye with a page refresh?
Ah. Nothing fresh. Just round and round the mulberry bush. I wonder if he'll do a better job defending himself on this one again?
Valich.
You are dumb.
Very, very dumb.
I bid you adieu.
I guess the two are related. Orphiote: you are like the idiots of idiots. Just like a clown who entertians in the background for those who want to get a good laugh.invert_nexus said:
Invert: Dinosaurs evolved from Dinosauria. Dinosauria evolved from Archosauria. Archosauria gave rose to the following clades:
- Dinosauria Dinosaurs and birds)
- Pterosauria
- Ornithosuchidae
- Crocodylomorpha (crocodiles)
Only the first and last are extant. As I said in my previous post, evidently the authors of this new finding see that there is not a clear cut distinction between Pterosauria and Ornithosuchidae. This is what I quoted to you from the article, but you are too lazy to read it yourself, so instead you rely on me - like a baby still in diapers (quote, unquote) for me to explain it to you and cite the sources, and post the contents of the article, rather than doing it on your own: lazy, argumentative, vulgar, condescending, belittling, unscientific, close-minded, and dumb.
"...POP goes the weasel."
Valich,
You are really dumb.
I'm not going to talk to you anymore.
I don't have much fear of any uneducated people being taken in by you as you are so ignorant that I simply can't believe that anyone would ever be taken in by your wrigglings.
So.
Goodbye.
You really are a trip.
Ready for another refrain?
"Round and round the mulberry bush..."
Valich,
You are really dumb.
I'm not going to talk to you anymore.
I don't have much fear of any uneducated people being taken in by you as you are so ignorant that I simply can't believe that anyone would ever be taken in by your wrigglings.
So.
Goodbye.
You really are a trip.
Ready for another refrain?
"Round and round the mulberry bush..."
If you have nothing intelligent to post, then please don't post anything at all! I've got research assigned to me to do, homework and reading assignments, my own personal research, tests to prepare for, classes and scheduled appointments to meet - do you really think I or anyone else has time for such nonsensical replies? Continuous immature condescending belittlement and degradation of a person's intellect. Grow up!
Pop goes the weasel iside your acorn brain.
Pop goes the weasel iside your acorn brain.
Glad to hear this, even though i do not particularly dislike Valich, I do think you have spent much too much time in trivial, if not innane disscussion with him. Perhaps now you can get to comment on the posts of mine in the "about determinism" thread?invert_nexus said:
First, "I" was not suggesting or saying anything. I was doing you guys a favor by relaying to you the information about this new ground-breaking fossil discovery, i.e., of course, if you truly are interested in evolution and paleontology, because if you were then you would be excited about this discovery and want to learn more about it. And if that is the case, I would gladly even go out of my way and download the entire journal article and send it to you so that you can analyze and learn from what this team of paleologists have found - in the interest of science. Do you have an interest in paleology that you would like to look over their articulate analyses of this dinosaur species?invert_nexus said:
Again, what they summarized is the following:
""This new Yaverland pterosaur is undoubtedly an ornithocheirid, and similar to several species that belong to this family. However, it lacks distinguishing features of all genera currently included in this taxon and represented by cranial material, but exhibits a number of characters (maxillo/premaxillary suture descends slightly posteriorly, fifth to seventh pair of dental alveoli of similar size and significantly smaller than pairs one to four; palatal ridge extends no further anteriorly than dental alveoli 8 and 9; and presence of fronto/parietal and maxillo/premaxillary crests that do not merge over the nasoantorbital fenestra or cranium) that are not found in any other ornithocheirid. Consequently, we assign this taxon to a new genus and species of the Ornithocheiridae....This new record fills that gap and further encourages the idea that ornithocheirids were present in Western Europe throughout the Early Cretaceous. An unusual feature of the material described here is its discovery in a plant bed deposited within a fluvial continental setting. Most ornithocheirids have been recovered from marginal or fully marine sediments (Unwin, 2001, table 1) and they are thought to have had a life style broadly similar to that of some modern ocean-going birds such as the Albatross and Frigate Bird. This record of an ornithocheirid preserved in a continental environment adds to other recent reports of these pterosaurs from similar settings (Unwin et al., 2000 and Unwin, 2001), although it is still not clear if these represent accidental occurrences or indications that some ornithocheirids lived in terrestrial environments."
Now just read the first sentence:
"This new Yaverland pterosaur is undoubtedly an ornithocheirid, and similar to several species that belong to this family."
Then they go on to say that because of the similarities of this pterosaur as an ornithocheirid - wing structure similarities like that of an ornithocheirid "thought to have had a life style broadly similar to tthat of...the Albatross and Frigate Bird," and because "This ornithoceired...adds to other recent reports of these pterosaurs." And right before this they say "Consequently, we assign this taxon to a new genus and species of the Ornithocheiridae....This new record fills that gap and further encourages the idea that ornithocheirids were present in Western Europe throughout the Early Cretaceous."
So "yes" indeed you are in a sense right by saying that "This would completely rewrite everything we know about the evolution of birds." But they are looking at the "similarities," so you have to be more critical in examining the use of the language here. No one, especially not I, ever suggested or said that "Birds are descended from pterosaurs," but "yes" there are great similarities, and this study shows it. Birds are descended from the taxon dinosauria that evolved into six other clades of dinosaurs, one of which, the dinosaur clade Coelurosauria, evolved into seven more clades, one of which evolved into the clade Maniraptora that evolved into four more clades, one of which were Aves (the ancestor to modern day birds).
Again, you are correct, their discovery is rewriting history and what we know about how many taxa of dinosaurs that could fly. Aren't you excited about this new discovery? They've just discovered a new taxa? The article is about fifteen pages long, a bit complicated to read straight through to understand all the minute detail in one reading, unless you are a paleontologist familiar with all the vocabulary, but I am willing to send it to you if you are interested?
In any case, it was unreasonable for you to say that I was "dumb" or that it "was like pulling teeth." I first read the interview from CNN in the morning, then within a matter of hours obtained the complete article and immediately posted a brief summary of what I had read, then began to reread it again to understand it better - all within an eight hour or so time span. Yet during this time span, I received 10-20 condescending vulgar criticisms. If you are not interested in new discoveries in paleontology, then why are you reading and posting on this forum? Would you like me to download and email this interesting article to you so that you can have a firsthand experience of its factual content and interpret their findings yourself? This would certainly solve the problem of you just criticizing me for relaying the info to you quote per quote. Thank you.
valich said:
These were my original two postings. Carefully examine what is put in quotations and what is not. This first is the quoted text of the Reuter's reporter - nothing that at all that I myself personally said. So you are extremely out-of-line to say that this was a "gross misinterpretation" on my part. My second posting totally referred back to the reporter's quotation in the first posting and what the team of paleontologists said in the article.valich said:
The paleontologists said, "an Ornithocheirid, which are "similar to" [and related to by ancestry - this is a fact] to the Albatross and Frigate Bird" The reporter stated the assumption that "winged lizards, evolved the ability to fly."
In science, you have to be much more critical and precise in examining what you are reading and to whom you are attributing the quotes and thus who you are contributing the interpretations to. Notice how "I" did not interpret anything myself. In fact, what you stated about me was just the opposite. I in turn stated that "As is often the case with the media and news interviewers, they often get the facts screwed up."
Are you interested in evolution and paleontology? If so, I would be happy to download and email you this ground-breaking article - the discovery of a new taxa.
Did somebody fart? I think somebody farted. I smell something. And I know it's not my ass.
(If I hadn't already said that I wasn't speaking to a certain fart-smelling cretin, I'd make a comment about how the issue of what the article stated and what the farter posted has already been covered. But, then I'd have to open my mouth and some of the fart gas might get inside. Can't have that.)
Anyway.
Billy T,
Yes. I promise I WILL get to it. You must realize that I've been rather busy this week. Responding to Valich takes no great expenditure of mental capacity or resources.
I will respond to your post. I'll make a new thread on it to free it from this morass. And I'll pm you the link when I have it done. It'll be this weekend. Maybe Sunday. Probably Sunday.
I'll also post in that Determinism thread. I had been eyeballing it since it got dug back up because it happens to jibe nicely with a few things I've been reading lately. So, I'll respond to it.
Again. Sunday.
I'd respond to your post in here in Determinism, but I think that it is somewhat off-topic to that thread. It'd do better in its own environment, don't you agree?
Bah. I just wish I still had a copy of The Mind's Past by Gazzaniga. If you've never read, I suggest you find a copy. Very interesting stuff in there on the delay time of sensory perception (among other things. Gazzaniga was made famous back in the day for his 'split-brain' experiments. The ones with lobotomy patients that exhibited a strange dual behavior. In some cases the two halves of the brain were quite antagonistic towards each other. Here's a link to an article he wrote. You might find it interesting: http://cwx.prenhall.com/bookbind/pubbooks/morris4/medialib/readings/split.html)
I also have some interesting links to certain optical illusions that would fit into the discussion. I've posted them several times but no one has ever, not once, commented on them. I find them fascinating. But go figure. Are you on dialup or broadband? Hopefully broadband.
Ok.
So. Expect me this weekend.
Oh. By the way. I remember when you first posted that paper long ago. Way before Determinism. This was about the time that I had been reading the Mind's Past if I remember correctly. I had planned to respond to you back then, but.. well. That's how things go sometimes.
(If I hadn't already said that I wasn't speaking to a certain fart-smelling cretin, I'd make a comment about how the issue of what the article stated and what the farter posted has already been covered. But, then I'd have to open my mouth and some of the fart gas might get inside. Can't have that.)
Anyway.
Billy T,
Yes. I promise I WILL get to it. You must realize that I've been rather busy this week. Responding to Valich takes no great expenditure of mental capacity or resources.
I will respond to your post. I'll make a new thread on it to free it from this morass. And I'll pm you the link when I have it done. It'll be this weekend. Maybe Sunday. Probably Sunday.
I'll also post in that Determinism thread. I had been eyeballing it since it got dug back up because it happens to jibe nicely with a few things I've been reading lately. So, I'll respond to it.
Again. Sunday.
I'd respond to your post in here in Determinism, but I think that it is somewhat off-topic to that thread. It'd do better in its own environment, don't you agree?
Bah. I just wish I still had a copy of The Mind's Past by Gazzaniga. If you've never read, I suggest you find a copy. Very interesting stuff in there on the delay time of sensory perception (among other things. Gazzaniga was made famous back in the day for his 'split-brain' experiments. The ones with lobotomy patients that exhibited a strange dual behavior. In some cases the two halves of the brain were quite antagonistic towards each other. Here's a link to an article he wrote. You might find it interesting: http://cwx.prenhall.com/bookbind/pubbooks/morris4/medialib/readings/split.html)
I also have some interesting links to certain optical illusions that would fit into the discussion. I've posted them several times but no one has ever, not once, commented on them. I find them fascinating. But go figure. Are you on dialup or broadband? Hopefully broadband.
Ok.
So. Expect me this weekend.
Oh. By the way. I remember when you first posted that paper long ago. Way before Determinism. This was about the time that I had been reading the Mind's Past if I remember correctly. I had planned to respond to you back then, but.. well. That's how things go sometimes.
Invert: Again, if you would like me to send you a downloaded copy of the paper I quoted from, about this new taxa that this team of paleontologists have supposedly discovered; if this will stop the animosity, vulgarity, and condescending belittlement; if this will cure any misunderstandings; I am absolutely happy - in the interest of the advancement of science and the objective productive progressive in education - to email you a copy free of charge.
thanks for the link - I will look at it soon. Yes I know Gazzaniga works. I have a lot of his older papers, but it has been several years since I read them or a book of his. I think I have a book of his, but prety sure it is not Mind's Past.invert_nexus said:
We have the house in a mess - all the rooms have just been painted. All my books were at a farm (50 head of cattle) that I sold two years ago. My wife already had her appartment, where we live, full of books so mine have been in boxes since I sold the farm. I also brought to Brazil about a yard and and a half of Xerox articles on various subjects related to mind function (all more than 13 years old now). She has promissed that as we put books back she will put some of hers that have not been opened for years into boxes so mine will be more accessible. Then I will know what book(s?) of Gazzaniga I have. I only brought about 5% by weight of physics books etc to Brazil. - 90% are mind related. - I really have not been very interested in physics for 15 years, ever since I got interested in how the mind functions. (I sort of became a "cognitive science crackpot" after a year's sebatical in the JHU cognitive science dept. - in that my views are quite non standard to say it kindly - crazzy most would say.) I look forward to your comments, even if they only support the idea that I hold crazy views.
PS I forget his name just now, but you may recognize that the experiment I describe in my post as a test of my theory with the moving light and unexpected sound is stolen idea (he had patient tell where fast moving clock hand was when the "decided" to push button etc.) from the very famous guy who is often is quoted for his open brain experiments that show up to 0.5 sec unconscious planning etc activity prior to conscious awareness that you have started to decided "freely" to push button etc. That too is related to "sensory delay / perception etc." but sort of internal sensing.
There are lots of also related studies in language (dicotic listening studies especially) that show you unconciously process spoken words to a high level (past the "lexicon look up of the meaning of the heard words") without ever being conscious of the them as you are payng attention to the msg in the other ear. I think a thread on all this type stuff might be very good. The times I have looked for it have been disapointing, but I have not looked recently.
Last edited by a moderator:
valich said:
They are saying no such thing! They have said (& I've bolded it in your quote) that the two groups had similar lifestyles !! Any physical similarities are due to convergent evolution. This is NOT the same as saying that the two clades lack any clear distinguishing features.
Incidentally, in an earlier post, you commented that "some dinosaurs evolved feathers and could fly" - they could indeed - & we call their descendants "birds". You seem to think that theropods and coelurosauria aren't dinosaurs - when in fact this is just what they are.