Dinosaurs had feathers before that (probably because feathers are good
for water, unlike fur).
Some small dinosaurs ate insects. At that time
there was more oxygen in the air, insects were bigger. So, some
dinosaurs were trying to reach insects that were living in tree barks,
so they hardened their muzzles into beaks, like woodpeckers.
Since they
were eating from tree bark, they had to climb tree (like squirrels).
Weight is deteriorating force for climbing, so those animals became lightweight. And, at the end, they stopped to go down to the ground to
reach the other tree, but started to behave like flying squirrels.
Simple as that. Everything logical, everything gradual, and for
everything we have examples in nature (maybe only not for beaks, but for flying sure we do have).
It's great to see you posting here again, Mario. Don't be discouraged
by my corrections. That's a good way to learn, and Harshman might
have made the same points you did, because he subscribes to the
hypotheses that have been popularized about feather development.
The popularizers refer to all kinds of things as "feathers":
hairlike growths, several such growths, from the same root, hairlike growths that are frayed like the ends of some of the longer hairs
of one of my daughters. . . . These are found on some dinosaur fossils--
only a tiny percentage even now, because these things do not fossilize easily.
But I do not know of any genuine feathers on fossils that cannot
be hypothesized as secondarily flightless birds. So I call all these things "protofeathers" and some of them just "dinofuzz."
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 2:00:19 AM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
Dinosaurs had feathers before that (probably because feathers are good
for water, unlike fur).
And unlike down. A mother ostrich always shelters her babies in the midst
of a downpour, to protect them from hypothermia.
Down would be an advanced kind of protofeather, as would the feathers of kiwis,
which lack barbules and hooks, IF they or down had ever been found
as Mesozoic fossils predating birds with genuine feathers.
But I don't know of any examples.
Some small dinosaurs ate insects. At that time
there was more oxygen in the air, insects were bigger. So, some
dinosaurs were trying to reach insects that were living in tree barks,
so they hardened their muzzles into beaks, like woodpeckers.
Very plausible. Did you read this somewhere, or did you figure
it out for yourself?
>Since they
were eating from tree bark, they had to climb tree (like squirrels).
Weight is deteriorating force for climbing, so those animals became
lightweight. And, at the end, they stopped to go down to the ground to
reach the other tree, but started to behave like flying squirrels.
So far, so good.
Simple as that. Everything logical, everything gradual, and for
everything we have examples in nature (maybe only not for beaks, but for
flying sure we do have).
But NOT for feathers. Have you ever studied the intricate structure of
a contour feather, a flight feather [they are very asymmetrical -- do you know why?]
or a tail feather? Can you figure out a gradual evolution for them?
Dinosaurs had feathers before that (probably because feathers are good
for water, unlike fur). Some small dinosaurs ate insects. At that time
there was more oxygen in the air, insects were bigger. So, some
dinosaurs were trying to reach insects that were living in tree barks,
so they hardened their muzzles into beaks, like woodpeckers. Since they
were eating from tree bark, they had to climb tree (like squirrels).
Weight is deteriorating force for climbing, so those animals became lightweight. And, at the end, they stopped to go down to the ground to
reach the other tree, but started to behave like flying squirrels.
Simple as that. Everything logical, everything gradual, and for
everything we have examples in nature (maybe only not for beaks, but for flying sure we do have).
It's great to see you posting here again, Mario. Don't be discouraged
by my corrections. That's a good way to learn, and Harshman might
have made the same points you did, because he subscribes to the
hypotheses that have been popularized about feather development.
The popularizers refer to all kinds of things as "feathers":
hairlike growths, several such growths, from the same root, hairlike growths that are frayed like the ends of some of the longer hairs
of one of my daughters. . . . These are found on some dinosaur fossils--
only a tiny percentage even now, because these things do not fossilize easily.
But I do not know of any genuine feathers on fossils that cannot
be hypothesized as secondarily flightless birds. So I call all these things "protofeathers" and some of them just "dinofuzz."
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 2:00:19 AM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
Dinosaurs had feathers before that (probably because feathers are good
for water, unlike fur).
And unlike down. A mother ostrich always shelters her babies in the midst
of a downpour, to protect them from hypothermia.
Down would be an advanced kind of protofeather, as would the feathers of kiwis,
which lack barbules and hooks, IF they or down had ever been found
as Mesozoic fossils predating birds with genuine feathers.
But I don't know of any examples.
Some small dinosaurs ate insects. At that time
there was more oxygen in the air, insects were bigger. So, some
dinosaurs were trying to reach insects that were living in tree barks,
so they hardened their muzzles into beaks, like woodpeckers.
Very plausible. Did you read this somewhere, or did you figure
it out for yourself?
>Since they
were eating from tree bark, they had to climb tree (like squirrels).
Weight is deteriorating force for climbing, so those animals became
lightweight. And, at the end, they stopped to go down to the ground to
reach the other tree, but started to behave like flying squirrels.
So far, so good.
Simple as that. Everything logical, everything gradual, and for
everything we have examples in nature (maybe only not for beaks, but for
flying sure we do have).
But NOT for feathers. Have you ever studied the intricate structure of
a contour feather, a flight feather [they are very asymmetrical -- do you know why?]
or a tail feather? Can you figure out a gradual evolution for them?
On 8/15/23 8:32 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
It's great to see you posting here again, Mario. Don't be discouraged
by my corrections. That's a good way to learn, and Harshman might
have made the same points you did, because he subscribes to the
hypotheses that have been popularized about feather development.
The popularizers refer to all kinds of things as "feathers":
hairlike growths, several such growths from the same root, hairlike growths
that are frayed like the ends of some of the longer hairs
of one of my daughters. . . . These are found on some dinosaur fossils-- only a tiny percentage even now, because these things do not fossilize easily.
But I do not know of any genuine feathers on fossils that cannot
be hypothesized as secondarily flightless birds. So I call all these things
"protofeathers" and some of them just "dinofuzz."
Can't any fossil be hypothesized as secondarily flightless?
So how is
that a test? What's the scientific distinction between "genuine
feathers" and "protofeathers"?
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 2:00:19 AM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
Dinosaurs had feathers before that (probably because feathers are good
for water, unlike fur).
And unlike down. A mother ostrich always shelters her babies in the midst of a downpour, to protect them from hypothermia.
Then again, downy ducklings do just find in the water. There must be
some way to make down work in an aquatic bird.
Down would be an advanced kind of protofeather, as would the feathers of kiwis,
which lack barbules and hooks, IF they or down had ever been found
as Mesozoic fossils predating birds with genuine feathers.
But I don't know of any examples.
Some small dinosaurs ate insects. At that time
there was more oxygen in the air,
insects were bigger. So, some
dinosaurs were trying to reach insects that were living in tree barks,
so they hardened their muzzles into beaks, like woodpeckers.
Very plausible. Did you read this somewhere, or did you figure
it out for yourself?
It's not the beak that lets woodpeckers dig into bark.
And the average
maniraptoran doesn't have a beak. Nor is there any evidence I'm aware of that insects were in general bigger in the Mesozoic.
Since they
were eating from tree bark, they had to climb tree (like squirrels).
Weight is deteriorating force for climbing, so those animals became
lightweight. And, at the end, they stopped to go down to the ground to
reach the other tree, but started to behave like flying squirrels.
So far, so good.
Simple as that. Everything logical, everything gradual, and for
everything we have examples in nature (maybe only not for beaks, but for >> flying sure we do have).
But NOT for feathers. Have you ever studied the intricate structure of
a contour feather, a flight feather [they are very asymmetrical -- do you know why?]
or a tail feather? Can you figure out a gradual evolution for them?
See Prum & Brush 2001. I presume you have read that already.
It's not the beak that lets woodpeckers dig into bark. And the average maniraptoran doesn't have a beak. Nor is there any evidence I'm aware of
that insects were in general bigger in the Mesozoic.
On 15.8.2023. 20:55, John Harshman wrote:
It's not the beak that lets woodpeckers dig into bark. And the average
maniraptoran doesn't have a beak. Nor is there any evidence I'm aware
of that insects were in general bigger in the Mesozoic.
I don't know if I got this right, but it could be that my theory predicted this result: https://news.ucsc.edu/2012/06/giant-insects.html
Feathers are great for so many things.
They started in the Triassic. But of course the rules here are a bit weird.
If it appears on anything dinosaur or whatever, it's a "Feather" or "Proto Feather."
If it appears on anything else, it's a "Hair" or even "Fur."
Doesn't matter WHERE on the body it's located or what it looks like, these rules apply...
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 2:55:14 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/15/23 8:32 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
It's great to see you posting here again, Mario. Don't be discouraged
by my corrections. That's a good way to learn, and Harshman might
have made the same points you did, because he subscribes to the
hypotheses that have been popularized about feather development.
The popularizers refer to all kinds of things as "feathers":
hairlike growths, several such growths from the same root, hairlike growths >>> that are frayed like the ends of some of the longer hairs
of one of my daughters. . . . These are found on some dinosaur fossils-- >>> only a tiny percentage even now, because these things do not fossilize easily.
But I do not know of any genuine feathers on fossils that cannot
be hypothesized as secondarily flightless birds. So I call all these things >>> "protofeathers" and some of them just "dinofuzz."
Can't any fossil be hypothesized as secondarily flightless?
Not unless you call wild stabs in the dark (including highly
counterintuitive ones) "hypotheses."
So how is
that a test? What's the scientific distinction between "genuine
feathers" and "protofeathers"?
Since you are the ornithologist here, you should be giving the
scientific distinction, if there is one. I doubt that there is one.
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 2:00:19 AM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote: >>>
Dinosaurs had feathers before that (probably because feathers are good >>>> for water, unlike fur).
And unlike down. A mother ostrich always shelters her babies in the midst >>> of a downpour, to protect them from hypothermia.
Then again, downy ducklings do just find in the water. There must be
some way to make down work in an aquatic bird.
It's called "oils," isn't it?
I'm reminded of a delightful children's book by Vladimir Suteyev [Cyrillic: CYTEEB]
in which the first story shows a chick imitating a duckling digging, catching a worm,...
until it jumps in the water after the duckling and starts to drown. Heeding its cries for help,
the duckling pulls the chick out of the water. The last picture shows the chick out on solid ground
with water pouring off it and the duckling telling the chick that he is returning to the water,
with the chick responding, "But not I!"
Down would be an advanced kind of protofeather, as would the feathers of kiwis,
which lack barbules and hooks, IF they or down had ever been found
as Mesozoic fossils predating birds with genuine feathers.
But I don't know of any examples.
Some small dinosaurs ate insects. At that time
there was more oxygen in the air,
This is controversial, according to the book,
_The Princeton Field Guide to Pterosaurs_.
I now have my own copy, and I'll be starting a new thread for an in-depth review this week.
insects were bigger. So, some
dinosaurs were trying to reach insects that were living in tree barks, >>>> so they hardened their muzzles into beaks, like woodpeckers.
Very plausible. Did you read this somewhere, or did you figure
it out for yourself?
It's not the beak that lets woodpeckers dig into bark.
So all that hammering on trees is just for attracting attention???
You really ought to consider your audience when you give
comments that are likely to induce double-takes.
And the average
maniraptoran doesn't have a beak. Nor is there any evidence I'm aware of
that insects were in general bigger in the Mesozoic.
Nor I. The real biggies were during the Paleozoic. Also, at one point
there were millipedes two meters long and the better part of a meter wide.
I saw a model of one in a museum about a decade ago.
Since they
were eating from tree bark, they had to climb tree (like squirrels).
Weight is deteriorating force for climbing, so those animals became
lightweight. And, at the end, they stopped to go down to the ground to >>>> reach the other tree, but started to behave like flying squirrels.
So far, so good.
Simple as that. Everything logical, everything gradual, and for
everything we have examples in nature (maybe only not for beaks, but for >>>> flying sure we do have).
But NOT for feathers. Have you ever studied the intricate structure of
a contour feather, a flight feather [they are very asymmetrical -- do you know why?]
or a tail feather? Can you figure out a gradual evolution for them?
You obviously have some strange ideas for what the word "gradual" meant
to Darwin; that's the default meaning of the word in these contexts, isn't it?
See Prum & Brush 2001. I presume you have read that already.
Yes, but all it shows are a few isolated stages. Since they don't believe in hopeful monsters,
they are leaving out dozens if not hundreds of finely graded steps between hairlike growths and feathers that are complete with calamus, central shaft, barbs, barbules and hooks.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
PS On the whole, I prefer JTEM's post to yours. But there is a very recent exception
to what he says, and I'll tell him about it.
Notice that while all birds have beaks, it's only the woodpeckers that
do the hammering. So it can't be the possession of a beak that matters
for this adaptation. Woodpeckers have a number of special anatomical adaptations that should be detectable in a theropod skeleton if the comparison were apt.
And in fact a high proportion of that hammering *is* just for attracting attention. It's called "drumming".
I'm not sure why Gregory S. Paul decided to use the word "feathers", but he seriously entertains
the possibility that they are homologous to bird feathers.
I think he is going out on a limb,
A pseudonymous paleontologist [perhaps an amateur rather than a professional] on Reddit,
kinginyellow25, suggested a nice neutral term for these structures: filamentous integuments.
On 16.8.2023. 0:56, John Harshman wrote:
Notice that while all birds have beaks, it's only the woodpeckers that
do the hammering. So it can't be the possession of a beak that matters
for this adaptation. Woodpeckers have a number of special anatomical
adaptations that should be detectable in a theropod skeleton if the
comparison were apt.
And in fact a high proportion of that hammering *is* just for
attracting attention. It's called "drumming".
I really have hard time to understand how somebody can make such faulty conclusions?
All birds have beaks, and all birds do various niches, eat various food, and have various behavior. How you came to conclusions
that birds in the beginning did various niches, ate various food, and
had various behavior, is behind my ability to comprehend. Of course the
first bird occupied only one niche, ate only one kind of food, and had
only one type of behavior. Now, the question is, which one?
Woodpeckers evolved over time special anatomical adaptations, in the beginning they were very similar to other similar dinosaurs. I
mean, bears emerged from bear-dogs, and didn't occupy all the niches
that today's bears occupy, and probably even didn't eat honey, or fish,
and didn't have today's bear adaptations, thye looked more like dogs. I
mean, you are writing in the paleontology forum for god's sake, you got
to have some basic understandings of those things. At least.
So, woodpeckers are that way because they are drumming. Or are
they drumming because they are that way? Jesus Christ, the older you
get, the crazier you are.
On 8/15/23 2:27 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 15.8.2023. 20:55, John Harshman wrote:
It's not the beak that lets woodpeckers dig into bark. And the average
maniraptoran doesn't have a beak. Nor is there any evidence I'm aware
of that insects were in general bigger in the Mesozoic.
I don't know if I got this right, but it could be that my
theory predicted this result: https://news.ucsc.edu/2012/06/giant-insects.html
Bleedin' annoying that the article here doesn't manage to cite its
actual source.
But here it is:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1204026109
On 8/15/23 5:06 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 16.8.2023. 0:56, John Harshman wrote:
Notice that while all birds have beaks, it's only the woodpeckers
that do the hammering. So it can't be the possession of a beak that
matters for this adaptation. Woodpeckers have a number of special
anatomical adaptations that should be detectable in a theropod
skeleton if the comparison were apt.
And in fact a high proportion of that hammering *is* just for
attracting attention. It's called "drumming".
I really have hard time to understand how somebody can make >> such faulty conclusions?
All birds have beaks, and all birds do various niches, eat >> various food, and have various behavior. How you came to conclusions
that birds in the beginning did various niches, ate various food, and
had various behavior, is behind my ability to comprehend. Of course
the first bird occupied only one niche, ate only one kind of food, and
had only one type of behavior. Now, the question is, which one?
Woodpeckers evolved over time special anatomical adaptations,
in the beginning they were very similar to other similar dinosaurs. I
mean, bears emerged from bear-dogs, and didn't occupy all the niches
that today's bears occupy, and probably even didn't eat honey, or
fish, and didn't have today's bear adaptations, thye looked more like
dogs. I mean, you are writing in the paleontology forum for god's
sake, you got to have some basic understandings of those things. At
least.
So, woodpeckers are that way because they are drumming. Or >> are they drumming because they are that way? Jesus Christ, the older
you get, the crazier you are.
I believe you are misunderstanding much of what I say. Woodpeckers are
very specialized and so are not a good model for the earliest birds. I
do suspect that many small theropods at mostly insects, but the chance
that they hunted them in a woodpecker-like way is nearly zero. And
that's not what beaks, in general, are for. Early birds and small
theropods do not have the skeletal features necessary for beating their
noses against trees.
On 16.8.2023. 4:11, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/15/23 5:06 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 16.8.2023. 0:56, John Harshman wrote:
Notice that while all birds have beaks, it's only the woodpeckers
that do the hammering. So it can't be the possession of a beak that
matters for this adaptation. Woodpeckers have a number of special
anatomical adaptations that should be detectable in a theropod
skeleton if the comparison were apt.
And in fact a high proportion of that hammering *is* just for
attracting attention. It's called "drumming".
I really have hard time to understand how somebody can make
such faulty conclusions?
All birds have beaks, and all birds do various niches, eat >>> various food, and have various behavior. How you came to conclusions
that birds in the beginning did various niches, ate various food, and
had various behavior, is behind my ability to comprehend. Of course
the first bird occupied only one niche, ate only one kind of food,
and had only one type of behavior. Now, the question is, which one?
Woodpeckers evolved over time special anatomical
adaptations, in the beginning they were very similar to other similar
dinosaurs. I mean, bears emerged from bear-dogs, and didn't occupy
all the niches that today's bears occupy, and probably even didn't
eat honey, or fish, and didn't have today's bear adaptations, thye
looked more like dogs. I mean, you are writing in the paleontology
forum for god's sake, you got to have some basic understandings of
those things. At least.
So, woodpeckers are that way because they are drumming. Or >>> are they drumming because they are that way? Jesus Christ, the older
you get, the crazier you are.
I believe you are misunderstanding much of what I say. Woodpeckers are
very specialized and so are not a good model for the earliest birds. I
do suspect that many small theropods at mostly insects, but the chance
that they hunted them in a woodpecker-like way is nearly zero. And
that's not what beaks, in general, are for. Early birds and small
theropods do not have the skeletal features necessary for beating
their noses against trees.
I am aware of the specializations that woodpecker have, I just
don't think that it is necessary to have them early in the game,
especially while insects are still large. Remember, the idea is that
those two things, the diminishing of insects and the evolution of birds,
are connected. So, at the very beginning you have large insects, and
birds still not evolved, only peeking into the niche. So, birds adapt to insects, insects adapt to new conditions, to birds eating them. First it
goes bird inaugural adaptation, then insect adaptation.
Beaks could initially be adapted to similar things, like eating
worms from the ground. Ground is softer. So, beaks, here, aren't
actually crucial for flying. So this doesn't explain lightweight and
flying, for lightweight and flying you need the second stage, climbing
trees and moving from tree to tree, exactly like flying squirrels do.
On 16.8.2023. 4:46, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 16.8.2023. 4:11, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/15/23 5:06 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 16.8.2023. 0:56, John Harshman wrote:
Notice that while all birds have beaks, it's only the woodpeckers
that do the hammering. So it can't be the possession of a beak that
matters for this adaptation. Woodpeckers have a number of special
anatomical adaptations that should be detectable in a theropod
skeleton if the comparison were apt.
And in fact a high proportion of that hammering *is* just for
attracting attention. It's called "drumming".
I really have hard time to understand how somebody can make
such faulty conclusions?
All birds have beaks, and all birds do various niches, eat
various food, and have various behavior. How you came to conclusions
that birds in the beginning did various niches, ate various food, and
had various behavior, is behind my ability to comprehend. Of course
the first bird occupied only one niche, ate only one kind of food,
and had only one type of behavior. Now, the question is, which one?
Woodpeckers evolved over time special anatomical
adaptations, in the beginning they were very similar to other similar
dinosaurs. I mean, bears emerged from bear-dogs, and didn't occupy
all the niches that today's bears occupy, and probably even didn't
eat honey, or fish, and didn't have today's bear adaptations, thye
looked more like dogs. I mean, you are writing in the paleontology
forum for god's sake, you got to have some basic understandings of
those things. At least.
So, woodpeckers are that way because they are drumming. Or
are they drumming because they are that way? Jesus Christ, the older
you get, the crazier you are.
I believe you are misunderstanding much of what I say. Woodpeckers are
very specialized and so are not a good model for the earliest birds. I
do suspect that many small theropods at mostly insects, but the chance
that they hunted them in a woodpecker-like way is nearly zero. And
that's not what beaks, in general, are for. Early birds and small
theropods do not have the skeletal features necessary for beating
their noses against trees.
I am aware of the specializations that woodpecker have, I just don't think that it is necessary to have them early in the game,
especially while insects are still large. Remember, the idea is that
those two things, the diminishing of insects and the evolution of birds, are connected. So, at the very beginning you have large insects, and
birds still not evolved, only peeking into the niche. So, birds adapt to insects, insects adapt to new conditions, to birds eating them. First it goes bird inaugural adaptation, then insect adaptation.
Beaks could initially be adapted to similar things, like eating worms from the ground. Ground is softer. So, beaks, here, aren't
actually crucial for flying. So this doesn't explain lightweight and flying, for lightweight and flying you need the second stage, climbing trees and moving from tree to tree, exactly like flying squirrels do.
While we are at that, they don't need necessary to poke into bark,
initially they could just eat insects that are on trees. There are a lot
of insects up there. Who ate them? It has to be somebody who acquired
light bones, and later moved from tree to tree by flying. But animals
that did that had beaks. So what were those beaks for? It fits with
poking a tree bark.
So, on one hand you have lightweight, flying, on the other hand you
have beaks, on those animals who flew. It can only be for poking tree
bark, this is the connection, those two things are connected. It doesn't
have to be such a radical poking like woodpeckers have, but this is a connection.
And when they finally learnt to fly, well, this opened a lot of other possibilities, so those animals spread their niches.
On Wednesday, 16 August 2023 at 05:57:46 UTC+3, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 16.8.2023. 4:46, Mario Petrinovic wrote:Most of food isn't under tree bark to this day and so only few birds care about breaking it. Feels unlikely that it was case on prehistorc times.
On 16.8.2023. 4:11, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/15/23 5:06 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 16.8.2023. 0:56, John Harshman wrote:
Notice that while all birds have beaks, it's only the woodpeckers
that do the hammering. So it can't be the possession of a beak that >>>>>> matters for this adaptation. Woodpeckers have a number of special
anatomical adaptations that should be detectable in a theropod
skeleton if the comparison were apt.
And in fact a high proportion of that hammering *is* just for
attracting attention. It's called "drumming".
I really have hard time to understand how somebody can make >>>>> such faulty conclusions?
All birds have beaks, and all birds do various niches, eat >>>>> various food, and have various behavior. How you came to conclusions >>>>> that birds in the beginning did various niches, ate various food, and >>>>> had various behavior, is behind my ability to comprehend. Of course
the first bird occupied only one niche, ate only one kind of food,
and had only one type of behavior. Now, the question is, which one?
Woodpeckers evolved over time special anatomical
adaptations, in the beginning they were very similar to other similar >>>>> dinosaurs. I mean, bears emerged from bear-dogs, and didn't occupy
all the niches that today's bears occupy, and probably even didn't
eat honey, or fish, and didn't have today's bear adaptations, thye
looked more like dogs. I mean, you are writing in the paleontology
forum for god's sake, you got to have some basic understandings of
those things. At least.
So, woodpeckers are that way because they are drumming. Or >>>>> are they drumming because they are that way? Jesus Christ, the older >>>>> you get, the crazier you are.
I believe you are misunderstanding much of what I say. Woodpeckers are >>>> very specialized and so are not a good model for the earliest birds. I >>>> do suspect that many small theropods at mostly insects, but the chance >>>> that they hunted them in a woodpecker-like way is nearly zero. And
that's not what beaks, in general, are for. Early birds and small
theropods do not have the skeletal features necessary for beating
their noses against trees.
I am aware of the specializations that woodpecker have, I just
don't think that it is necessary to have them early in the game,
especially while insects are still large. Remember, the idea is that
those two things, the diminishing of insects and the evolution of birds, >>> are connected. So, at the very beginning you have large insects, and
birds still not evolved, only peeking into the niche. So, birds adapt to >>> insects, insects adapt to new conditions, to birds eating them. First it >>> goes bird inaugural adaptation, then insect adaptation.
Beaks could initially be adapted to similar things, like eating >>> worms from the ground. Ground is softer. So, beaks, here, aren't
actually crucial for flying. So this doesn't explain lightweight and
flying, for lightweight and flying you need the second stage, climbing
trees and moving from tree to tree, exactly like flying squirrels do.
While we are at that, they don't need necessary to poke into bark,
initially they could just eat insects that are on trees. There are a lot
of insects up there. Who ate them? It has to be somebody who acquired
light bones, and later moved from tree to tree by flying. But animals
that did that had beaks. So what were those beaks for? It fits with
poking a tree bark.
Other benefits (like for example better aerodynamics, convenience of
tidying and cleaning feathers) may be bigger pressures to evolve
beak than bark of trees.
So, on one hand you have lightweight, flying, on the other hand youOrder of events might be was flight before beak. Earlier fossils
have beaks, on those animals who flew. It can only be for poking tree
bark, this is the connection, those two things are connected. It doesn't
have to be such a radical poking like woodpeckers have, but this is a
connection.
And when they finally learnt to fly, well, this opened a lot of other
possibilities, so those animals spread their niches.
of paravians that did most likely fly (or at least glide) have teeth,
not beak yet.
On 16.8.2023. 9:18, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 August 2023 at 05:57:46 UTC+3, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 16.8.2023. 4:46, Mario Petrinovic wrote:Most of food isn't under tree bark to this day and so only few birds care
On 16.8.2023. 4:11, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/15/23 5:06 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 16.8.2023. 0:56, John Harshman wrote:
Notice that while all birds have beaks, it's only the woodpeckers >>>>>>> that do the hammering. So it can't be the possession of a beak that >>>>>>> matters for this adaptation. Woodpeckers have a number of special >>>>>>> anatomical adaptations that should be detectable in a theropod
skeleton if the comparison were apt.
And in fact a high proportion of that hammering *is* just for
attracting attention. It's called "drumming".
I really have hard time to understand how somebody can make
such faulty conclusions?
All birds have beaks, and all birds do various niches, eat
various food, and have various behavior. How you came to conclusions >>>>>> that birds in the beginning did various niches, ate various food, and >>>>>> had various behavior, is behind my ability to comprehend. Of course >>>>>> the first bird occupied only one niche, ate only one kind of food, >>>>>> and had only one type of behavior. Now, the question is, which one? >>>>>> Woodpeckers evolved over time special anatomical >>>>>> adaptations, in the beginning they were very similar to other similar >>>>>> dinosaurs. I mean, bears emerged from bear-dogs, and didn't occupy >>>>>> all the niches that today's bears occupy, and probably even didn't >>>>>> eat honey, or fish, and didn't have today's bear adaptations, thye >>>>>> looked more like dogs. I mean, you are writing in the paleontology >>>>>> forum for god's sake, you got to have some basic understandings of >>>>>> those things. At least.
So, woodpeckers are that way because they are drumming. Or
are they drumming because they are that way? Jesus Christ, the older >>>>>> you get, the crazier you are.
I believe you are misunderstanding much of what I say. Woodpeckers are >>>>> very specialized and so are not a good model for the earliest birds. I >>>>> do suspect that many small theropods at mostly insects, but the chance >>>>> that they hunted them in a woodpecker-like way is nearly zero. And
that's not what beaks, in general, are for. Early birds and small
theropods do not have the skeletal features necessary for beating
their noses against trees.
I am aware of the specializations that woodpecker have, I just
don't think that it is necessary to have them early in the game,
especially while insects are still large. Remember, the idea is that
those two things, the diminishing of insects and the evolution of
birds,
are connected. So, at the very beginning you have large insects, and
birds still not evolved, only peeking into the niche. So, birds
adapt to
insects, insects adapt to new conditions, to birds eating them.
First it
goes bird inaugural adaptation, then insect adaptation.
Beaks could initially be adapted to similar things, like >>>> eating
worms from the ground. Ground is softer. So, beaks, here, aren't
actually crucial for flying. So this doesn't explain lightweight and
flying, for lightweight and flying you need the second stage, climbing >>>> trees and moving from tree to tree, exactly like flying squirrels do.
While we are at that, they don't need necessary to poke into bark,
initially they could just eat insects that are on trees. There are a lot >>> of insects up there. Who ate them? It has to be somebody who acquired
light bones, and later moved from tree to tree by flying. But animals
that did that had beaks. So what were those beaks for? It fits with
poking a tree bark.
about breaking it. Feels unlikely that it was case on prehistorc times.
Other benefits (like for example better aerodynamics, convenience of
tidying and cleaning feathers) may be bigger pressures to evolve
beak than bark of trees.
So, on one hand you have lightweight, flying, on the other hand youOrder of events might be was flight before beak. Earlier fossils
have beaks, on those animals who flew. It can only be for poking tree
bark, this is the connection, those two things are connected. It doesn't >>> have to be such a radical poking like woodpeckers have, but this is a
connection.
And when they finally learnt to fly, well, this opened a lot of other
possibilities, so those animals spread their niches.
of paravians that did most likely fly (or at least glide) have teeth,
not beak yet.
Thanks for the info. In general, this is a competition, you eat, there is more birds than food, you dig deeper, you are forced to
dig deeper, and bark is where this additional food is.
Compare this situation to my explanation of human kiss. Per my
idea, we ate sea shellfish. You dive for shellfish, but near surface shellfish are first to be eaten. Then you have to dive deeper. You can
go even deeper if your partner (whom you have to trust with your life,
trust is important thing in human relationships) meet you half way up
and gives you additional air. So, basically, the principle is, first you
eat all the easily acquired food, but then you are forced to dig deeper.
And also, initially there could be much more food in shallow waters,
but, hey, you eat this out, you have to adapt for this small additional piece.
On 16.8.2023. 13:40, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 16.8.2023. 9:18, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 August 2023 at 05:57:46 UTC+3, Mario Petrinovic wrote: >>> On 16.8.2023. 4:46, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
Most of food isn't under tree bark to this day and so only few birds care >> about breaking it. Feels unlikely that it was case on prehistorc times.On 16.8.2023. 4:11, John Harshman wrote:While we are at that, they don't need necessary to poke into bark,
On 8/15/23 5:06 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 16.8.2023. 0:56, John Harshman wrote:
Notice that while all birds have beaks, it's only the woodpeckers >>>>>>> that do the hammering. So it can't be the possession of a beak that >>>>>>> matters for this adaptation. Woodpeckers have a number of special >>>>>>> anatomical adaptations that should be detectable in a theropod >>>>>>> skeleton if the comparison were apt.
And in fact a high proportion of that hammering *is* just for
attracting attention. It's called "drumming".
I really have hard time to understand how somebody can make >>>>>> such faulty conclusions?
All birds have beaks, and all birds do various niches, eat >>>>>> various food, and have various behavior. How you came to conclusions >>>>>> that birds in the beginning did various niches, ate various food, and >>>>>> had various behavior, is behind my ability to comprehend. Of course >>>>>> the first bird occupied only one niche, ate only one kind of food, >>>>>> and had only one type of behavior. Now, the question is, which one? >>>>>> Woodpeckers evolved over time special anatomical
adaptations, in the beginning they were very similar to other similar >>>>>> dinosaurs. I mean, bears emerged from bear-dogs, and didn't occupy >>>>>> all the niches that today's bears occupy, and probably even didn't >>>>>> eat honey, or fish, and didn't have today's bear adaptations, thye >>>>>> looked more like dogs. I mean, you are writing in the paleontology >>>>>> forum for god's sake, you got to have some basic understandings of >>>>>> those things. At least.
So, woodpeckers are that way because they are drumming. Or >>>>>> are they drumming because they are that way? Jesus Christ, the older >>>>>> you get, the crazier you are.
I believe you are misunderstanding much of what I say. Woodpeckers are >>>>> very specialized and so are not a good model for the earliest birds. I >>>>> do suspect that many small theropods at mostly insects, but the chance >>>>> that they hunted them in a woodpecker-like way is nearly zero. And >>>>> that's not what beaks, in general, are for. Early birds and small
theropods do not have the skeletal features necessary for beating
their noses against trees.
I am aware of the specializations that woodpecker have, I just >>>> don't think that it is necessary to have them early in the game,
especially while insects are still large. Remember, the idea is that >>>> those two things, the diminishing of insects and the evolution of
birds,
are connected. So, at the very beginning you have large insects, and >>>> birds still not evolved, only peeking into the niche. So, birds
adapt to
insects, insects adapt to new conditions, to birds eating them.
First it
goes bird inaugural adaptation, then insect adaptation.
Beaks could initially be adapted to similar things, like
eating
worms from the ground. Ground is softer. So, beaks, here, aren't
actually crucial for flying. So this doesn't explain lightweight and >>>> flying, for lightweight and flying you need the second stage, climbing >>>> trees and moving from tree to tree, exactly like flying squirrels do. >>>
initially they could just eat insects that are on trees. There are a lot >>> of insects up there. Who ate them? It has to be somebody who acquired
light bones, and later moved from tree to tree by flying. But animals
that did that had beaks. So what were those beaks for? It fits with
poking a tree bark.
Other benefits (like for example better aerodynamics, convenience of
tidying and cleaning feathers) may be bigger pressures to evolve
beak than bark of trees.
So, on one hand you have lightweight, flying, on the other hand youOrder of events might be was flight before beak. Earlier fossils
have beaks, on those animals who flew. It can only be for poking tree
bark, this is the connection, those two things are connected. It doesn't >>> have to be such a radical poking like woodpeckers have, but this is a
connection.
And when they finally learnt to fly, well, this opened a lot of other
possibilities, so those animals spread their niches.
of paravians that did most likely fly (or at least glide) have teeth,
not beak yet.
Thanks for the info. In general, this is a competition, you
eat, there is more birds than food, you dig deeper, you are forced to
dig deeper, and bark is where this additional food is.
Compare this situation to my explanation of human kiss. Per my idea, we ate sea shellfish. You dive for shellfish, but near surface shellfish are first to be eaten. Then you have to dive deeper. You can
go even deeper if your partner (whom you have to trust with your life, trust is important thing in human relationships) meet you half way up
and gives you additional air. So, basically, the principle is, first you eat all the easily acquired food, but then you are forced to dig deeper. And also, initially there could be much more food in shallow waters,
but, hey, you eat this out, you have to adapt for this small additional piece.
Ha, ha, there is one interesting thing, squirrels have adaptation to
go up and down the tree. I wouldn't say that birds could go down the
tree that easy, easier would be just to fly off, :) .
So, the difficult part actually is to go down, :) .
On Wednesday, 16 August 2023 at 15:31:52 UTC+3, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 16.8.2023. 13:40, Mario Petrinovic wrote:From where you take that first birds were only single specie that ate insects that hid under tree bark? Nature never ran out of insects of
On 16.8.2023. 9:18, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 August 2023 at 05:57:46 UTC+3, Mario Petrinovic wrote: >>>>> On 16.8.2023. 4:46, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
Most of food isn't under tree bark to this day and so only few birds care >>>> about breaking it. Feels unlikely that it was case on prehistorc times. >>>> Other benefits (like for example better aerodynamics, convenience ofOn 16.8.2023. 4:11, John Harshman wrote:While we are at that, they don't need necessary to poke into bark,
On 8/15/23 5:06 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 16.8.2023. 0:56, John Harshman wrote:
Notice that while all birds have beaks, it's only the woodpeckers >>>>>>>>> that do the hammering. So it can't be the possession of a beak that >>>>>>>>> matters for this adaptation. Woodpeckers have a number of special >>>>>>>>> anatomical adaptations that should be detectable in a theropod >>>>>>>>> skeleton if the comparison were apt.
And in fact a high proportion of that hammering *is* just for >>>>>>>>> attracting attention. It's called "drumming".
I really have hard time to understand how somebody can make >>>>>>>> such faulty conclusions?
All birds have beaks, and all birds do various niches, eat >>>>>>>> various food, and have various behavior. How you came to conclusions >>>>>>>> that birds in the beginning did various niches, ate various food, and >>>>>>>> had various behavior, is behind my ability to comprehend. Of course >>>>>>>> the first bird occupied only one niche, ate only one kind of food, >>>>>>>> and had only one type of behavior. Now, the question is, which one? >>>>>>>> Woodpeckers evolved over time special anatomical
adaptations, in the beginning they were very similar to other similar >>>>>>>> dinosaurs. I mean, bears emerged from bear-dogs, and didn't occupy >>>>>>>> all the niches that today's bears occupy, and probably even didn't >>>>>>>> eat honey, or fish, and didn't have today's bear adaptations, thye >>>>>>>> looked more like dogs. I mean, you are writing in the paleontology >>>>>>>> forum for god's sake, you got to have some basic understandings of >>>>>>>> those things. At least.
So, woodpeckers are that way because they are drumming. Or >>>>>>>> are they drumming because they are that way? Jesus Christ, the older >>>>>>>> you get, the crazier you are.
I believe you are misunderstanding much of what I say. Woodpeckers are >>>>>>> very specialized and so are not a good model for the earliest birds. I >>>>>>> do suspect that many small theropods at mostly insects, but the chance >>>>>>> that they hunted them in a woodpecker-like way is nearly zero. And >>>>>>> that's not what beaks, in general, are for. Early birds and small >>>>>>> theropods do not have the skeletal features necessary for beating >>>>>>> their noses against trees.
I am aware of the specializations that woodpecker have, I just >>>>>> don't think that it is necessary to have them early in the game,
especially while insects are still large. Remember, the idea is that >>>>>> those two things, the diminishing of insects and the evolution of
birds,
are connected. So, at the very beginning you have large insects, and >>>>>> birds still not evolved, only peeking into the niche. So, birds
adapt to
insects, insects adapt to new conditions, to birds eating them.
First it
goes bird inaugural adaptation, then insect adaptation.
Beaks could initially be adapted to similar things, like >>>>>> eating
worms from the ground. Ground is softer. So, beaks, here, aren't
actually crucial for flying. So this doesn't explain lightweight and >>>>>> flying, for lightweight and flying you need the second stage, climbing >>>>>> trees and moving from tree to tree, exactly like flying squirrels do. >>>>>
initially they could just eat insects that are on trees. There are a lot >>>>> of insects up there. Who ate them? It has to be somebody who acquired >>>>> light bones, and later moved from tree to tree by flying. But animals >>>>> that did that had beaks. So what were those beaks for? It fits with
poking a tree bark.
tidying and cleaning feathers) may be bigger pressures to evolve
beak than bark of trees.
So, on one hand you have lightweight, flying, on the other hand youOrder of events might be was flight before beak. Earlier fossils
have beaks, on those animals who flew. It can only be for poking tree >>>>> bark, this is the connection, those two things are connected. It doesn't >>>>> have to be such a radical poking like woodpeckers have, but this is a >>>>> connection.
And when they finally learnt to fly, well, this opened a lot of other >>>>> possibilities, so those animals spread their niches.
of paravians that did most likely fly (or at least glide) have teeth,
not beak yet.
Thanks for the info. In general, this is a competition, you
eat, there is more birds than food, you dig deeper, you are forced to
dig deeper, and bark is where this additional food is.
wide variety and only some species of those live under tree bark.
You mix up individuals with species. Individuals can't mutate beaks to themselves because of being low on food. Instead when hunting orCompare this situation to my explanation of human kiss. Per my
idea, we ate sea shellfish. You dive for shellfish, but near surface
shellfish are first to be eaten. Then you have to dive deeper. You can
go even deeper if your partner (whom you have to trust with your life,
trust is important thing in human relationships) meet you half way up
and gives you additional air. So, basically, the principle is, first you >>> eat all the easily acquired food, but then you are forced to dig deeper. >>> And also, initially there could be much more food in shallow waters,
but, hey, you eat this out, you have to adapt for this small additional
piece.
gathering food takes more energy than you get from eating it then
your population shrinks because of hunger. That lets population of
your food to regrow back so few survivors of your population have
enough of food again.
Ha, ha, there is one interesting thing, squirrels have adaptation toGravity is not for free anymore? The nuthatches seem to go down tree
go up and down the tree. I wouldn't say that birds could go down the
tree that easy, easier would be just to fly off, :) .
So, the difficult part actually is to go down, :) .
head first like squirrels.
On 8/16/23 10:56 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
I mean, we do have examples in today's world, flying squirrels andFlying squirrels don't have beaks, so what is this about? There are also woodpecker finches and ai-ais, if you're keeping score.
woodpecker.
I mean, we do have examples in today's world, flying squirrels and woodpecker.Flying squirrels don't have beaks, so what is this about? There are also woodpecker finches and ai-ais, if you're keeping score.
On 16.8.2023. 20:18, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/16/23 10:56 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
I mean, we do have examples in today's world, flying squirrels andFlying squirrels don't have beaks, so what is this about? There are
woodpecker.
also woodpecker finches and ai-ais, if you're keeping score.
Aren't we talking about the origin of birds, which, like, fly?
So, see the name, flying squirrels. It is about flying. I presume that
ai-ai is aye-aye.
The idea is going up and down a tree. Which is excellent environment to originate flight. The cause is eating insects. Hence beaks.
On 8/16/23 12:07 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 16.8.2023. 20:18, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/16/23 10:56 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
I mean, we do have examples in today's world, flying squirrels andFlying squirrels don't have beaks, so what is this about? There are
woodpecker.
also woodpecker finches and ai-ais, if you're keeping score.
Aren't we talking about the origin of birds, which, like, >> fly? So, see the name, flying squirrels. It is about flying. I presume
that ai-ai is aye-aye.
The idea is going up and down a tree. Which is excellent
environment to originate flight. The cause is eating insects. Hence
beaks.
Ah, I see. You jump from subject to subject in a very confusing way. Why
pick woodpeckers as examples of flight? And the sentence previous was
about eating insects in bark with beaks, and the next sentence is also
about eating insects in bark. How is anyone supposed to know you're
talking about flying in between?
If you want people to know what you're trying to say, you have to put
some logical structure into your paragraphs.
It seems very unlikely that the ancestral bird would have done anything
so specialized as finding insects under tree bark.
On 16.8.2023. 17:34, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 August 2023 at 15:31:52 UTC+3, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 16.8.2023. 13:40, Mario Petrinovic wrote:From where you take that first birds were only single specie that ate insects that hid under tree bark? Nature never ran out of insects of
On 16.8.2023. 9:18, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 August 2023 at 05:57:46 UTC+3, Mario Petrinovic wrote: >>>>> On 16.8.2023. 4:46, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
Most of food isn't under tree bark to this day and so only few birds careOn 16.8.2023. 4:11, John Harshman wrote:While we are at that, they don't need necessary to poke into bark, >>>>> initially they could just eat insects that are on trees. There are a lot
On 8/15/23 5:06 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 16.8.2023. 0:56, John Harshman wrote:
Notice that while all birds have beaks, it's only the woodpeckers >>>>>>>>> that do the hammering. So it can't be the possession of a beak that >>>>>>>>> matters for this adaptation. Woodpeckers have a number of special >>>>>>>>> anatomical adaptations that should be detectable in a theropod >>>>>>>>> skeleton if the comparison were apt.
And in fact a high proportion of that hammering *is* just for >>>>>>>>> attracting attention. It's called "drumming".
I really have hard time to understand how somebody can make
such faulty conclusions?
All birds have beaks, and all birds do various niches, eat
various food, and have various behavior. How you came to conclusions >>>>>>>> that birds in the beginning did various niches, ate various food, and
had various behavior, is behind my ability to comprehend. Of course >>>>>>>> the first bird occupied only one niche, ate only one kind of food, >>>>>>>> and had only one type of behavior. Now, the question is, which one? >>>>>>>> Woodpeckers evolved over time special anatomical
adaptations, in the beginning they were very similar to other similar
dinosaurs. I mean, bears emerged from bear-dogs, and didn't occupy >>>>>>>> all the niches that today's bears occupy, and probably even didn't >>>>>>>> eat honey, or fish, and didn't have today's bear adaptations, thye >>>>>>>> looked more like dogs. I mean, you are writing in the paleontology >>>>>>>> forum for god's sake, you got to have some basic understandings of >>>>>>>> those things. At least.
So, woodpeckers are that way because they are drumming. Or
are they drumming because they are that way? Jesus Christ, the older >>>>>>>> you get, the crazier you are.
I believe you are misunderstanding much of what I say. Woodpeckers are
very specialized and so are not a good model for the earliest birds. I
do suspect that many small theropods at mostly insects, but the chance
that they hunted them in a woodpecker-like way is nearly zero. And >>>>>>> that's not what beaks, in general, are for. Early birds and small >>>>>>> theropods do not have the skeletal features necessary for beating >>>>>>> their noses against trees.
I am aware of the specializations that woodpecker have, I just
don't think that it is necessary to have them early in the game, >>>>>> especially while insects are still large. Remember, the idea is that >>>>>> those two things, the diminishing of insects and the evolution of >>>>>> birds,
are connected. So, at the very beginning you have large insects, and >>>>>> birds still not evolved, only peeking into the niche. So, birds
adapt to
insects, insects adapt to new conditions, to birds eating them.
First it
goes bird inaugural adaptation, then insect adaptation.
Beaks could initially be adapted to similar things, like
eating
worms from the ground. Ground is softer. So, beaks, here, aren't >>>>>> actually crucial for flying. So this doesn't explain lightweight and >>>>>> flying, for lightweight and flying you need the second stage, climbing >>>>>> trees and moving from tree to tree, exactly like flying squirrels do. >>>>>
of insects up there. Who ate them? It has to be somebody who acquired >>>>> light bones, and later moved from tree to tree by flying. But animals >>>>> that did that had beaks. So what were those beaks for? It fits with >>>>> poking a tree bark.
about breaking it. Feels unlikely that it was case on prehistorc times. >>>> Other benefits (like for example better aerodynamics, convenience of >>>> tidying and cleaning feathers) may be bigger pressures to evolve
beak than bark of trees.
So, on one hand you have lightweight, flying, on the other hand you >>>>> have beaks, on those animals who flew. It can only be for poking tree >>>>> bark, this is the connection, those two things are connected. It doesn'tOrder of events might be was flight before beak. Earlier fossils
have to be such a radical poking like woodpeckers have, but this is a >>>>> connection.
And when they finally learnt to fly, well, this opened a lot of other >>>>> possibilities, so those animals spread their niches.
of paravians that did most likely fly (or at least glide) have teeth, >>>> not beak yet.
Thanks for the info. In general, this is a competition, you
eat, there is more birds than food, you dig deeper, you are forced to
dig deeper, and bark is where this additional food is.
wide variety and only some species of those live under tree bark.
And only some species can eat those. It isn't point in eating insects,
the point is that weight is deteriorating for climbing, the point is
that for eating insects in bark it is good to have beak. I mean, we do
have examples in today's world, flying squirrels and woodpecker.
What
else would you need beak for? Eating fish? No. Eating meat? No.
Scavenging? No. Eating seeds? No.
I mean, you can eat fish, meat,
scavenge, eat seeds with beaks too, but you can do all this with teeth
also. I mean, we even have the elongation of fingers, the Aye-Aye style,
in birds. So, in the beginning they could use finger, then they
developed beaks, so then fingers were used just to cling on trees, and feathers regrew over the fingers.
You mix up individuals with species. Individuals can't mutate beaks to themselves because of being low on food. Instead when hunting orCompare this situation to my explanation of human kiss. Per my
idea, we ate sea shellfish. You dive for shellfish, but near surface
shellfish are first to be eaten. Then you have to dive deeper. You can >>> go even deeper if your partner (whom you have to trust with your life, >>> trust is important thing in human relationships) meet you half way up
and gives you additional air. So, basically, the principle is, first you >>> eat all the easily acquired food, but then you are forced to dig deeper. >>> And also, initially there could be much more food in shallow waters,
but, hey, you eat this out, you have to adapt for this small additional >>> piece.
gathering food takes more energy than you get from eating it then
your population shrinks because of hunger. That lets population of
your food to regrow back so few survivors of your population have
enough of food again.
First, of course, the mutation idea is bogus, mutation is malfunction. Species adapt. So, when you need more effort to obtain food, you adapt.
So, I would use a lot of energy if I would run after my food standing on
my arms, upside down. But then I would adapt to stand on my feet.
So, the idea that each species has an individual Adam, the origin of
species, a mutant, is completely wrong. We all can adapt, and the ones
who cannot, go extinct.
I believe that it is you who mixes individuals
with species.
Ha, ha, there is one interesting thing, squirrels have adaptation toGravity is not for free anymore? The nuthatches seem to go down tree
go up and down the tree. I wouldn't say that birds could go down the
tree that easy, easier would be just to fly off, :) .
So, the difficult part actually is to go down, :) .
head first like squirrels.
For this you need to have special adaptation, not just every animal
can do that, it has to be adapted for that.
On Wednesday, 16 August 2023 at 20:56:05 UTC+3, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 16.8.2023. 17:34, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 August 2023 at 15:31:52 UTC+3, Mario Petrinovic wrote: >>>> On 16.8.2023. 13:40, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
From where you take that first birds were only single specie that ateOn 16.8.2023. 9:18, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 August 2023 at 05:57:46 UTC+3, Mario Petrinovic wrote: >>>>>>> On 16.8.2023. 4:46, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
Most of food isn't under tree bark to this day and so only few birds careOn 16.8.2023. 4:11, John Harshman wrote:While we are at that, they don't need necessary to poke into bark, >>>>>>> initially they could just eat insects that are on trees. There are a lot
On 8/15/23 5:06 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 16.8.2023. 0:56, John Harshman wrote:
Notice that while all birds have beaks, it's only the woodpeckers >>>>>>>>>>> that do the hammering. So it can't be the possession of a beak that >>>>>>>>>>> matters for this adaptation. Woodpeckers have a number of special >>>>>>>>>>> anatomical adaptations that should be detectable in a theropod >>>>>>>>>>> skeleton if the comparison were apt.
And in fact a high proportion of that hammering *is* just for >>>>>>>>>>> attracting attention. It's called "drumming".
I really have hard time to understand how somebody can make >>>>>>>>>> such faulty conclusions?
All birds have beaks, and all birds do various niches, eat >>>>>>>>>> various food, and have various behavior. How you came to conclusions >>>>>>>>>> that birds in the beginning did various niches, ate various food, and
had various behavior, is behind my ability to comprehend. Of course >>>>>>>>>> the first bird occupied only one niche, ate only one kind of food, >>>>>>>>>> and had only one type of behavior. Now, the question is, which one? >>>>>>>>>> Woodpeckers evolved over time special anatomical
adaptations, in the beginning they were very similar to other similar
dinosaurs. I mean, bears emerged from bear-dogs, and didn't occupy >>>>>>>>>> all the niches that today's bears occupy, and probably even didn't >>>>>>>>>> eat honey, or fish, and didn't have today's bear adaptations, thye >>>>>>>>>> looked more like dogs. I mean, you are writing in the paleontology >>>>>>>>>> forum for god's sake, you got to have some basic understandings of >>>>>>>>>> those things. At least.
So, woodpeckers are that way because they are drumming. Or >>>>>>>>>> are they drumming because they are that way? Jesus Christ, the older >>>>>>>>>> you get, the crazier you are.
I believe you are misunderstanding much of what I say. Woodpeckers are
very specialized and so are not a good model for the earliest birds. I
do suspect that many small theropods at mostly insects, but the chance
that they hunted them in a woodpecker-like way is nearly zero. And >>>>>>>>> that's not what beaks, in general, are for. Early birds and small >>>>>>>>> theropods do not have the skeletal features necessary for beating >>>>>>>>> their noses against trees.
I am aware of the specializations that woodpecker have, I just >>>>>>>> don't think that it is necessary to have them early in the game, >>>>>>>> especially while insects are still large. Remember, the idea is that >>>>>>>> those two things, the diminishing of insects and the evolution of >>>>>>>> birds,
are connected. So, at the very beginning you have large insects, and >>>>>>>> birds still not evolved, only peeking into the niche. So, birds >>>>>>>> adapt to
insects, insects adapt to new conditions, to birds eating them. >>>>>>>> First it
goes bird inaugural adaptation, then insect adaptation.
Beaks could initially be adapted to similar things, like
eating
worms from the ground. Ground is softer. So, beaks, here, aren't >>>>>>>> actually crucial for flying. So this doesn't explain lightweight and >>>>>>>> flying, for lightweight and flying you need the second stage, climbing >>>>>>>> trees and moving from tree to tree, exactly like flying squirrels do. >>>>>>>
of insects up there. Who ate them? It has to be somebody who acquired >>>>>>> light bones, and later moved from tree to tree by flying. But animals >>>>>>> that did that had beaks. So what were those beaks for? It fits with >>>>>>> poking a tree bark.
about breaking it. Feels unlikely that it was case on prehistorc times. >>>>>> Other benefits (like for example better aerodynamics, convenience of >>>>>> tidying and cleaning feathers) may be bigger pressures to evolve
beak than bark of trees.
So, on one hand you have lightweight, flying, on the other hand you >>>>>>> have beaks, on those animals who flew. It can only be for poking tree >>>>>>> bark, this is the connection, those two things are connected. It doesn'tOrder of events might be was flight before beak. Earlier fossils
have to be such a radical poking like woodpeckers have, but this is a >>>>>>> connection.
And when they finally learnt to fly, well, this opened a lot of other >>>>>>> possibilities, so those animals spread their niches.
of paravians that did most likely fly (or at least glide) have teeth, >>>>>> not beak yet.
Thanks for the info. In general, this is a competition, you
eat, there is more birds than food, you dig deeper, you are forced to >>>>> dig deeper, and bark is where this additional food is.
insects that hid under tree bark? Nature never ran out of insects of
wide variety and only some species of those live under tree bark.
And only some species can eat those. It isn't point in eating insects,
the point is that weight is deteriorating for climbing, the point is
that for eating insects in bark it is good to have beak. I mean, we do
have examples in today's world, flying squirrels and woodpecker.
Flying squirrels do not have beaks.
What
else would you need beak for? Eating fish? No. Eating meat? No.
Scavenging? No. Eating seeds? No.
Why you are fixated on eating? You already ignored "tidying and cleaning feathers" still quoted above.
I mean, you can eat fish, meat,
scavenge, eat seeds with beaks too, but you can do all this with teeth
also. I mean, we even have the elongation of fingers, the Aye-Aye style,
in birds. So, in the beginning they could use finger, then they
developed beaks, so then fingers were used just to cling on trees, and
feathers regrew over the fingers.
You go on and on about eating then suddenly fingers?
Species adapt over hundreds of generations using mutations.You mix up individuals with species. Individuals can't mutate beaks toCompare this situation to my explanation of human kiss. Per my
idea, we ate sea shellfish. You dive for shellfish, but near surface >>>>> shellfish are first to be eaten. Then you have to dive deeper. You can >>>>> go even deeper if your partner (whom you have to trust with your life, >>>>> trust is important thing in human relationships) meet you half way up >>>>> and gives you additional air. So, basically, the principle is, first you >>>>> eat all the easily acquired food, but then you are forced to dig deeper. >>>>> And also, initially there could be much more food in shallow waters, >>>>> but, hey, you eat this out, you have to adapt for this small additional >>>>> piece.
themselves because of being low on food. Instead when hunting or
gathering food takes more energy than you get from eating it then
your population shrinks because of hunger. That lets population of
your food to regrow back so few survivors of your population have
enough of food again.
First, of course, the mutation idea is bogus, mutation is malfunction.
Species adapt. So, when you need more effort to obtain food, you adapt.
So, I would use a lot of energy if I would run after my food standing on>
my arms, upside down. But then I would adapt to stand on my feet.
That is about individual you? The logic has odd premise, can you even
stand on your arms? Can you run on those? Sounds unlikely.
So, the idea that each species has an individual Adam, the origin ofYes there are no individual Adams. Fossil record shows opposite, all
species, a mutant, is completely wrong. We all can adapt, and the ones
who cannot, go extinct.
go extinct, very few adapt.
I believe that it is you who mixes individualsNo, see above. You talk about mutations and species, then switch to yourself running on hands, then about extinction that is again about species.
with species.
Most birds do not need to climb around on trees so have droppedHa, ha, there is one interesting thing, squirrels have adaptation toGravity is not for free anymore? The nuthatches seem to go down tree
go up and down the tree. I wouldn't say that birds could go down the
tree that easy, easier would be just to fly off, :) .
So, the difficult part actually is to go down, :) .
head first like squirrels.
For this you need to have special adaptation, not just every animal
can do that, it has to be adapted for that.
such adaptations.
On 17.8.2023. 5:59, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 August 2023 at 20:56:05 UTC+3, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 16.8.2023. 17:34, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 August 2023 at 15:31:52 UTC+3, Mario Petrinovic wrote: >>>> On 16.8.2023. 13:40, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
From where you take that first birds were only single specie that ateOn 16.8.2023. 9:18, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 August 2023 at 05:57:46 UTC+3, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 16.8.2023. 4:46, Mario Petrinovic wrote:Most of food isn't under tree bark to this day and so only few birds care
On 16.8.2023. 4:11, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/15/23 5:06 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 16.8.2023. 0:56, John Harshman wrote:
Notice that while all birds have beaks, it's only the woodpeckers >>>>>>>>>>> that do the hammering. So it can't be the possession of a beak that
matters for this adaptation. Woodpeckers have a number of special >>>>>>>>>>> anatomical adaptations that should be detectable in a theropod >>>>>>>>>>> skeleton if the comparison were apt.
And in fact a high proportion of that hammering *is* just for >>>>>>>>>>> attracting attention. It's called "drumming".
I really have hard time to understand how somebody can make >>>>>>>>>> such faulty conclusions?
All birds have beaks, and all birds do various niches, eat >>>>>>>>>> various food, and have various behavior. How you came to conclusions
that birds in the beginning did various niches, ate various food, and
had various behavior, is behind my ability to comprehend. Of course
the first bird occupied only one niche, ate only one kind of food, >>>>>>>>>> and had only one type of behavior. Now, the question is, which one?
Woodpeckers evolved over time special anatomical
adaptations, in the beginning they were very similar to other similar
dinosaurs. I mean, bears emerged from bear-dogs, and didn't occupy >>>>>>>>>> all the niches that today's bears occupy, and probably even didn't >>>>>>>>>> eat honey, or fish, and didn't have today's bear adaptations, thye >>>>>>>>>> looked more like dogs. I mean, you are writing in the paleontology >>>>>>>>>> forum for god's sake, you got to have some basic understandings of >>>>>>>>>> those things. At least.
So, woodpeckers are that way because they are drumming. Or >>>>>>>>>> are they drumming because they are that way? Jesus Christ, the older
you get, the crazier you are.
I believe you are misunderstanding much of what I say. Woodpeckers are
very specialized and so are not a good model for the earliest birds. I
do suspect that many small theropods at mostly insects, but the chance
that they hunted them in a woodpecker-like way is nearly zero. And >>>>>>>>> that's not what beaks, in general, are for. Early birds and small >>>>>>>>> theropods do not have the skeletal features necessary for beating >>>>>>>>> their noses against trees.
I am aware of the specializations that woodpecker have, I just >>>>>>>> don't think that it is necessary to have them early in the game, >>>>>>>> especially while insects are still large. Remember, the idea is that >>>>>>>> those two things, the diminishing of insects and the evolution of >>>>>>>> birds,
are connected. So, at the very beginning you have large insects, and >>>>>>>> birds still not evolved, only peeking into the niche. So, birds >>>>>>>> adapt to
insects, insects adapt to new conditions, to birds eating them. >>>>>>>> First it
goes bird inaugural adaptation, then insect adaptation.
Beaks could initially be adapted to similar things, like
eating
worms from the ground. Ground is softer. So, beaks, here, aren't >>>>>>>> actually crucial for flying. So this doesn't explain lightweight and >>>>>>>> flying, for lightweight and flying you need the second stage, climbing
trees and moving from tree to tree, exactly like flying squirrels do.
While we are at that, they don't need necessary to poke into bark, >>>>>>> initially they could just eat insects that are on trees. There are a lot
of insects up there. Who ate them? It has to be somebody who acquired >>>>>>> light bones, and later moved from tree to tree by flying. But animals >>>>>>> that did that had beaks. So what were those beaks for? It fits with >>>>>>> poking a tree bark.
about breaking it. Feels unlikely that it was case on prehistorc times.
Other benefits (like for example better aerodynamics, convenience of >>>>>> tidying and cleaning feathers) may be bigger pressures to evolve >>>>>> beak than bark of trees.
So, on one hand you have lightweight, flying, on the other hand you >>>>>>> have beaks, on those animals who flew. It can only be for poking tree >>>>>>> bark, this is the connection, those two things are connected. It doesn'tOrder of events might be was flight before beak. Earlier fossils >>>>>> of paravians that did most likely fly (or at least glide) have teeth, >>>>>> not beak yet.
have to be such a radical poking like woodpeckers have, but this is a >>>>>>> connection.
And when they finally learnt to fly, well, this opened a lot of other >>>>>>> possibilities, so those animals spread their niches.
Thanks for the info. In general, this is a competition, you
eat, there is more birds than food, you dig deeper, you are forced to >>>>> dig deeper, and bark is where this additional food is.
insects that hid under tree bark? Nature never ran out of insects of
wide variety and only some species of those live under tree bark.
And only some species can eat those. It isn't point in eating insects,
the point is that weight is deteriorating for climbing, the point is
that for eating insects in bark it is good to have beak. I mean, we do
have examples in today's world, flying squirrels and woodpecker.
Flying squirrels do not have beaks.
Yes, and they don't eat insects. So, this fits. But flying squirrels
climb trees, so they are flying. Now, birds are flying, did they climb
trees? Of course not, because flying squirrels climb trees, and have no beaks, lol.
What
else would you need beak for? Eating fish? No. Eating meat? No.
Scavenging? No. Eating seeds? No.
Why you are fixated on eating? You already ignored "tidying and cleaning feathers" still quoted above.
Because it isn't point in feathers. Remember, dinosaurs have feathers,
yet, they don't have beaks to "tidy and clean" them.
Boy, it cannot be that I am the only one who can add two and two
together. Aren't humans intelligent beings? Of course I know that they aren't, I know that I am not intelligent, and when I look around...
I mean, you can eat fish, meat,
scavenge, eat seeds with beaks too, but you can do all this with teeth
also. I mean, we even have the elongation of fingers, the Aye-Aye style, >> in birds. So, in the beginning they could use finger, then they
developed beaks, so then fingers were used just to cling on trees, and
feathers regrew over the fingers.
You go on and on about eating then suddenly fingers?Ah, only when I am eating in the same time, :) .
Species adapt over hundreds of generations using mutations.You mix up individuals with species. Individuals can't mutate beaks to >>> themselves because of being low on food. Instead when hunting orCompare this situation to my explanation of human kiss. Per my
idea, we ate sea shellfish. You dive for shellfish, but near surface >>>>> shellfish are first to be eaten. Then you have to dive deeper. You can >>>>> go even deeper if your partner (whom you have to trust with your life, >>>>> trust is important thing in human relationships) meet you half way up >>>>> and gives you additional air. So, basically, the principle is, first you
eat all the easily acquired food, but then you are forced to dig deeper.
And also, initially there could be much more food in shallow waters, >>>>> but, hey, you eat this out, you have to adapt for this small additional >>>>> piece.
gathering food takes more energy than you get from eating it then
your population shrinks because of hunger. That lets population of
your food to regrow back so few survivors of your population have
enough of food again.
First, of course, the mutation idea is bogus, mutation is malfunction.
Species adapt. So, when you need more effort to obtain food, you adapt.
Hm, you know how they adapt? The change in genes is the product of adaptation, not the cause. I really don't understand how you are
imagining that? You imagine random mutations? You would need millions of random mutations in order to have a beneficial one. No, evolution isn't
a lottery, and also God doesn't fiddle with genes up from above. Set
your story straight.
So, I would use a lot of energy if I would run after my food standing on >> my arms, upside down. But then I would adapt to stand on my feet.
That is about individual you? The logic has odd premise, can you even
stand on your arms? Can you run on those? Sounds unlikely.
So, the idea that each species has an individual Adam, the origin ofYes there are no individual Adams. Fossil record shows opposite, all
species, a mutant, is completely wrong. We all can adapt, and the ones
who cannot, go extinct.
go extinct, very few adapt.
Who says so? Everybody will die, for god's sake.
I am not talking about bloody mutations at all.I believe that it is you who mixes individualsNo, see above. You talk about mutations and species, then switch to yourself
with species.
running on hands, then about extinction that is again about species.
Most birds do not need to climb around on trees so have droppedHa, ha, there is one interesting thing, squirrels have adaptation to >>>> go up and down the tree. I wouldn't say that birds could go down the >>>> tree that easy, easier would be just to fly off, :) .Gravity is not for free anymore? The nuthatches seem to go down tree
So, the difficult part actually is to go down, :) .
head first like squirrels.
For this you need to have special adaptation, not just every animal
can do that, it has to be adapted for that.
such adaptations.
Yes. Because they are birds. But, for gods sake, they weren't birds
before they became birds. Ever heard of the turtle and rabbit story?
Only after they became birds, they were birds, not before that. The
question is, how they became birds, not what they were doing after they became birds.
On Thursday, 17 August 2023 at 07:46:55 UTC+3, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 17.8.2023. 5:59, oot...@hot.ee wrote:That logic makes no sense, as ancestors of birds did apparently
On Wednesday, 16 August 2023 at 20:56:05 UTC+3, Mario Petrinovic wrote: >>>> On 16.8.2023. 17:34, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 August 2023 at 15:31:52 UTC+3, Mario Petrinovic wrote: >>>>>> On 16.8.2023. 13:40, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
From where you take that first birds were only single specie that ate >>>>> insects that hid under tree bark? Nature never ran out of insects of >>>>> wide variety and only some species of those live under tree bark.On 16.8.2023. 9:18, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 August 2023 at 05:57:46 UTC+3, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 16.8.2023. 4:46, Mario Petrinovic wrote:Most of food isn't under tree bark to this day and so only few birds care
On 16.8.2023. 4:11, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/15/23 5:06 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 16.8.2023. 0:56, John Harshman wrote:
Notice that while all birds have beaks, it's only the woodpeckers >>>>>>>>>>>>> that do the hammering. So it can't be the possession of a beak that
matters for this adaptation. Woodpeckers have a number of special >>>>>>>>>>>>> anatomical adaptations that should be detectable in a theropod >>>>>>>>>>>>> skeleton if the comparison were apt.
And in fact a high proportion of that hammering *is* just for >>>>>>>>>>>>> attracting attention. It's called "drumming".
I really have hard time to understand how somebody can make >>>>>>>>>>>> such faulty conclusions?
All birds have beaks, and all birds do various niches, eat >>>>>>>>>>>> various food, and have various behavior. How you came to conclusions
that birds in the beginning did various niches, ate various food, and
had various behavior, is behind my ability to comprehend. Of course
the first bird occupied only one niche, ate only one kind of food, >>>>>>>>>>>> and had only one type of behavior. Now, the question is, which one?
Woodpeckers evolved over time special anatomical
adaptations, in the beginning they were very similar to other similar
dinosaurs. I mean, bears emerged from bear-dogs, and didn't occupy >>>>>>>>>>>> all the niches that today's bears occupy, and probably even didn't >>>>>>>>>>>> eat honey, or fish, and didn't have today's bear adaptations, thye >>>>>>>>>>>> looked more like dogs. I mean, you are writing in the paleontology >>>>>>>>>>>> forum for god's sake, you got to have some basic understandings of >>>>>>>>>>>> those things. At least.
So, woodpeckers are that way because they are drumming. Or >>>>>>>>>>>> are they drumming because they are that way? Jesus Christ, the older
you get, the crazier you are.
I believe you are misunderstanding much of what I say. Woodpeckers are
very specialized and so are not a good model for the earliest birds. I
do suspect that many small theropods at mostly insects, but the chance
that they hunted them in a woodpecker-like way is nearly zero. And >>>>>>>>>>> that's not what beaks, in general, are for. Early birds and small >>>>>>>>>>> theropods do not have the skeletal features necessary for beating >>>>>>>>>>> their noses against trees.
I am aware of the specializations that woodpecker have, I just >>>>>>>>>> don't think that it is necessary to have them early in the game, >>>>>>>>>> especially while insects are still large. Remember, the idea is that >>>>>>>>>> those two things, the diminishing of insects and the evolution of >>>>>>>>>> birds,
are connected. So, at the very beginning you have large insects, and >>>>>>>>>> birds still not evolved, only peeking into the niche. So, birds >>>>>>>>>> adapt to
insects, insects adapt to new conditions, to birds eating them. >>>>>>>>>> First it
goes bird inaugural adaptation, then insect adaptation.
Beaks could initially be adapted to similar things, like
eating
worms from the ground. Ground is softer. So, beaks, here, aren't >>>>>>>>>> actually crucial for flying. So this doesn't explain lightweight and >>>>>>>>>> flying, for lightweight and flying you need the second stage, climbing
trees and moving from tree to tree, exactly like flying squirrels do.
While we are at that, they don't need necessary to poke into bark, >>>>>>>>> initially they could just eat insects that are on trees. There are a lot
of insects up there. Who ate them? It has to be somebody who acquired >>>>>>>>> light bones, and later moved from tree to tree by flying. But animals >>>>>>>>> that did that had beaks. So what were those beaks for? It fits with >>>>>>>>> poking a tree bark.
about breaking it. Feels unlikely that it was case on prehistorc times.
Other benefits (like for example better aerodynamics, convenience of >>>>>>>> tidying and cleaning feathers) may be bigger pressures to evolve >>>>>>>> beak than bark of trees.
So, on one hand you have lightweight, flying, on the other hand you >>>>>>>>> have beaks, on those animals who flew. It can only be for poking tree >>>>>>>>> bark, this is the connection, those two things are connected. It doesn'tOrder of events might be was flight before beak. Earlier fossils >>>>>>>> of paravians that did most likely fly (or at least glide) have teeth, >>>>>>>> not beak yet.
have to be such a radical poking like woodpeckers have, but this is a >>>>>>>>> connection.
And when they finally learnt to fly, well, this opened a lot of other >>>>>>>>> possibilities, so those animals spread their niches.
Thanks for the info. In general, this is a competition, you
eat, there is more birds than food, you dig deeper, you are forced to >>>>>>> dig deeper, and bark is where this additional food is.
And only some species can eat those. It isn't point in eating insects, >>>> the point is that weight is deteriorating for climbing, the point is
that for eating insects in bark it is good to have beak. I mean, we do >>>> have examples in today's world, flying squirrels and woodpecker.
Flying squirrels do not have beaks.
Yes, and they don't eat insects. So, this fits. But flying squirrels
climb trees, so they are flying. Now, birds are flying, did they climb
trees? Of course not, because flying squirrels climb trees, and have no
beaks, lol.
climb trees.
The dinosaurs do not fly so do not need the feathers to be preciselyWhat
else would you need beak for? Eating fish? No. Eating meat? No.
Scavenging? No. Eating seeds? No.
Why you are fixated on eating? You already ignored "tidying and cleaning >>> feathers" still quoted above.
Because it isn't point in feathers. Remember, dinosaurs have feathers,
yet, they don't have beaks to "tidy and clean" them.
and frequently maintained. Aircraft also need more frequent overview
and maintenance than cars.
Boy, it cannot be that I am the only one who can add two and twoYou oversimplify flight as task, maybe because you do not fly, and so
together. Aren't humans intelligent beings? Of course I know that they
aren't, I know that I am not intelligent, and when I look around...
ignore maintenance of feathers as issue.
The mutations are random and the effect is small, the distribution of that randomness is not uniform over genome. One who got slight advantageAh, only when I am eating in the same time, :) .I mean, you can eat fish, meat,
scavenge, eat seeds with beaks too, but you can do all this with teeth >>>> also. I mean, we even have the elongation of fingers, the Aye-Aye style, >>>> in birds. So, in the beginning they could use finger, then they
developed beaks, so then fingers were used just to cling on trees, and >>>> feathers regrew over the fingers.
You go on and on about eating then suddenly fingers?
Species adapt over hundreds of generations using mutations.You mix up individuals with species. Individuals can't mutate beaks to >>>>> themselves because of being low on food. Instead when hunting orCompare this situation to my explanation of human kiss. Per my
idea, we ate sea shellfish. You dive for shellfish, but near surface >>>>>>> shellfish are first to be eaten. Then you have to dive deeper. You can >>>>>>> go even deeper if your partner (whom you have to trust with your life, >>>>>>> trust is important thing in human relationships) meet you half way up >>>>>>> and gives you additional air. So, basically, the principle is, first you
eat all the easily acquired food, but then you are forced to dig deeper.
And also, initially there could be much more food in shallow waters, >>>>>>> but, hey, you eat this out, you have to adapt for this small additional >>>>>>> piece.
gathering food takes more energy than you get from eating it then
your population shrinks because of hunger. That lets population of
your food to regrow back so few survivors of your population have
enough of food again.
First, of course, the mutation idea is bogus, mutation is malfunction. >>>> Species adapt. So, when you need more effort to obtain food, you adapt. >>>>
Hm, you know how they adapt? The change in genes is the product of
adaptation, not the cause. I really don't understand how you are
imagining that? You imagine random mutations? You would need millions of
random mutations in order to have a beneficial one. No, evolution isn't
a lottery, and also God doesn't fiddle with genes up from above. Set
your story straight.
in senses tries to use it and other who got slight advantage in speed
tries to use that. Yes it takes lot of generations to evolve, there are no way to just adapt your genes.
Again you mix death (individual) and extinction (specie) up. StopSo, I would use a lot of energy if I would run after my food standing on >>>> my arms, upside down. But then I would adapt to stand on my feet.That is about individual you? The logic has odd premise, can you even
stand on your arms? Can you run on those? Sounds unlikely.
So, the idea that each species has an individual Adam, the origin ofYes there are no individual Adams. Fossil record shows opposite, all
species, a mutant, is completely wrong. We all can adapt, and the ones >>>> who cannot, go extinct.
go extinct, very few adapt.
Who says so? Everybody will die, for god's sake.
conflating those then it is easier to reason.
I am not talking about bloody mutations at all.I believe that it is you who mixes individualsNo, see above. You talk about mutations and species, then switch to yourself
with species.
running on hands, then about extinction that is again about species.
Most birds do not need to climb around on trees so have droppedHa, ha, there is one interesting thing, squirrels have adaptation to >>>>>> go up and down the tree. I wouldn't say that birds could go down the >>>>>> tree that easy, easier would be just to fly off, :) .Gravity is not for free anymore? The nuthatches seem to go down tree >>>>> head first like squirrels.
So, the difficult part actually is to go down, :) .
For this you need to have special adaptation, not just every animal
can do that, it has to be adapted for that.
such adaptations.
Yes. Because they are birds. But, for gods sake, they weren't birds
before they became birds. Ever heard of the turtle and rabbit story?
Only after they became birds, they were birds, not before that. The
question is, how they became birds, not what they were doing after they
became birds.
Fossil record shows that they did climb trees before flying and did
fly before having beaks.
On Thursday, 17 August 2023 at 07:46:55 UTC+3, Mario Petrinovic wrote:There is no way you can keep up with Mario's mercurial imagination. There's also little reason
On 17.8.2023. 5:59, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 August 2023 at 20:56:05 UTC+3, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 16.8.2023. 17:34, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 August 2023 at 15:31:52 UTC+3, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 16.8.2023. 13:40, Mario Petrinovic wrote:From where you take that first birds were only single specie that ate >>> insects that hid under tree bark? Nature never ran out of insects of >>> wide variety and only some species of those live under tree bark.
On 16.8.2023. 9:18, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 August 2023 at 05:57:46 UTC+3, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 16.8.2023. 4:46, Mario Petrinovic wrote:Most of food isn't under tree bark to this day and so only few birds care
On 16.8.2023. 4:11, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/15/23 5:06 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 16.8.2023. 0:56, John Harshman wrote:
Notice that while all birds have beaks, it's only the woodpeckers
that do the hammering. So it can't be the possession of a beak that
matters for this adaptation. Woodpeckers have a number of special
anatomical adaptations that should be detectable in a theropod >>>>>>>>>>> skeleton if the comparison were apt.
And in fact a high proportion of that hammering *is* just for >>>>>>>>>>> attracting attention. It's called "drumming".
I really have hard time to understand how somebody can make >>>>>>>>>> such faulty conclusions?
All birds have beaks, and all birds do various niches, eat >>>>>>>>>> various food, and have various behavior. How you came to conclusions
that birds in the beginning did various niches, ate various food, and
had various behavior, is behind my ability to comprehend. Of course
the first bird occupied only one niche, ate only one kind of food,
and had only one type of behavior. Now, the question is, which one?
Woodpeckers evolved over time special anatomical
adaptations, in the beginning they were very similar to other similar
dinosaurs. I mean, bears emerged from bear-dogs, and didn't occupy
all the niches that today's bears occupy, and probably even didn't
eat honey, or fish, and didn't have today's bear adaptations, thye
looked more like dogs. I mean, you are writing in the paleontology
forum for god's sake, you got to have some basic understandings of
those things. At least.
So, woodpeckers are that way because they are drumming. Or >>>>>>>>>> are they drumming because they are that way? Jesus Christ, the older
you get, the crazier you are.
I believe you are misunderstanding much of what I say. Woodpeckers are
very specialized and so are not a good model for the earliest birds. I
do suspect that many small theropods at mostly insects, but the chance
that they hunted them in a woodpecker-like way is nearly zero. And
that's not what beaks, in general, are for. Early birds and small
theropods do not have the skeletal features necessary for beating
their noses against trees.
I am aware of the specializations that woodpecker have, I just >>>>>>>> don't think that it is necessary to have them early in the game, >>>>>>>> especially while insects are still large. Remember, the idea is that
those two things, the diminishing of insects and the evolution of >>>>>>>> birds,
are connected. So, at the very beginning you have large insects, and
birds still not evolved, only peeking into the niche. So, birds >>>>>>>> adapt to
insects, insects adapt to new conditions, to birds eating them. >>>>>>>> First it
goes bird inaugural adaptation, then insect adaptation.
Beaks could initially be adapted to similar things, like
eating
worms from the ground. Ground is softer. So, beaks, here, aren't >>>>>>>> actually crucial for flying. So this doesn't explain lightweight and
flying, for lightweight and flying you need the second stage, climbing
trees and moving from tree to tree, exactly like flying squirrels do.
While we are at that, they don't need necessary to poke into bark, >>>>>>> initially they could just eat insects that are on trees. There are a lot
of insects up there. Who ate them? It has to be somebody who acquired
light bones, and later moved from tree to tree by flying. But animals
that did that had beaks. So what were those beaks for? It fits with
poking a tree bark.
about breaking it. Feels unlikely that it was case on prehistorc times.
Other benefits (like for example better aerodynamics, convenience of
tidying and cleaning feathers) may be bigger pressures to evolve >>>>>> beak than bark of trees.
So, on one hand you have lightweight, flying, on the other hand youOrder of events might be was flight before beak. Earlier fossils >>>>>> of paravians that did most likely fly (or at least glide) have teeth,
have beaks, on those animals who flew. It can only be for poking tree
bark, this is the connection, those two things are connected. It doesn't
have to be such a radical poking like woodpeckers have, but this is a
connection.
And when they finally learnt to fly, well, this opened a lot of other
possibilities, so those animals spread their niches.
not beak yet.
Thanks for the info. In general, this is a competition, you
eat, there is more birds than food, you dig deeper, you are forced to
dig deeper, and bark is where this additional food is.
And only some species can eat those. It isn't point in eating insects, >> the point is that weight is deteriorating for climbing, the point is
that for eating insects in bark it is good to have beak. I mean, we do >> have examples in today's world, flying squirrels and woodpecker.
Flying squirrels do not have beaks.
Yes, and they don't eat insects. So, this fits. But flying squirrels
climb trees, so they are flying. Now, birds are flying, did they climb trees? Of course not, because flying squirrels climb trees, and have no beaks, lol.
That logic makes no sense, as ancestors of birds did apparently
climb trees.
What
else would you need beak for? Eating fish? No. Eating meat? No.
Scavenging? No. Eating seeds? No.
Why you are fixated on eating? You already ignored "tidying and cleaning feathers" still quoted above.
Because it isn't point in feathers. Remember, dinosaurs have feathers, yet, they don't have beaks to "tidy and clean" them.
The dinosaurs do not fly so do not need the feathers to be precisely
and frequently maintained. Aircraft also need more frequent overview
and maintenance than cars.
Boy, it cannot be that I am the only one who can add two and two
together. Aren't humans intelligent beings? Of course I know that they aren't, I know that I am not intelligent, and when I look around...
You oversimplify flight as task, maybe because you do not fly, and so
ignore maintenance of feathers as issue.
I mean, you can eat fish, meat,
scavenge, eat seeds with beaks too, but you can do all this with teeth >> also. I mean, we even have the elongation of fingers, the Aye-Aye style,
in birds. So, in the beginning they could use finger, then they
developed beaks, so then fingers were used just to cling on trees, and >> feathers regrew over the fingers.
You go on and on about eating then suddenly fingers?Ah, only when I am eating in the same time, :) .
Species adapt over hundreds of generations using mutations.You mix up individuals with species. Individuals can't mutate beaks to >>> themselves because of being low on food. Instead when hunting orCompare this situation to my explanation of human kiss. Per my
idea, we ate sea shellfish. You dive for shellfish, but near surface >>>>> shellfish are first to be eaten. Then you have to dive deeper. You can
go even deeper if your partner (whom you have to trust with your life,
trust is important thing in human relationships) meet you half way up
and gives you additional air. So, basically, the principle is, first you
eat all the easily acquired food, but then you are forced to dig deeper.
And also, initially there could be much more food in shallow waters, >>>>> but, hey, you eat this out, you have to adapt for this small additional
piece.
gathering food takes more energy than you get from eating it then
your population shrinks because of hunger. That lets population of
your food to regrow back so few survivors of your population have
enough of food again.
First, of course, the mutation idea is bogus, mutation is malfunction. >> Species adapt. So, when you need more effort to obtain food, you adapt. >>
Hm, you know how they adapt? The change in genes is the product of adaptation, not the cause. I really don't understand how you are
imagining that? You imagine random mutations? You would need millions of random mutations in order to have a beneficial one. No, evolution isn't
a lottery, and also God doesn't fiddle with genes up from above. Set
your story straight.
The mutations are random and the effect is small, the distribution of that randomness is not uniform over genome. One who got slight advantage
in senses tries to use it and other who got slight advantage in speed
tries to use that. Yes it takes lot of generations to evolve, there are no way to just adapt your genes.
So, I would use a lot of energy if I would run after my food standing on
my arms, upside down. But then I would adapt to stand on my feet.
That is about individual you? The logic has odd premise, can you even stand on your arms? Can you run on those? Sounds unlikely.
So, the idea that each species has an individual Adam, the origin ofYes there are no individual Adams. Fossil record shows opposite, all
species, a mutant, is completely wrong. We all can adapt, and the ones >> who cannot, go extinct.
go extinct, very few adapt.
Who says so? Everybody will die, for god's sake.
Again you mix death (individual) and extinction (specie) up. Stop
conflating those then it is easier to reason.
I am not talking about bloody mutations at all.I believe that it is you who mixes individualsNo, see above. You talk about mutations and species, then switch to yourself
with species.
running on hands, then about extinction that is again about species.
Most birds do not need to climb around on trees so have droppedHa, ha, there is one interesting thing, squirrels have adaptation to >>>> go up and down the tree. I wouldn't say that birds could go down the >>>> tree that easy, easier would be just to fly off, :) .Gravity is not for free anymore? The nuthatches seem to go down tree >>> head first like squirrels.
So, the difficult part actually is to go down, :) .
For this you need to have special adaptation, not just every animal
can do that, it has to be adapted for that.
such adaptations.
Yes. Because they are birds. But, for gods sake, they weren't birdsFossil record shows that they did climb trees before flying and did
before they became birds. Ever heard of the turtle and rabbit story?
Only after they became birds, they were birds, not before that. The question is, how they became birds, not what they were doing after they became birds.
fly before having beaks.
There is no way you can keep up with Mario's mercurial imagination. There's also little reason
to try.
On 17.8.2023. 17:27, erik simpson wrote:
There is no way you can keep up with Mario's mercurial imagination.
There's also little reason
to try.
It is called 'argumentation', not '"imagination". See how many
solid arguments, based in reality, I have. If you compare this to the
other theory, that beaks evolved so that birds can groom themselves,
that is possible, but it is based on the imaginary need for feathers to
be tidy, which can only be accomplished by grooming. It is alright, but
you don't change your chewing apparatus for that. If you needed some
hard point, you would develop it on the top of your nose, you will not
change your mouth. For example, humans developed cartilage (of course I
know why). So, a lot of things are possible, but not a lot of things are plausible (I heard that there is some English expression about that, but
I couldn't find it, :) ).
On 17.8.2023. 20:16, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 17.8.2023. 17:27, erik simpson wrote:
There is no way you can keep up with Mario's mercurial imagination.
There's also little reason
to try.
It is called 'argumentation', not '"imagination". See how many solid arguments, based in reality, I have. If you compare this to the
other theory, that beaks evolved so that birds can groom themselves,
that is possible, but it is based on the imaginary need for feathers to
be tidy, which can only be accomplished by grooming. It is alright, but
you don't change your chewing apparatus for that. If you needed some
hard point, you would develop it on the top of your nose, you will not change your mouth. For example, humans developed cartilage (of course I know why). So, a lot of things are possible, but not a lot of things are plausible (I heard that there is some English expression about that, but
I couldn't find it, :) ).
Actually, I see animals groom with their teeth. And actually, I could
even say that teeth would be better for grooming than beak. It is like
eating with fork, versus using Japanese sticks. So this whole theory is actually hanging in the air, there is nothing solid behind it. This
theory is postulated out of desperation, because author couldn't think
of anything better, so he started to postulate his own imaginary things.
On the other hand, my their is solidly anchored in reality, it relies on
real things, not imaginary, things that exist already in nature.
On Friday, 18 August 2023 at 08:32:44 UTC+3, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 17.8.2023. 20:16, Mario Petrinovic wrote:I nowhere claimed that grooming is sole improvement of rostrum compared
On 17.8.2023. 17:27, erik simpson wrote:
There is no way you can keep up with Mario's mercurial imagination.
There's also little reason
to try.
It is called 'argumentation', not '"imagination". See how many
solid arguments, based in reality, I have. If you compare this to the
other theory, that beaks evolved so that birds can groom themselves,
that is possible, but it is based on the imaginary need for feathers to
be tidy, which can only be accomplished by grooming. It is alright, but
you don't change your chewing apparatus for that. If you needed some
hard point, you would develop it on the top of your nose, you will not
change your mouth. For example, humans developed cartilage (of course I
know why). So, a lot of things are possible, but not a lot of things are >>> plausible (I heard that there is some English expression about that, but >>> I couldn't find it, :) ).
Actually, I see animals groom with their teeth. And actually, I could
even say that teeth would be better for grooming than beak. It is like
eating with fork, versus using Japanese sticks. So this whole theory is
actually hanging in the air, there is nothing solid behind it. This
theory is postulated out of desperation, because author couldn't think
of anything better, so he started to postulate his own imaginary things.
On the other hand, my their is solidly anchored in reality, it relies on
real things, not imaginary, things that exist already in nature.
to nostrum. Beak has evolved on lot of animals (not only birds). These animals do not preen nor deal with tree bark using it, but it is efficient for
several other things too.
However vast majority of birds have preen gland. It is probably possible but quite inconvenient to oil feathers with teeth, so I said that on case of birds it
is one of more likely pressures compared to need of breaking tree bark.
Just try to read bit more what was actually written, not only here but from books too, ask when you do not understand relevance, imagine bit
less ... and it'll be fine.
On 18.8.2023. 8:49, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
On Friday, 18 August 2023 at 08:32:44 UTC+3, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 17.8.2023. 20:16, Mario Petrinovic wrote:I nowhere claimed that grooming is sole improvement of rostrum compared
On 17.8.2023. 17:27, erik simpson wrote:
There is no way you can keep up with Mario's mercurial imagination.
There's also little reason
to try.
It is called 'argumentation', not '"imagination". See how many
solid arguments, based in reality, I have. If you compare this to the
other theory, that beaks evolved so that birds can groom themselves,
that is possible, but it is based on the imaginary need for feathers to >>> be tidy, which can only be accomplished by grooming. It is alright, but >>> you don't change your chewing apparatus for that. If you needed some
hard point, you would develop it on the top of your nose, you will not >>> change your mouth. For example, humans developed cartilage (of course I >>> know why). So, a lot of things are possible, but not a lot of things are >>> plausible (I heard that there is some English expression about that, but >>> I couldn't find it, :) ).
Actually, I see animals groom with their teeth. And actually, I could
even say that teeth would be better for grooming than beak. It is like
eating with fork, versus using Japanese sticks. So this whole theory is
actually hanging in the air, there is nothing solid behind it. This
theory is postulated out of desperation, because author couldn't think
of anything better, so he started to postulate his own imaginary things. >> On the other hand, my their is solidly anchored in reality, it relies on >> real things, not imaginary, things that exist already in nature.
to nostrum. Beak has evolved on lot of animals (not only birds). These animals do not preen nor deal with tree bark using it, but it is efficient for
several other things too.
However vast majority of birds have preen gland. It is probably possible but
quite inconvenient to oil feathers with teeth, so I said that on case of birds it
is one of more likely pressures compared to need of breaking tree bark. Just try to read bit more what was actually written, not only here but from books too, ask when you do not understand relevance, imagine bit
less ... and it'll be fine.
How about understanding things, as opposed to copy/paste from books?
People try to prove that books are right, by citing books. No, you have
a problem, use your brain, not books.
Of course, knowledge is very
important. But, it somehow shows that you cannot have both, knowledge
and working brain, if brain memorizes knowledge, it doesn't work. Or, at least, it works in a biased manner, it is biased towards the knowledge
it has, and this can be deteriorating in a situations when knowledge has nothing to do with the solution.
What's wrong with tongue? Lizards have long tongue, tongue is just
perfect for those kind of operations. Much better than rigid beak. Yes I
am ignorant, but don't animals lick their young for the same purpose?
On Wednesday, 16 August 2023 at 15:31:52 UTC+3, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 16.8.2023. 13:40, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
Compare this situation to my explanation of human kiss. Per my
idea, we ate sea shellfish. You dive for shellfish, but near surface shellfish are first to be eaten. Then you have to dive deeper. You can go even deeper if your partner (whom you have to trust with your life, trust is important thing in human relationships) meet you half way up and gives you additional air. So, basically, the principle is, first you eat all the easily acquired food, but then you are forced to dig deeper. And also, initially there could be much more food in shallow waters, but, hey, you eat this out, you have to adapt for this small additional piece.
You mix up individuals with species. Individuals can't mutate beaks to themselves because of being low on food. Instead when hunting or
gathering food takes more energy than you get from eating it then
your population shrinks because of hunger. That lets population of
your food to regrow back so few survivors of your population have
enough of food again.
Ha, ha, there is one interesting thing, squirrels have adaptation to
go up and down the tree. I wouldn't say that birds could go down the
tree that easy, easier would be just to fly off, :) .
So, the difficult part actually is to go down, :) .
Gravity is not for free anymore? The nuthatches seem to go down tree
head first like squirrels.
On 16.8.2023. 0:56, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/15/23 2:08 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 2:55:14 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
It's not the beak that lets woodpeckers dig into bark.
So all that hammering on trees is just for attracting attention???
Notice that while all birds have beaks, it's only the woodpeckers that
do the hammering. So it can't be the possession of a beak that matters
for this adaptation. Woodpeckers have a number of special anatomical adaptations that should be detectable in a theropod skeleton if the comparison were apt.
And in fact a high proportion of that hammering *is* just for attracting attention. It's called "drumming".
I really have hard time to understand how somebody can make such
faulty conclusions?
All birds have beaks, and all birds do various niches, eat various
food, and have various behavior. How you came to conclusions that birds
in the beginning did various niches, ate various food, and had various behavior, is behind my ability to comprehend.
Of course the first bird
occupied only one niche, ate only one kind of food, and had only one
type of behavior. Now, the question is, which one?
Woodpeckers evolved over time special anatomical adaptations, in the beginning they were very similar to other similar dinosaurs. I mean,
bears emerged from bear-dogs, and didn't occupy all the niches that
today's bears occupy, and probably even didn't eat honey, or fish, and didn't have today's bear adaptations, thye looked more like dogs. I
mean, you are writing in the paleontology forum for god's sake, you got
to have some basic understandings of those things. At least.
So, woodpeckers are that way because they are drumming. Or are they
drumming because they are that way? Jesus Christ, the older you get, the crazier you are.
On Friday, 18 August 2023 at 11:21:46 UTC+3, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 18.8.2023. 8:49, oot...@hot.ee wrote:Use both. If you use only one you are doomed to fail. It is not new idea. Confucius lived circa 2500 years ago: "He who learns but does not think,
On Friday, 18 August 2023 at 08:32:44 UTC+3, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 17.8.2023. 20:16, Mario Petrinovic wrote:I nowhere claimed that grooming is sole improvement of rostrum compared
On 17.8.2023. 17:27, erik simpson wrote:
There is no way you can keep up with Mario's mercurial imagination. >>>>>> There's also little reason
to try.
It is called 'argumentation', not '"imagination". See how many
solid arguments, based in reality, I have. If you compare this to the >>>>> other theory, that beaks evolved so that birds can groom themselves, >>>>> that is possible, but it is based on the imaginary need for feathers to >>>>> be tidy, which can only be accomplished by grooming. It is alright, but >>>>> you don't change your chewing apparatus for that. If you needed some >>>>> hard point, you would develop it on the top of your nose, you will not >>>>> change your mouth. For example, humans developed cartilage (of course I >>>>> know why). So, a lot of things are possible, but not a lot of things are >>>>> plausible (I heard that there is some English expression about that, but >>>>> I couldn't find it, :) ).
Actually, I see animals groom with their teeth. And actually, I could
even say that teeth would be better for grooming than beak. It is like >>>> eating with fork, versus using Japanese sticks. So this whole theory is >>>> actually hanging in the air, there is nothing solid behind it. This
theory is postulated out of desperation, because author couldn't think >>>> of anything better, so he started to postulate his own imaginary things. >>>> On the other hand, my their is solidly anchored in reality, it relies on >>>> real things, not imaginary, things that exist already in nature.
to nostrum. Beak has evolved on lot of animals (not only birds). These
animals do not preen nor deal with tree bark using it, but it is efficient for
several other things too.
However vast majority of birds have preen gland. It is probably possible but
quite inconvenient to oil feathers with teeth, so I said that on case of birds it
is one of more likely pressures compared to need of breaking tree bark.
Just try to read bit more what was actually written, not only here but from >>> books too, ask when you do not understand relevance, imagine bit
less ... and it'll be fine.
How about understanding things, as opposed to copy/paste from books?
People try to prove that books are right, by citing books. No, you have
a problem, use your brain, not books.
is lost. He who thinks but does not learn is in great danger."
Of course, knowledge is veryThere are no such dichotomy. From where you took it? On the contrary.
important. But, it somehow shows that you cannot have both, knowledge
and working brain, if brain memorizes knowledge, it doesn't work. Or, at
least, it works in a biased manner, it is biased towards the knowledge
it has, and this can be deteriorating in a situations when knowledge has
nothing to do with the solution.
The bigger your knowledge the easier it is to reason as logic works by
same rules everywhere.
Birds being winners is fact as their population is massive compared to
bats or flying squirrels. That study says between 200 to 400 billions: <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1018341530497>
What's wrong with tongue? Lizards have long tongue, tongue is justAre you claiming that birds do not have tongue? Animals help youth with
perfect for those kind of operations. Much better than rigid beak. Yes I
am ignorant, but don't animals lick their young for the same purpose?
basic hygiene. Animal youth is incompetent to deal with it yet. But they do not fly around potentially in rain using their fur. Birds spend great deal of time maintaining their feathers. It is not just basic hygiene. Read up on preening, what is done and why, then show how it is better to do with tip
of nose, teeth or even with tongue alone.
On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 11:34:08 AM UTC-4, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 August 2023 at 15:31:52 UTC+3, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 16.8.2023. 13:40, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
Compare this situation to my explanation of human kiss. Per my
idea, we ate sea shellfish. You dive for shellfish, but near surface
shellfish are first to be eaten. Then you have to dive deeper. You can >>>> go even deeper if your partner (whom you have to trust with your life, >>>> trust is important thing in human relationships) meet you half way up
and gives you additional air. So, basically, the principle is, first you >>>> eat all the easily acquired food, but then you are forced to dig deeper. >>>> And also, initially there could be much more food in shallow waters,
but, hey, you eat this out, you have to adapt for this small additional >>>> piece.
Here, Mario was mixing evolution of social behavior with biological evolution.
But he did give the basic underlying principle well.
You mix up individuals with species. Individuals can't mutate beaks to
themselves because of being low on food. Instead when hunting or
gathering food takes more energy than you get from eating it then
your population shrinks because of hunger. That lets population of
your food to regrow back so few survivors of your population have
enough of food again.
You are mixing year-to-year population dynamics with long-term evolution.
As beaks start to develop through mutations, they give an added
advantage to the birds that have bigger ones.
Ha, ha, there is one interesting thing, squirrels have adaptation toGravity is not for free anymore? The nuthatches seem to go down tree
go up and down the tree. I wouldn't say that birds could go down the
tree that easy, easier would be just to fly off, :) .
So, the difficult part actually is to go down, :) .
head first like squirrels.
It takes special anatomy, and not all birds have it. Similarly, as you probably know,
cats cannot go down trees headfirst because they cannot turn their hind legs around as well as squirrels can.
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 8:06:40 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 16.8.2023. 0:56, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/15/23 2:08 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 2:55:14 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
It's not the beak that lets woodpeckers dig into bark.
So all that hammering on trees is just for attracting attention???
Notice that while all birds have beaks, it's only the woodpeckers that
do the hammering. So it can't be the possession of a beak that matters
for this adaptation. Woodpeckers have a number of special anatomical
adaptations that should be detectable in a theropod skeleton if the
comparison were apt.
And in fact a high proportion of that hammering *is* just for attracting >>> attention. It's called "drumming".
I really have hard time to understand how somebody can make such
faulty conclusions?
It would be a lot harder, if not impossible, if you had not deleted
a really stupid comment by Harshman, which I have restored.
Notice how he completely changed the subject and then
said something that indirectly revealed that what he had claimed earlier
was indeed an abysmally stupid comment.
All birds have beaks, and all birds do various niches, eat various
food, and have various behavior. How you came to conclusions that birds
in the beginning did various niches, ate various food, and had various
behavior, is behind my ability to comprehend.
Instead of nailing Harshman on his stupidity and his attempt to wiggle out of it,
you say something that doesn't fit anything he had said earlier.
Maybe you wouldn't make such mistakes if you slowed down to about
half as many posts per day as you do now, and spread out over
more than one thread. Next week I'll be starting a thread on pterosaurs,
so if you are interested in them, you can talk about them on the same days you talk about birds.
> Of course the first bird
occupied only one niche, ate only one kind of food, and had only one
type of behavior. Now, the question is, which one?
Woodpeckers evolved over time special anatomical adaptations, in the
beginning they were very similar to other similar dinosaurs. I mean,
bears emerged from bear-dogs, and didn't occupy all the niches that
today's bears occupy, and probably even didn't eat honey, or fish, and
didn't have today's bear adaptations, thye looked more like dogs. I
mean, you are writing in the paleontology forum for god's sake, you got
to have some basic understandings of those things. At least.
So, woodpeckers are that way because they are drumming. Or are they
drumming because they are that way? Jesus Christ, the older you get, the
crazier you are.
If you had not hurried so much through this paragraph, you might
have realized that you aren't referring to anything Harshman explicitly wrote.
Just think of how you could have been even more critical
of what he actually did write!
On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 11:34:08 AM UTC-4, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 August 2023 at 15:31:52 UTC+3, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 16.8.2023. 13:40, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
Compare this situation to my explanation of human kiss. Per my
idea, we ate sea shellfish. You dive for shellfish, but near surface
shellfish are first to be eaten. Then you have to dive deeper. You can >>>> go even deeper if your partner (whom you have to trust with your life, >>>> trust is important thing in human relationships) meet you half way up
and gives you additional air. So, basically, the principle is, first you >>>> eat all the easily acquired food, but then you are forced to dig deeper. >>>> And also, initially there could be much more food in shallow waters,
but, hey, you eat this out, you have to adapt for this small additional >>>> piece.
Here, Mario was mixing evolution of social behavior with biological evolution.
But he did give the basic underlying principle well.
You mix up individuals with species. Individuals can't mutate beaks to
themselves because of being low on food. Instead when hunting or
gathering food takes more energy than you get from eating it then
your population shrinks because of hunger. That lets population of
your food to regrow back so few survivors of your population have
enough of food again.
You are mixing year-to-year population dynamics with long-term evolution.
As beaks start to develop through mutations, they give an added
advantage to the birds that have bigger ones.
Ha, ha, there is one interesting thing, squirrels have adaptation toGravity is not for free anymore? The nuthatches seem to go down tree
go up and down the tree. I wouldn't say that birds could go down the
tree that easy, easier would be just to fly off, :) .
So, the difficult part actually is to go down, :) .
head first like squirrels.
It takes special anatomy, and not all birds have it. Similarly, as you probably know,
cats cannot go down trees headfirst because they cannot turn their hind legs around as well as squirrels can.
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 8:06:40 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 16.8.2023. 0:56, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/15/23 2:08 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 2:55:14 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
It's not the beak that lets woodpeckers dig into bark.
So all that hammering on trees is just for attracting attention???
Notice that while all birds have beaks, it's only the woodpeckers that
do the hammering. So it can't be the possession of a beak that matters
for this adaptation. Woodpeckers have a number of special anatomical
adaptations that should be detectable in a theropod skeleton if the
comparison were apt.
And in fact a high proportion of that hammering *is* just for attracting >>> attention. It's called "drumming".
I really have hard time to understand how somebody can make such
faulty conclusions?
It would be a lot harder, if not impossible, if you had not deleted
a really stupid comment by Harshman, which I have restored.
Notice how he completely changed the subject and then
said something that indirectly revealed that what he had claimed earlier
was indeed an abysmally stupid comment.
All birds have beaks, and all birds do various niches, eat various
food, and have various behavior. How you came to conclusions that birds
in the beginning did various niches, ate various food, and had various
behavior, is behind my ability to comprehend.
Instead of nailing Harshman on his stupidity and his attempt to wiggle out of it,
you say something that doesn't fit anything he had said earlier.
Maybe you wouldn't make such mistakes if you slowed down to about
half as many posts per day as you do now, and spread out over
more than one thread. Next week I'll be starting a thread on pterosaurs,
so if you are interested in them, you can talk about them on the same days you talk about birds.
> Of course the first bird
occupied only one niche, ate only one kind of food, and had only one
type of behavior. Now, the question is, which one?
Woodpeckers evolved over time special anatomical adaptations, in the
beginning they were very similar to other similar dinosaurs. I mean,
bears emerged from bear-dogs, and didn't occupy all the niches that
today's bears occupy, and probably even didn't eat honey, or fish, and
didn't have today's bear adaptations, thye looked more like dogs. I
mean, you are writing in the paleontology forum for god's sake, you got
to have some basic understandings of those things. At least.
So, woodpeckers are that way because they are drumming. Or are they
drumming because they are that way? Jesus Christ, the older you get, the
crazier you are.
If you had not hurried so much through this paragraph, you might
have realized that you aren't referring to anything Harshman explicitly wrote.
Just think of how you could have been even more critical
of what he actually did write!
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 6:50:34 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/18/23 1:40 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 8:06:40 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote: >>>> On 16.8.2023. 0:56, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/15/23 2:08 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 2:55:14 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>
It's not the beak that lets woodpeckers dig into bark.
So all that hammering on trees is just for attracting attention???
Notice that while all birds have beaks, it's only the woodpeckers that >>>>> do the hammering. So it can't be the possession of a beak that matters >>>>> for this adaptation. Woodpeckers have a number of special anatomical >>>>> adaptations that should be detectable in a theropod skeleton if the
comparison were apt.
And in fact a high proportion of that hammering *is* just for attracting >>>>> attention. It's called "drumming".
I really have hard time to understand how somebody can make such
faulty conclusions?
It would be a lot harder, if not impossible, if you had not deleted
a really stupid comment by Harshman, which I have restored.
Notice how he completely changed the subject and then
said something that indirectly revealed that what he had claimed earlier >>> was indeed an abysmally stupid comment.
All birds have beaks, and all birds do various niches, eat various
food, and have various behavior. How you came to conclusions that birds >>>> in the beginning did various niches, ate various food, and had various >>>> behavior, is behind my ability to comprehend.
Instead of nailing Harshman on his stupidity and his attempt to wiggle out of it,
you say something that doesn't fit anything he had said earlier.
Maybe you wouldn't make such mistakes if you slowed down to about
half as many posts per day as you do now, and spread out over
more than one thread. Next week I'll be starting a thread on pterosaurs, >>> so if you are interested in them, you can talk about them on the same days >>> you talk about birds.
Of course the first bird
occupied only one niche, ate only one kind of food, and had only one
type of behavior. Now, the question is, which one?
Woodpeckers evolved over time special anatomical adaptations, in the
beginning they were very similar to other similar dinosaurs. I mean,
bears emerged from bear-dogs, and didn't occupy all the niches that
today's bears occupy, and probably even didn't eat honey, or fish, and >>>> didn't have today's bear adaptations, thye looked more like dogs. I
mean, you are writing in the paleontology forum for god's sake, you got >>>> to have some basic understandings of those things. At least.
So, woodpeckers are that way because they are drumming. Or are they
drumming because they are that way? Jesus Christ, the older you get, the >>>> crazier you are.
If you had not hurried so much through this paragraph, you might
have realized that you aren't referring to anything Harshman explicitly wrote.
Just think of how you could have been even more critical
of what he actually did write!
I get tired of posts where you say I'm saying something stupid but don't
manage to explain just what's stupid about it.
You are indulging in the moral equivalent of a frivolous lawsuit.
I'm not even sure what
comment you're talking about.
As if it weren't obvious:
"It's not the beak that lets woodpeckers dig into bark."
So tell me, turkey, what DOES let them dig into bark,
now that you have eliminated their beaks?
On 8/18/23 1:40 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 8:06:40 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 16.8.2023. 0:56, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/15/23 2:08 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 2:55:14 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
It's not the beak that lets woodpeckers dig into bark.
So all that hammering on trees is just for attracting attention???
Notice that while all birds have beaks, it's only the woodpeckers that >>> do the hammering. So it can't be the possession of a beak that matters >>> for this adaptation. Woodpeckers have a number of special anatomical
adaptations that should be detectable in a theropod skeleton if the
comparison were apt.
And in fact a high proportion of that hammering *is* just for attracting >>> attention. It's called "drumming".
I really have hard time to understand how somebody can make such
faulty conclusions?
It would be a lot harder, if not impossible, if you had not deleted
a really stupid comment by Harshman, which I have restored.
Notice how he completely changed the subject and then
said something that indirectly revealed that what he had claimed earlier was indeed an abysmally stupid comment.
All birds have beaks, and all birds do various niches, eat various
food, and have various behavior. How you came to conclusions that birds >> in the beginning did various niches, ate various food, and had various
behavior, is behind my ability to comprehend.
Instead of nailing Harshman on his stupidity and his attempt to wiggle out of it,
you say something that doesn't fit anything he had said earlier.
Maybe you wouldn't make such mistakes if you slowed down to about
half as many posts per day as you do now, and spread out over
more than one thread. Next week I'll be starting a thread on pterosaurs, so if you are interested in them, you can talk about them on the same days you talk about birds.
Of course the first bird
occupied only one niche, ate only one kind of food, and had only one
type of behavior. Now, the question is, which one?
Woodpeckers evolved over time special anatomical adaptations, in the
beginning they were very similar to other similar dinosaurs. I mean,
bears emerged from bear-dogs, and didn't occupy all the niches that
today's bears occupy, and probably even didn't eat honey, or fish, and
didn't have today's bear adaptations, thye looked more like dogs. I
mean, you are writing in the paleontology forum for god's sake, you got >> to have some basic understandings of those things. At least.
So, woodpeckers are that way because they are drumming. Or are they
drumming because they are that way? Jesus Christ, the older you get, the >> crazier you are.
If you had not hurried so much through this paragraph, you might
have realized that you aren't referring to anything Harshman explicitly wrote.
Just think of how you could have been even more critical
of what he actually did write!
I get tired of posts where you say I'm saying something stupid but don't manage to explain just what's stupid about it.
I'm not even sure what
comment you're talking about.
On 18.8.2023. 23:00, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 11:34:08 AM UTC-4, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 August 2023 at 15:31:52 UTC+3, Mario Petrinovic wrote: >>> On 16.8.2023. 13:40, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
Compare this situation to my explanation of human kiss. Per my
idea, we ate sea shellfish. You dive for shellfish, but near surface >>>> shellfish are first to be eaten. Then you have to dive deeper. You can >>>> go even deeper if your partner (whom you have to trust with your life, >>>> trust is important thing in human relationships) meet you half way up >>>> and gives you additional air. So, basically, the principle is, first you
eat all the easily acquired food, but then you are forced to dig deeper.
And also, initially there could be much more food in shallow waters, >>>> but, hey, you eat this out, you have to adapt for this small additional >>>> piece.
Here, Mario was mixing evolution of social behavior with biological evolution.Yes, the basic underlying principle, exactly, :) .
But he did give the basic underlying principle well.
You mix up individuals with species. Individuals can't mutate beaks to
themselves because of being low on food. Instead when hunting or
gathering food takes more energy than you get from eating it then
your population shrinks because of hunger. That lets population of
your food to regrow back so few survivors of your population have
enough of food again.
You are mixing year-to-year population dynamics with long-term evolution. As beaks start to develop through mutations, they give an added
advantage to the birds that have bigger ones.
No, I don't agree at all. With genes things are very simple, you don't
know which one comes first, egg or chicken.
In fact, they change in
unison. The idea that genes change species by the way of mutations comes from this Catholic priest liar.
As I explained, science insists on it
because it doesn't know better, it is the only thing it can grasp.
Lets ask Wikipedia:
"Mutations result from errors..."
"Mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, providing
the raw material on which evolutionary forces such as natural selection
can act."
See "...can act." Do you know of any other way to change genes?
Science doesn't know of any other way, mutations are the only mechanism
that science knows of. This doesn't mean that there are no other ways.
Evolution by mutations doesn't work, for sure.
There have to be other
ways, only science doesn't know about them. Those other ways developed during 3.5 billion years. Long enough time to develop complex ways to
change genes, not just by stupid errors.
Ha, ha, there is one interesting thing, squirrels have adaptation toGravity is not for free anymore? The nuthatches seem to go down tree
go up and down the tree. I wouldn't say that birds could go down the
tree that easy, easier would be just to fly off, :) .
So, the difficult part actually is to go down, :) .
head first like squirrels.
It takes special anatomy, and not all birds have it. Similarly, as you probably know,
cats cannot go down trees headfirst because they cannot turn their hind legs
around as well as squirrels can.
Yes, exactly. Squirrels developed their hind legs, birds developed
their front legs.
This is the name of the game.
On 8/18/23 5:25 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 6:50:34 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/18/23 1:40 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 8:06:40 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 16.8.2023. 0:56, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/15/23 2:08 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 2:55:14 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
It's not the beak that lets woodpeckers dig into bark.
So all that hammering on trees is just for attracting attention??? >>>Notice that while all birds have beaks, it's only the woodpeckers that >>>>> do the hammering. So it can't be the possession of a beak that matters >>>>> for this adaptation. Woodpeckers have a number of special anatomical >>>>> adaptations that should be detectable in a theropod skeleton if the >>>>> comparison were apt.
And in fact a high proportion of that hammering *is* just for attracting
attention. It's called "drumming".
I really have hard time to understand how somebody can make such
faulty conclusions?
It would be a lot harder, if not impossible, if you had not deleted
a really stupid comment by Harshman, which I have restored.
Notice how he completely changed the subject and then
said something that indirectly revealed that what he had claimed earlier >>> was indeed an abysmally stupid comment.
All birds have beaks, and all birds do various niches, eat various
food, and have various behavior. How you came to conclusions that birds >>>> in the beginning did various niches, ate various food, and had various >>>> behavior, is behind my ability to comprehend.
Instead of nailing Harshman on his stupidity and his attempt to wiggle out of it,
you say something that doesn't fit anything he had said earlier.
Maybe you wouldn't make such mistakes if you slowed down to about
half as many posts per day as you do now, and spread out over
more than one thread. Next week I'll be starting a thread on pterosaurs, >>> so if you are interested in them, you can talk about them on the same days
you talk about birds.
Of course the first bird
occupied only one niche, ate only one kind of food, and had only one >>>> type of behavior. Now, the question is, which one?
Woodpeckers evolved over time special anatomical adaptations, in the >>>> beginning they were very similar to other similar dinosaurs. I mean, >>>> bears emerged from bear-dogs, and didn't occupy all the niches that >>>> today's bears occupy, and probably even didn't eat honey, or fish, and >>>> didn't have today's bear adaptations, thye looked more like dogs. I >>>> mean, you are writing in the paleontology forum for god's sake, you got >>>> to have some basic understandings of those things. At least.
So, woodpeckers are that way because they are drumming. Or are they >>>> drumming because they are that way? Jesus Christ, the older you get, the
crazier you are.
If you had not hurried so much through this paragraph, you might
have realized that you aren't referring to anything Harshman explicitly wrote.
Just think of how you could have been even more critical
of what he actually did write!
I get tired of posts where you say I'm saying something stupid but don't >> manage to explain just what's stupid about it.
You are indulging in the moral equivalent of a frivolous lawsuit.
Am I? But you don't say how. Again, you say I've done something bad
without managing to explain what's bad about it.
I'm not even sure what
comment you're talking about.
As if it weren't obvious:
"It's not the beak that lets woodpeckers dig into bark."
So tell me, turkey, what DOES let them dig into bark,
now that you have eliminated their beaks?
You misunderstand the comment, though perhaps I wasn't sufficiently
clear.
As I said,
all birds have
beaks but only woodpeckers hammer trees with them. Therefore, having
beaks is not sufficient for hammering trees, and we can't claim that
early birds did so just because they had beaks. Further, since early
birds lacked the skeletal adaptations that enable woodpeckers to hammer trees, the evidence suggests that they did not. And beaks therefore did
not evolve for the purpose of hammering trees.
(It occurs to me, however, that advanced alvarezsaurs like Mononykus
might conceivably have done some tree-hammering, though not with their noses.)
So how much of that was stupid, and if so, why?
On 18.8.2023. 11:11, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
On Friday, 18 August 2023 at 11:21:46 UTC+3, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 18.8.2023. 8:49, oot...@hot.ee wrote:Use both. If you use only one you are doomed to fail. It is not new idea. Confucius lived circa 2500 years ago: "He who learns but does not think,
On Friday, 18 August 2023 at 08:32:44 UTC+3, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 17.8.2023. 20:16, Mario Petrinovic wrote:I nowhere claimed that grooming is sole improvement of rostrum compared >>> to nostrum. Beak has evolved on lot of animals (not only birds). These >>> animals do not preen nor deal with tree bark using it, but it is efficient for
On 17.8.2023. 17:27, erik simpson wrote:
There is no way you can keep up with Mario's mercurial imagination. >>>>>> There's also little reason
to try.
It is called 'argumentation', not '"imagination". See how many
solid arguments, based in reality, I have. If you compare this to the >>>>> other theory, that beaks evolved so that birds can groom themselves, >>>>> that is possible, but it is based on the imaginary need for feathers to >>>>> be tidy, which can only be accomplished by grooming. It is alright, but >>>>> you don't change your chewing apparatus for that. If you needed some >>>>> hard point, you would develop it on the top of your nose, you will not >>>>> change your mouth. For example, humans developed cartilage (of course I >>>>> know why). So, a lot of things are possible, but not a lot of things are
plausible (I heard that there is some English expression about that, but
I couldn't find it, :) ).
Actually, I see animals groom with their teeth. And actually, I could >>>> even say that teeth would be better for grooming than beak. It is like >>>> eating with fork, versus using Japanese sticks. So this whole theory is >>>> actually hanging in the air, there is nothing solid behind it. This
theory is postulated out of desperation, because author couldn't think >>>> of anything better, so he started to postulate his own imaginary things. >>>> On the other hand, my their is solidly anchored in reality, it relies on >>>> real things, not imaginary, things that exist already in nature.
several other things too.
However vast majority of birds have preen gland. It is probably possible but
quite inconvenient to oil feathers with teeth, so I said that on case of birds it
is one of more likely pressures compared to need of breaking tree bark. >>> Just try to read bit more what was actually written, not only here but from
books too, ask when you do not understand relevance, imagine bit
less ... and it'll be fine.
How about understanding things, as opposed to copy/paste from books?
People try to prove that books are right, by citing books. No, you have
a problem, use your brain, not books.
is lost. He who thinks but does not learn is in great danger."
I have so many objections on what you wrote here, that I will not
bother to write them down, starting with Confucius himself, then the
time of that saying, the system he was living in, the type of knowledge,
and so on, and so on.
Of course, knowledge is veryThere are no such dichotomy. From where you took it? On the contrary.
important. But, it somehow shows that you cannot have both, knowledge
and working brain, if brain memorizes knowledge, it doesn't work. Or, at >> least, it works in a biased manner, it is biased towards the knowledge
it has, and this can be deteriorating in a situations when knowledge has >> nothing to do with the solution.
The bigger your knowledge the easier it is to reason as logic works by
same rules everywhere.
Birds being winners is fact as their population is massive compared to
bats or flying squirrels. That study says between 200 to 400 billions: <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1018341530497>
See, "where from did I took it?". From my own brain, this is where
from I took it. My brain and my experience. Where from do you take your things?
What's wrong with tongue? Lizards have long tongue, tongue is justAre you claiming that birds do not have tongue? Animals help youth with basic hygiene. Animal youth is incompetent to deal with it yet. But they do not fly around potentially in rain using their fur. Birds spend great deal of
perfect for those kind of operations. Much better than rigid beak. Yes I >> am ignorant, but don't animals lick their young for the same purpose?
time maintaining their feathers. It is not just basic hygiene. Read up on preening, what is done and why, then show how it is better to do with tip of nose, teeth or even with tongue alone.
Ok, lets rank it. The worst is tip of your nose, but you don't change
chewing apparatus for that. Then I would put beak (but for this you have
to change chewing apparatus). Then it would be teeth, which was,
actually, the original condition. And the best would be tongue, which is usually used by all the other animals, for the reason that it is the
best for the purpose.
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 6:53:52 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 18.8.2023. 23:00, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 11:34:08 AM UTC-4, oot...@hot.ee wrote: >>>> On Wednesday, 16 August 2023 at 15:31:52 UTC+3, Mario Petrinovic wrote: >>>>> On 16.8.2023. 13:40, Mario Petrinovic wrote:Yes, the basic underlying principle, exactly, :) .
Compare this situation to my explanation of human kiss. Per my
idea, we ate sea shellfish. You dive for shellfish, but near surface >>>>>> shellfish are first to be eaten. Then you have to dive deeper. You can >>>>>> go even deeper if your partner (whom you have to trust with your life, >>>>>> trust is important thing in human relationships) meet you half way up >>>>>> and gives you additional air. So, basically, the principle is, first you >>>>>> eat all the easily acquired food, but then you are forced to dig deeper. >>>>>> And also, initially there could be much more food in shallow waters, >>>>>> but, hey, you eat this out, you have to adapt for this small additional >>>>>> piece.
Here, Mario was mixing evolution of social behavior with biological evolution.
But he did give the basic underlying principle well.
You mix up individuals with species. Individuals can't mutate beaks to >>>> themselves because of being low on food. Instead when hunting or
gathering food takes more energy than you get from eating it then
your population shrinks because of hunger. That lets population of
your food to regrow back so few survivors of your population have
enough of food again.
You are mixing year-to-year population dynamics with long-term evolution. >>> As beaks start to develop through mutations, they give an added
advantage to the birds that have bigger ones.
No, I don't agree at all. With genes things are very simple, you don't
know which one comes first, egg or chicken.
If there is only one gene involved, then the answer is easy: the egg
already had the necessary genetic material of the chicken.
> In fact, they change in
unison. The idea that genes change species by the way of mutations comes
from this Catholic priest liar.
If you are thinking of Mendel, you are wrong. He worked with existing genes ("traits"). A recessive homozygote is not a mutation, even though it may look like a mutation when the carriers of a recessive gene are extremely rare, like the ones
for hooves on the two side toe remnants of horses. Julius Caesar had a horse like that.
De Vries is sometimes credited with the idea of mutations, while Goldschmidt is associated with saltations ("hopeful monsters").
As I explained, science insists on it
because it doesn't know better, it is the only thing it can grasp.
Lets ask Wikipedia:
"Mutations result from errors..."
Unnecessarily pejorative term.
"Mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, providing
the raw material on which evolutionary forces such as natural selection
can act."
See "...can act." Do you know of any other way to change genes?
Mutation is just another word for change. If that is not what is confusing you, try this:
The action of natural selection is not ON genes;
what it does is favor the carriers of some genes over others.
Radiation, for instance, changes genes themselves, converting one allele into a different one.
When you use Wikipedia, you have not only to be careful to read
what is there correctly, you may also be seeing false or misleadingly worded statements
that have since been corrected elsewhere. I've even seen purely scientific entries
on the same subject contradict each other. Sometimes that is because both
are taking the result of two different very recent research papers as the last word on the subject.
Just taking the word of one is hazardous enough.
Short version: Wikipedia entries mutate, not always beneficially.
Science doesn't know of any other way, mutations are the only mechanism
that science knows of. This doesn't mean that there are no other ways.
Evolution by mutations doesn't work, for sure.
Are you forgetting about natural selection? There are other ways,
because natural selection only selects *within* populations.
Then there is species selection, which pits one species against another within the same genus. For some reason, biologists don't like to think about competition between such widely separated animals as birds and pterosaurs, but a good look at the fossil evidence says that there was intense competition between them.
If you like that kind of large-scale competition, I will try to include some for you
in the thread I start next week.
There have to be other
ways, only science doesn't know about them. Those other ways developed
during 3.5 billion years. Long enough time to develop complex ways to
change genes, not just by stupid errors.
Like I said, "errors" is needlessly pejorative. It should be reserved for deleterious or neutral mutations. Beneficial mutations are rare, but
there have been something like 10^15 (ten to the fifteenth power) birds
over the eons -- plenty of material for an immense number of beneficial mutations.
Ha, ha, there is one interesting thing, squirrels have adaptation to >>>>> go up and down the tree. I wouldn't say that birds could go down the >>>>> tree that easy, easier would be just to fly off, :) .Gravity is not for free anymore? The nuthatches seem to go down tree
So, the difficult part actually is to go down, :) .
head first like squirrels.
It takes special anatomy, and not all birds have it. Similarly, as you probably know,
cats cannot go down trees headfirst because they cannot turn their hind legs
around as well as squirrels can.
Yes, exactly. Squirrels developed their hind legs, birds developed
their front legs.
Don't get in the way of a kick by an ostrich or cassowary. You may
not live to talk about it.
This is the name of the game.
On the whole, though, you are right.
On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 11:34:08 AM UTC-4, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 August 2023 at 15:31:52 UTC+3, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 16.8.2023. 13:40, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
Compare this situation to my explanation of human kiss. Per my
idea, we ate sea shellfish. You dive for shellfish, but near surface shellfish are first to be eaten. Then you have to dive deeper. You can go even deeper if your partner (whom you have to trust with your life, trust is important thing in human relationships) meet you half way up and gives you additional air. So, basically, the principle is, first you
eat all the easily acquired food, but then you are forced to dig deeper.
And also, initially there could be much more food in shallow waters, but, hey, you eat this out, you have to adapt for this small additional
piece.
Here, Mario was mixing evolution of social behavior with biological evolution.
But he did give the basic underlying principle well.
You mix up individuals with species. Individuals can't mutate beaks to themselves because of being low on food. Instead when hunting or
gathering food takes more energy than you get from eating it then
your population shrinks because of hunger. That lets population of
your food to regrow back so few survivors of your population have
enough of food again.
You are mixing year-to-year population dynamics with long-term evolution.
As beaks start to develop through mutations, they give an added
advantage to the birds that have bigger ones.
Ha, ha, there is one interesting thing, squirrels have adaptation to
go up and down the tree. I wouldn't say that birds could go down the tree that easy, easier would be just to fly off, :) .
So, the difficult part actually is to go down, :) .
Gravity is not for free anymore? The nuthatches seem to go down tree
head first like squirrels.
It takes special anatomy, and not all birds have it. Similarly, as you probably know,
cats cannot go down trees headfirst because they cannot turn their hind legs around as well as squirrels can.
Harshman, you are getting to be as flagrant at trolling as JTEM.
Mario, take note: you were right about Harshman, and if you've needed
any more proof for warning others about him, you have it below.
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 8:53:49 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/18/23 5:25 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 6:50:34 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/18/23 1:40 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 8:06:40 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 16.8.2023. 0:56, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/15/23 2:08 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 2:55:14 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
It's not the beak that lets woodpeckers dig into bark.
So all that hammering on trees is just for attracting attention??? >>>>>Notice that while all birds have beaks, it's only the woodpeckers that >>>>>>> do the hammering. So it can't be the possession of a beak that matters >>>>>>> for this adaptation. Woodpeckers have a number of special anatomical >>>>>>> adaptations that should be detectable in a theropod skeleton if the >>>>>>> comparison were apt.
And in fact a high proportion of that hammering *is* just for attracting
attention. It's called "drumming".
I really have hard time to understand how somebody can make such
faulty conclusions?
It would be a lot harder, if not impossible, if you had not deleted
a really stupid comment by Harshman, which I have restored.
Notice how he completely changed the subject and then
said something that indirectly revealed that what he had claimed earlier >>>>> was indeed an abysmally stupid comment.
All birds have beaks, and all birds do various niches, eat various >>>>>> food, and have various behavior. How you came to conclusions that birds >>>>>> in the beginning did various niches, ate various food, and had various >>>>>> behavior, is behind my ability to comprehend.
Instead of nailing Harshman on his stupidity and his attempt to wiggle out of it,
you say something that doesn't fit anything he had said earlier.
Maybe you wouldn't make such mistakes if you slowed down to about
half as many posts per day as you do now, and spread out over
more than one thread. Next week I'll be starting a thread on pterosaurs, >>>>> so if you are interested in them, you can talk about them on the same days
you talk about birds.
Of course the first bird
occupied only one niche, ate only one kind of food, and had only one >>>>>> type of behavior. Now, the question is, which one?
Woodpeckers evolved over time special anatomical adaptations, in the >>>>>> beginning they were very similar to other similar dinosaurs. I mean, >>>>>> bears emerged from bear-dogs, and didn't occupy all the niches that >>>>>> today's bears occupy, and probably even didn't eat honey, or fish, and >>>>>> didn't have today's bear adaptations, thye looked more like dogs. I >>>>>> mean, you are writing in the paleontology forum for god's sake, you got >>>>>> to have some basic understandings of those things. At least.
So, woodpeckers are that way because they are drumming. Or are they >>>>>> drumming because they are that way? Jesus Christ, the older you get, the >>>>>> crazier you are.
If you had not hurried so much through this paragraph, you might
have realized that you aren't referring to anything Harshman explicitly wrote.
Just think of how you could have been even more critical
of what he actually did write!
I get tired of posts where you say I'm saying something stupid but don't >>>> manage to explain just what's stupid about it.
You will get them all the time if you continue to say abysmally
stupid things and then lie about what you said, like you do below.
You are indulging in the moral equivalent of a frivolous lawsuit.
Am I? But you don't say how. Again, you say I've done something bad
without managing to explain what's bad about it.
You are just adding to your frivolous lawsuit equivalent. Read on.
I'm not even sure what
comment you're talking about.
As if it weren't obvious:
"It's not the beak that lets woodpeckers dig into bark."
So tell me, turkey, what DOES let them dig into bark,
now that you have eliminated their beaks?
You misunderstand the comment, though perhaps I wasn't sufficiently
clear.
There is no other way to read the comment, liar.
(And why the gratuitous "turkey"?)
Poor baby. You once gaslighted me with an accusation of megalomania,
a clinical form of insanity, when I was only a wee bit melodramatic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
[I wrote "Poor baby" instead of "Hypocrite" because you are used to having that word go like water off a duck's back.]
As I said,
You are just filibustering below and making no attempt to clarify the abysmally stupid thing you wrote.
all birds have
beaks but only woodpeckers hammer trees with them. Therefore, having
beaks is not sufficient for hammering trees, and we can't claim that
early birds did so just because they had beaks. Further, since early
birds lacked the skeletal adaptations that enable woodpeckers to hammer
trees, the evidence suggests that they did not. And beaks therefore did
not evolve for the purpose of hammering trees.
(It occurs to me, however, that advanced alvarezsaurs like Mononykus
might conceivably have done some tree-hammering, though not with their
noses.)
So how much of that was stupid, and if so, why?
Writing a bunch of interesting facts does not cancel out the fact that
you said something abysmally stupid, then lied when confronted by what you had done.
Peter Nyikos
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 6:53:52 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 18.8.2023. 23:00, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 11:34:08 AM UTC-4, oot...@hot.ee wrote: >>>> On Wednesday, 16 August 2023 at 15:31:52 UTC+3, Mario Petrinovic wrote: >>>>> On 16.8.2023. 13:40, Mario Petrinovic wrote:Yes, the basic underlying principle, exactly, :) .
Compare this situation to my explanation of human kiss. Per my
idea, we ate sea shellfish. You dive for shellfish, but near surface >>>>>> shellfish are first to be eaten. Then you have to dive deeper. You can >>>>>> go even deeper if your partner (whom you have to trust with your life, >>>>>> trust is important thing in human relationships) meet you half way up >>>>>> and gives you additional air. So, basically, the principle is, first you >>>>>> eat all the easily acquired food, but then you are forced to dig deeper. >>>>>> And also, initially there could be much more food in shallow waters, >>>>>> but, hey, you eat this out, you have to adapt for this small additional >>>>>> piece.
Here, Mario was mixing evolution of social behavior with biological evolution.
But he did give the basic underlying principle well.
You mix up individuals with species. Individuals can't mutate beaks to >>>> themselves because of being low on food. Instead when hunting or
gathering food takes more energy than you get from eating it then
your population shrinks because of hunger. That lets population of
your food to regrow back so few survivors of your population have
enough of food again.
You are mixing year-to-year population dynamics with long-term evolution. >>> As beaks start to develop through mutations, they give an added
advantage to the birds that have bigger ones.
No, I don't agree at all. With genes things are very simple, you don't
know which one comes first, egg or chicken.
If there is only one gene involved, then the answer is easy: the egg
already had the necessary genetic material of the chicken.
> In fact, they change in
unison. The idea that genes change species by the way of mutations comes
from this Catholic priest liar.
If you are thinking of Mendel, you are wrong. He worked with existing genes ("traits"). A recessive homozygote is not a mutation, even though it may look like a mutation when the carriers of a recessive gene are extremely rare, like the ones
for hooves on the two side toe remnants of horses. Julius Caesar had a horse like that.
De Vries is sometimes credited with the idea of mutations, while Goldschmidt is associated with saltations ("hopeful monsters").
As I explained, science insists on it
because it doesn't know better, it is the only thing it can grasp.
Lets ask Wikipedia:
"Mutations result from errors..."
Unnecessarily pejorative term.
"Mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, providing
the raw material on which evolutionary forces such as natural selection
can act."
See "...can act." Do you know of any other way to change genes?
Mutation is just another word for change. If that is not what is confusing you, try this:
The action of natural selection is not ON genes;
what it does is favor the carriers of some genes over others.
Radiation, for instance, changes genes themselves, converting one allele into a different one.
When you use Wikipedia, you have not only to be careful to read
what is there correctly, you may also be seeing false or misleadingly worded statements
that have since been corrected elsewhere. I've even seen purely scientific entries
on the same subject contradict each other. Sometimes that is because both
are taking the result of two different very recent research papers as the last word on the subject.
Just taking the word of one is hazardous enough.
Short version: Wikipedia entries mutate, not always beneficially.
Science doesn't know of any other way, mutations are the only mechanism
that science knows of. This doesn't mean that there are no other ways.
Evolution by mutations doesn't work, for sure.
Are you forgetting about natural selection? There are other ways,
because natural selection only selects *within* populations.
Then there is species selection, which pits one species against another within the same genus. For some reason, biologists don't like to think about competition between such widely separated animals as birds and pterosaurs, but a good look at the fossil evidence says that there was intense competition between them.
If you like that kind of large-scale competition, I will try to include some for you
in the thread I start next week.
There have to be other
ways, only science doesn't know about them. Those other ways developed
during 3.5 billion years. Long enough time to develop complex ways to
change genes, not just by stupid errors.
Like I said, "errors" is needlessly pejorative. It should be reserved for deleterious or neutral mutations. Beneficial mutations are rare, but
there have been something like 10^15 (ten to the fifteenth power) birds
over the eons -- plenty of material for an immense number of beneficial mutations.
Ha, ha, there is one interesting thing, squirrels have adaptation to >>>>> go up and down the tree. I wouldn't say that birds could go down the >>>>> tree that easy, easier would be just to fly off, :) .Gravity is not for free anymore? The nuthatches seem to go down tree
So, the difficult part actually is to go down, :) .
head first like squirrels.
It takes special anatomy, and not all birds have it. Similarly, as you probably know,
cats cannot go down trees headfirst because they cannot turn their hind legs
around as well as squirrels can.
Yes, exactly. Squirrels developed their hind legs, birds developed
their front legs.
Don't get in the way of a kick by an ostrich or cassowary. You may
not live to talk about it.
This is the name of the game.
On the whole, though, you are right.
You might try asking Mario what these "other ways" are. I'd be
interested in knowing. Perhaps he's thinking of "natural genetic
engineering" or "morphic resonance", but I'm willing to bet it's some
kind of woo.
On Saturday, 19 August 2023 at 01:05:45 UTC+3, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 18.8.2023. 11:11, oot...@hot.ee wrote:Logic has not changed. Human has evolved very little with 100 generations since he said it. Nation that followed his philosophy during most of those generations is biggest on that planet. I have lived in very diverse set of political situations during last half of century: communism, perestroika, coup,
On Friday, 18 August 2023 at 11:21:46 UTC+3, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 18.8.2023. 8:49, oot...@hot.ee wrote:Use both. If you use only one you are doomed to fail. It is not new idea. >>> Confucius lived circa 2500 years ago: "He who learns but does not think, >>> is lost. He who thinks but does not learn is in great danger."
On Friday, 18 August 2023 at 08:32:44 UTC+3, Mario Petrinovic wrote: >>>>>> On 17.8.2023. 20:16, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
I nowhere claimed that grooming is sole improvement of rostrum compared >>>>> to nostrum. Beak has evolved on lot of animals (not only birds). These >>>>> animals do not preen nor deal with tree bark using it, but it is efficient forOn 17.8.2023. 17:27, erik simpson wrote:
There is no way you can keep up with Mario's mercurial imagination. >>>>>>>> There's also little reason
to try.
It is called 'argumentation', not '"imagination". See how many
solid arguments, based in reality, I have. If you compare this to the >>>>>>> other theory, that beaks evolved so that birds can groom themselves, >>>>>>> that is possible, but it is based on the imaginary need for feathers to >>>>>>> be tidy, which can only be accomplished by grooming. It is alright, but >>>>>>> you don't change your chewing apparatus for that. If you needed some >>>>>>> hard point, you would develop it on the top of your nose, you will not >>>>>>> change your mouth. For example, humans developed cartilage (of course I >>>>>>> know why). So, a lot of things are possible, but not a lot of things are
plausible (I heard that there is some English expression about that, but
I couldn't find it, :) ).
Actually, I see animals groom with their teeth. And actually, I could >>>>>> even say that teeth would be better for grooming than beak. It is like >>>>>> eating with fork, versus using Japanese sticks. So this whole theory is >>>>>> actually hanging in the air, there is nothing solid behind it. This >>>>>> theory is postulated out of desperation, because author couldn't think >>>>>> of anything better, so he started to postulate his own imaginary things. >>>>>> On the other hand, my their is solidly anchored in reality, it relies on >>>>>> real things, not imaginary, things that exist already in nature.
several other things too.
However vast majority of birds have preen gland. It is probably possible but
quite inconvenient to oil feathers with teeth, so I said that on case of birds it
is one of more likely pressures compared to need of breaking tree bark. >>>>> Just try to read bit more what was actually written, not only here but from
books too, ask when you do not understand relevance, imagine bit
less ... and it'll be fine.
How about understanding things, as opposed to copy/paste from books?
People try to prove that books are right, by citing books. No, you have >>>> a problem, use your brain, not books.
I have so many objections on what you wrote here, that I will not
bother to write them down, starting with Confucius himself, then the
time of that saying, the system he was living in, the type of knowledge,
and so on, and so on.
anarchy, relatively ruthless capitalism and currently EU. I can only say that methods of gathering wisdom were always same. Gather facts, read how
others reason about those and reason yourself. Otherwise you fail.
I have observed that both of those who trust their imagination too muchOf course, knowledge is veryThere are no such dichotomy. From where you took it? On the contrary.
important. But, it somehow shows that you cannot have both, knowledge
and working brain, if brain memorizes knowledge, it doesn't work. Or, at >>>> least, it works in a biased manner, it is biased towards the knowledge >>>> it has, and this can be deteriorating in a situations when knowledge has >>>> nothing to do with the solution.
The bigger your knowledge the easier it is to reason as logic works by
same rules everywhere.
Birds being winners is fact as their population is massive compared to
bats or flying squirrels. That study says between 200 to 400 billions:
<https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1018341530497>
See, "where from did I took it?". From my own brain, this is where
from I took it. My brain and my experience. Where from do you take your
things?
or trust what some book says too much will fail and be unhappy about it. Usually they blame others in their misfortune. So Confucius was right.
That does not match with facts as birds have tongue but do not useWhat's wrong with tongue? Lizards have long tongue, tongue is justAre you claiming that birds do not have tongue? Animals help youth with
perfect for those kind of operations. Much better than rigid beak. Yes I >>>> am ignorant, but don't animals lick their young for the same purpose?
basic hygiene. Animal youth is incompetent to deal with it yet. But they do >>> not fly around potentially in rain using their fur. Birds spend great deal of
time maintaining their feathers. It is not just basic hygiene. Read up on >>> preening, what is done and why, then show how it is better to do with tip >>> of nose, teeth or even with tongue alone.
Ok, lets rank it. The worst is tip of your nose, but you don't change
chewing apparatus for that. Then I would put beak (but for this you have
to change chewing apparatus). Then it would be teeth, which was,
actually, the original condition. And the best would be tongue, which is
usually used by all the other animals, for the reason that it is the
best for the purpose.
it to lick their feathers. Test with reality failed. Reality can not be mistaken about itself so error has to be somewhere in your reasoning.
If you don't need to go head first then go
bottom first. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dg9sCvmuNSs> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wTscScLvLU> Does not matter to
survival if you have to do it rarely.
On 19.8.2023. 4:12, John Harshman wrote:
You might try asking Mario what these "other ways" are. I'd be
interested in knowing. Perhaps he's thinking of "natural genetic
engineering" or "morphic resonance", but I'm willing to bet it's some
kind of woo.
No, I have not the slightest idea what these "other ways" are.
I just said that science doesn't know about them. I, too, have not the slightest idea what they are.
On 8/18/23 9:37 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 19.8.2023. 4:12, John Harshman wrote:How do you know they exist? How do you know they're important?
You might try asking Mario what these "other ways" are. I'd be
interested in knowing. Perhaps he's thinking of "natural genetic
engineering" or "morphic resonance", but I'm willing to bet it's some
kind of woo.
No, I have not the slightest idea what these "other ways" >> are. I just said that science doesn't know about them. I, too, have
not the slightest idea what they are.
On 19.8.2023. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/18/23 9:37 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 19.8.2023. 4:12, John Harshman wrote:How do you know they exist? How do you know they're important?
You might try asking Mario what these "other ways" are. I'd be
interested in knowing. Perhaps he's thinking of "natural genetic
engineering" or "morphic resonance", but I'm willing to bet it's
some kind of woo.
No, I have not the slightest idea what these "other ways" >>> are. I just said that science doesn't know about them. I, too, have
not the slightest idea what they are.
Because "evolution by errors" is stupid to the bone. I don't know who actually invented this, but it is sneaked into science by
Catholic church, and called Genetic Mutation Theory, a very well known
fact. A typical story of science,stupid, and manipulated by church. No
sense in it at all.
I see a lot of different people around me. Everybody has different dimensions, although we have similar genes. This is enough for evolution to work, you don't need a gene manipulation, there is enough
of change already in it, you don't need more of it. You only need
deliberate "gene change" if you want God to be involved in the story,
and if you really desperately need some special extraterrestrial magical effects, like "intelligence". So, now I have to deal with a lot of
idiots who prey to magic, because they see themselves as being magical.
No, we are just normal animals, earthly beings, nothing else. But if you
see all those scientific theories, they all revolve around
"intelligence". We are tall because we are intelligent, we have long
hair because we are intelligent, we have blue eyes because we are intelligent, and so on, and so on, the source of every trait in humans
is our "intelligence", "intelligence" is answer to everything (I just
saw a video, "Jesus is always the answer", kid wrote in test, :) ). And
this has to, somehow, fall from skies. And voila, we have genes, and
they can produce, literally, anything, including the "magical stuff",
and my god aren't we so magical.
On 19.8.2023. 20:13, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 19.8.2023. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/18/23 9:37 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 19.8.2023. 4:12, John Harshman wrote:How do you know they exist? How do you know they're important?
You might try asking Mario what these "other ways" are. I'd be
interested in knowing. Perhaps he's thinking of "natural genetic
engineering" or "morphic resonance", but I'm willing to bet it's
some kind of woo.
No, I have not the slightest idea what these "other ways" >>>> are. I just said that science doesn't know about them. I, too, have
not the slightest idea what they are.
Because "evolution by errors" is stupid to the bone. I don't
know who actually invented this, but it is sneaked into science by
Catholic church, and called Genetic Mutation Theory, a very well known
fact. A typical story of science,stupid, and manipulated by church. No
sense in it at all.
I see a lot of different people around me. Everybody has
different dimensions, although we have similar genes. This is enough
for evolution to work, you don't need a gene manipulation, there is
enough of change already in it, you don't need more of it. You only
need deliberate "gene change" if you want God to be involved in the
story, and if you really desperately need some special
extraterrestrial magical effects, like "intelligence". So, now I have
to deal with a lot of idiots who prey to magic, because they see
themselves as being magical. No, we are just normal animals, earthly
beings, nothing else. But if you see all those scientific theories,
they all revolve around "intelligence". We are tall because we are
intelligent, we have long hair because we are intelligent, we have
blue eyes because we are intelligent, and so on, and so on, the source
of every trait in humans is our "intelligence", "intelligence" is
answer to everything (I just saw a video, "Jesus is always the
answer", kid wrote in test, :) ). And this has to, somehow, fall from
skies. And voila, we have genes, and they can produce, literally,
anything, including the "magical stuff", and my god aren't we so magical.
And, BTW, if we are so intelligent our scientists wouldn't be so easily manipulated by Catholic church. The very fact that all our scientific theories about Genesis (The Genetic Mutation Theory, The Big
Bang Theory) were produced by Catholic priests tells you that we are
just as intelligent as sheep. Mendel produced Genetic Mutation Theory in
1866 AD. It wasn't accepted. It was accepted when Mendel was
"rediscovered", 34 years later (Mendel was already dead). What was the difference between 1866 AD and 1900 AD? In the number, and the magic
number is three. We evolved to trust something if it comes from three independent sources, automatically, without *thinking*. So, the whole
science accepted the major idea because it heard it from three
"independent" sources in the same time (two months apart). And that's
it. And we are talking about science, about scientists, who are supposed
to have a scientific thinking. And Catholic church sold them simple
trick, like they are sheep. And those same people claim that they are
soooo intelligent. My god.
On 19.8.2023. 20:13, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 19.8.2023. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/18/23 9:37 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 19.8.2023. 4:12, John Harshman wrote:How do you know they exist? How do you know they're important?
You might try asking Mario what these "other ways" are. I'd be
interested in knowing. Perhaps he's thinking of "natural genetic
engineering" or "morphic resonance", but I'm willing to bet it's
some kind of woo.
No, I have not the slightest idea what these "other ways" >>>> are. I just said that science doesn't know about them. I, too, have
not the slightest idea what they are.
Because "evolution by errors" is stupid to the bone. I don't
know who actually invented this, but it is sneaked into science by
Catholic church, and called Genetic Mutation Theory, a very well known
fact. A typical story of science,stupid, and manipulated by church. No
sense in it at all.
I see a lot of different people around me. Everybody has
different dimensions, although we have similar genes. This is enough
for evolution to work, you don't need a gene manipulation, there is
enough of change already in it, you don't need more of it. You only
need deliberate "gene change" if you want God to be involved in the
story, and if you really desperately need some special
extraterrestrial magical effects, like "intelligence". So, now I have
to deal with a lot of idiots who prey to magic, because they see
themselves as being magical. No, we are just normal animals, earthly
beings, nothing else. But if you see all those scientific theories,
they all revolve around "intelligence". We are tall because we are
intelligent, we have long hair because we are intelligent, we have
blue eyes because we are intelligent, and so on, and so on, the source
of every trait in humans is our "intelligence", "intelligence" is
answer to everything (I just saw a video, "Jesus is always the
answer", kid wrote in test, :) ). And this has to, somehow, fall from
skies. And voila, we have genes, and they can produce, literally,
anything, including the "magical stuff", and my god aren't we so magical.
And, BTW, if we are so intelligent our scientists wouldn't be so easily manipulated by Catholic church. The very fact that all our scientific theories about Genesis (The Genetic Mutation Theory, The Big
Bang Theory) were produced by Catholic priests tells you that we are
just as intelligent as sheep. Mendel produced Genetic Mutation Theory in
1866 AD.
It wasn't accepted. It was accepted when Mendel was
"rediscovered", 34 years later (Mendel was already dead). What was the difference between 1866 AD and 1900 AD? In the number, and the magic
number is three. We evolved to trust something if it comes from three independent sources, automatically, without *thinking*. So, the whole
science accepted the major idea because it heard it from three
"independent" sources in the same time (two months apart). And that's
it. And we are talking about science, about scientists, who are supposed
to have a scientific thinking. And Catholic church sold them simple
trick, like they are sheep. And those same people claim that they are
soooo intelligent. My god.
On 19.8.2023. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/18/23 9:37 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 19.8.2023. 4:12, John Harshman wrote:How do you know they exist? How do you know they're important?
You might try asking Mario what these "other ways" are. I'd be
interested in knowing. Perhaps he's thinking of "natural genetic
engineering" or "morphic resonance", but I'm willing to bet it's
some kind of woo.
No, I have not the slightest idea what these "other ways" >>> are. I just said that science doesn't know about them. I, too, have
not the slightest idea what they are.
Because "evolution by errors" is stupid to the bone. I don't know who actually invented this, but it is sneaked into science by
Catholic church, and called Genetic Mutation Theory, a very well known
fact. A typical story of science,stupid, and manipulated by church. No
sense in it at all.
I see a lot of different people around me. Everybody has different dimensions, although we have similar genes.
This is enough for
evolution to work, you don't need a gene manipulation, there is enough
of change already in it, you don't need more of it.
You only need
deliberate "gene change" if you want God to be involved in the story,
and if you really desperately need some special extraterrestrial magical effects, like "intelligence".
So, now I have to deal with a lot of
idiots who prey to magic, because they see themselves as being magical.
No, we are just normal animals, earthly beings, nothing else. But if you
see all those scientific theories, they all revolve around
"intelligence". We are tall because we are intelligent, we have long
hair because we are intelligent, we have blue eyes because we are intelligent, and so on, and so on, the source of every trait in humans
is our "intelligence", "intelligence" is answer to everything (I just
saw a video, "Jesus is always the answer", kid wrote in test, :) ). And
this has to, somehow, fall from skies. And voila, we have genes, and
they can produce, literally, anything, including the "magical stuff",
and my god aren't we so magical.
On 19.8.2023. 20:38, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 19.8.2023. 20:13, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 19.8.2023. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/18/23 9:37 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 19.8.2023. 4:12, John Harshman wrote:How do you know they exist? How do you know they're important?
You might try asking Mario what these "other ways" are. I'd be
interested in knowing. Perhaps he's thinking of "natural genetic
engineering" or "morphic resonance", but I'm willing to bet it's
some kind of woo.
No, I have not the slightest idea what these "other ways"
are. I just said that science doesn't know about them. I, too, have
not the slightest idea what they are.
Because "evolution by errors" is stupid to the bone. I don't
know who actually invented this, but it is sneaked into science by
Catholic church, and called Genetic Mutation Theory, a very well
known fact. A typical story of science,stupid, and manipulated by
church. No sense in it at all.
I see a lot of different people around me. Everybody has >>> different dimensions, although we have similar genes. This is enough
for evolution to work, you don't need a gene manipulation, there is
enough of change already in it, you don't need more of it. You only
need deliberate "gene change" if you want God to be involved in the
story, and if you really desperately need some special
extraterrestrial magical effects, like "intelligence". So, now I have
to deal with a lot of idiots who prey to magic, because they see
themselves as being magical. No, we are just normal animals, earthly
beings, nothing else. But if you see all those scientific theories,
they all revolve around "intelligence". We are tall because we are
intelligent, we have long hair because we are intelligent, we have
blue eyes because we are intelligent, and so on, and so on, the
source of every trait in humans is our "intelligence", "intelligence"
is answer to everything (I just saw a video, "Jesus is always the
answer", kid wrote in test, :) ). And this has to, somehow, fall from
skies. And voila, we have genes, and they can produce, literally,
anything, including the "magical stuff", and my god aren't we so
magical.
And, BTW, if we are so intelligent our scientists wouldn't be
so easily manipulated by Catholic church. The very fact that all our
scientific theories about Genesis (The Genetic Mutation Theory, The
Big Bang Theory) were produced by Catholic priests tells you that we
are just as intelligent as sheep. Mendel produced Genetic Mutation
Theory in 1866 AD. It wasn't accepted. It was accepted when Mendel was
"rediscovered", 34 years later (Mendel was already dead). What was the
difference between 1866 AD and 1900 AD? In the number, and the magic
number is three. We evolved to trust something if it comes from three
independent sources, automatically, without *thinking*. So, the whole
science accepted the major idea because it heard it from three
"independent" sources in the same time (two months apart). And that's
it. And we are talking about science, about scientists, who are
supposed to have a scientific thinking. And Catholic church sold them
simple trick, like they are sheep. And those same people claim that
they are soooo intelligent. My god.
Of course, if you have it written in a book you don't have to think about it, it is already written. Good old story of Bible. Bible is written for humans so that humans *don't have to think*. And you have so
many humans who *don't think*, so many of those so intelligent humans,
they read the book, they don't think by themselves. And then somebody
shows you a Chinese saying, and you go and see how those people live.
Like animals, for gods sake, without human rights, slaves of the Party.
They are born, they live, and they are dying only because Party needs
that, not because this is how proud and intelligent beings are supposed
to. And they choose this by themselves, they have no objection.
Confucius told them to do so (I suppose).
On 8/19/23 11:13 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 19.8.2023. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/18/23 9:37 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 19.8.2023. 4:12, John Harshman wrote:How do you know they exist? How do you know they're important?
You might try asking Mario what these "other ways" are. I'd be
interested in knowing. Perhaps he's thinking of "natural genetic
engineering" or "morphic resonance", but I'm willing to bet it's
some kind of woo.
No, I have not the slightest idea what these "other ways" >>>> are. I just said that science doesn't know about them. I, too, have
not the slightest idea what they are.
Because "evolution by errors" is stupid to the bone. I don't
know who actually invented this, but it is sneaked into science by
Catholic church, and called Genetic Mutation Theory, a very well known
fact. A typical story of science,stupid, and manipulated by church. No
sense in it at all.
I'm sorry, but that's insane. The Catholic Church had nothing to do with introducing the concept of mutations into biology, and they were
introduced because they were actually observed. We know mutations
happen, we know how they happen, and we know what happens to them
afterwards. It's not weird magic.
I see a lot of different people around me. Everybody has
different dimensions, although we have similar genes.
Slightly different alleles of some of those genes, though, and this
accounts for a good fraction of the differences you observe.
This is enough for evolution to work, you don't need a gene
manipulation, there is enough of change already in it, you don't need
more of it.
That's true. Standing genetic variation can power evolution for a while.
But eventually it runs out and evolution would stop unless there were a source of new variation, i.e. mutation.
You only need deliberate "gene change" if you want God to be involved
in the story, and if you really desperately need some special
extraterrestrial magical effects, like "intelligence".
Nobody said any of this mutation is deliberate. Well, nobody except ID crackpots.
So, now I have to deal with a lot of idiots who prey to magic, because
they see themselves as being magical. No, we are just normal animals,
earthly beings, nothing else. But if you see all those scientific
theories, they all revolve around "intelligence". We are tall because
we are intelligent, we have long hair because we are intelligent, we
have blue eyes because we are intelligent, and so on, and so on, the
source of every trait in humans is our "intelligence", "intelligence"
is answer to everything (I just saw a video, "Jesus is always the
answer", kid wrote in test, :) ). And this has to, somehow, fall from
skies. And voila, we have genes, and they can produce, literally,
anything, including the "magical stuff", and my god aren't we so magical.
Nothing you say in that paragraph is true. Nobody (again, with the
exception of a few ID crackpots) thinks any of that. You are arguing
against a small minority of people who aren't even here.
On 19.8.2023. 21:19, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 11:13 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 19.8.2023. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/18/23 9:37 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 19.8.2023. 4:12, John Harshman wrote:How do you know they exist? How do you know they're important?
You might try asking Mario what these "other ways" are. I'd be
interested in knowing. Perhaps he's thinking of "natural genetic
engineering" or "morphic resonance", but I'm willing to bet it's
some kind of woo.
No, I have not the slightest idea what these "other ways"
are. I just said that science doesn't know about them. I, too, have
not the slightest idea what they are.
Because "evolution by errors" is stupid to the bone. I don't
know who actually invented this, but it is sneaked into science by
Catholic church, and called Genetic Mutation Theory, a very well
known fact. A typical story of science,stupid, and manipulated by
church. No sense in it at all.
I'm sorry, but that's insane. The Catholic Church had nothing to do
with introducing the concept of mutations into biology, and they were
introduced because they were actually observed. We know mutations
happen, we know how they happen, and we know what happens to them
afterwards. It's not weird magic.
Good for mutations. More than 20 years when I found myself learning about paleoanthropology "Genetic Mutation Theory (Mendel is the author) was them main word. It made fun of Darwin, Darwin was the past, everybody was talking about Genetic Mutation Theory. Today, if you type "Genetic Mutation Theory" into Wikipedia you will get no results. But
no, I am not insane, the whole science is insane. And all this changed
after I started to write about it on forums. And yes, this actually
happened, I am not insane.
I see a lot of different people around me. Everybody has >>> different dimensions, although we have similar genes.
Slightly different alleles of some of those genes, though, and this
accounts for a good fraction of the differences you observe.
This is enough for evolution to work, you don't need a gene
manipulation, there is enough of change already in it, you don't need
more of it.
That's true. Standing genetic variation can power evolution for a
while. But eventually it runs out and evolution would stop unless
there were a source of new variation, i.e. mutation.
Mutation will not help, mutation is malfunction, and organism has the way to deal with mutations, as far as I know organism corrects mutations. I can trace my five fingers long way down the evolution
chain, and people in this forum should know about it. It didn't stop to evolve. You can find the origin of everything down the evolution chain.
I doubt that this would be caused by mutation. The "mutation" is the
answer when you don't know the answer.
You only need deliberate "gene change" if you want God to be involved
in the story, and if you really desperately need some special
extraterrestrial magical effects, like "intelligence".
Nobody said any of this mutation is deliberate. Well, nobody except ID
crackpots.
It allows for god's intervention, this is why Catholic church is pushing it. Just like the Big Bang Theory, which allows for God's creation.
So, now I have to deal with a lot of idiots who prey to magic,
because they see themselves as being magical. No, we are just normal
animals, earthly beings, nothing else. But if you see all those
scientific theories, they all revolve around "intelligence". We are
tall because we are intelligent, we have long hair because we are
intelligent, we have blue eyes because we are intelligent, and so on,
and so on, the source of every trait in humans is our "intelligence",
"intelligence" is answer to everything (I just saw a video, "Jesus is
always the answer", kid wrote in test, :) ). And this has to,
somehow, fall from skies. And voila, we have genes, and they can
produce, literally, anything, including the "magical stuff", and my
god aren't we so magical.
Nothing you say in that paragraph is true. Nobody (again, with the
exception of a few ID crackpots) thinks any of that. You are arguing
against a small minority of people who aren't even here.
On 8/19/23 1:20 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 19.8.2023. 21:19, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 11:13 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 19.8.2023. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/18/23 9:37 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 19.8.2023. 4:12, John Harshman wrote:How do you know they exist? How do you know they're important?
You might try asking Mario what these "other ways" are. I'd be
interested in knowing. Perhaps he's thinking of "natural genetic >>>>>>> engineering" or "morphic resonance", but I'm willing to bet it's >>>>>>> some kind of woo.
No, I have not the slightest idea what these "other ways"
are. I just said that science doesn't know about them. I, too,
have not the slightest idea what they are.
Because "evolution by errors" is stupid to the bone. I >>>> don't know who actually invented this, but it is sneaked into
science by Catholic church, and called Genetic Mutation Theory, a
very well known fact. A typical story of science,stupid, and
manipulated by church. No sense in it at all.
I'm sorry, but that's insane. The Catholic Church had nothing to do
with introducing the concept of mutations into biology, and they were
introduced because they were actually observed. We know mutations
happen, we know how they happen, and we know what happens to them
afterwards. It's not weird magic.
Good for mutations. More than 20 years when I found myself >> learning about paleoanthropology "Genetic Mutation Theory (Mendel is
the author) was them main word. It made fun of Darwin, Darwin was the
past, everybody was talking about Genetic Mutation Theory. Today, if
you type "Genetic Mutation Theory" into Wikipedia you will get no
results. But no, I am not insane, the whole science is insane. And all
this changed after I started to write about it on forums. And yes,
this actually happened, I am not insane.
I don't know what was happening in paleoanthropology 20 years ago. But
what you describe is not recognizable as anything in actual evolutionary biology. Nor does Mendel have anything at all to do with mutations. If paleoanthropologists said that, which I strongly doubt, they were wrong.
You may not be insane, but what you're saying is nonsensical.
I see a lot of different people around me. Everybody has >>>> different dimensions, although we have similar genes.
Slightly different alleles of some of those genes, though, and this
accounts for a good fraction of the differences you observe.
This is enough for evolution to work, you don't need a gene
manipulation, there is enough of change already in it, you don't
need more of it.
That's true. Standing genetic variation can power evolution for a
while. But eventually it runs out and evolution would stop unless
there were a source of new variation, i.e. mutation.
Mutation will not help, mutation is malfunction, and organism
has the way to deal with mutations, as far as I know organism corrects
mutations. I can trace my five fingers long way down the evolution
chain, and people in this forum should know about it. It didn't stop
to evolve. You can find the origin of everything down the evolution
chain. I doubt that this would be caused by mutation. The "mutation"
is the answer when you don't know the answer.
Again, you seem to have zero knowledge of evolutionary biology. If you learned about it, all those questions would be answered. Organisms do
correct mutations; that's called proofreading and repair. But repair
doesn't fix all mutations and it actually causes some of them. Observed mutation rates take repair into account. Not sure what "it didn't stop
to evolve" is about. Mutations do happen, some of them affect phenotype,
and some of them are beneficial. That's how adaptive evolution works.
You only need deliberate "gene change" if you want God to be
involved in the story, and if you really desperately need some
special extraterrestrial magical effects, like "intelligence".
Nobody said any of this mutation is deliberate. Well, nobody except
ID crackpots.
It allows for god's intervention, this is why Catholic church
is pushing it. Just like the Big Bang Theory, which allows for God's
creation.
It also allows for God's non-intervention. Again, your statements are
just wrong. I don't think the Catholic church is even pushing mutation.
Where do you get this idea?
So, now I have to deal with a lot of idiots who prey to magic,
because they see themselves as being magical. No, we are just normal
animals, earthly beings, nothing else. But if you see all those
scientific theories, they all revolve around "intelligence". We are
tall because we are intelligent, we have long hair because we are
intelligent, we have blue eyes because we are intelligent, and so
on, and so on, the source of every trait in humans is our
"intelligence", "intelligence" is answer to everything (I just saw a
video, "Jesus is always the answer", kid wrote in test, :) ). And
this has to, somehow, fall from skies. And voila, we have genes, and
they can produce, literally, anything, including the "magical
stuff", and my god aren't we so magical.
Nothing you say in that paragraph is true. Nobody (again, with the
exception of a few ID crackpots) thinks any of that. You are arguing
against a small minority of people who aren't even here.
On 20.8.2023. 1:46, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 1:20 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 19.8.2023. 21:19, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 11:13 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 19.8.2023. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/18/23 9:37 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 19.8.2023. 4:12, John Harshman wrote:How do you know they exist? How do you know they're important?
You might try asking Mario what these "other ways" are. I'd be >>>>>>>> interested in knowing. Perhaps he's thinking of "natural genetic >>>>>>>> engineering" or "morphic resonance", but I'm willing to bet it's >>>>>>>> some kind of woo.
No, I have not the slightest idea what these "other >>>>>>> ways" are. I just said that science doesn't know about them. I,
too, have not the slightest idea what they are.
Because "evolution by errors" is stupid to the bone. I >>>>> don't know who actually invented this, but it is sneaked into
science by Catholic church, and called Genetic Mutation Theory, a
very well known fact. A typical story of science,stupid, and
manipulated by church. No sense in it at all.
I'm sorry, but that's insane. The Catholic Church had nothing to do
with introducing the concept of mutations into biology, and they
were introduced because they were actually observed. We know
mutations happen, we know how they happen, and we know what happens
to them afterwards. It's not weird magic.
Good for mutations. More than 20 years when I found myself >>> learning about paleoanthropology "Genetic Mutation Theory (Mendel is
the author) was them main word. It made fun of Darwin, Darwin was the
past, everybody was talking about Genetic Mutation Theory. Today, if
you type "Genetic Mutation Theory" into Wikipedia you will get no
results. But no, I am not insane, the whole science is insane. And
all this changed after I started to write about it on forums. And
yes, this actually happened, I am not insane.
I don't know what was happening in paleoanthropology 20 years ago. But
what you describe is not recognizable as anything in actual
evolutionary biology. Nor does Mendel have anything at all to do with
mutations. If paleoanthropologists said that, which I strongly doubt,
they were wrong.
You may not be insane, but what you're saying is nonsensical.
Hm, on papers 10 and more years old you can read that Genetic Mutation Theory is by Mendel: "Genetic algorithm (GA) is an optimization searching algorithm based on the theory of evolution and the genetic
mutation theory of Mendel (Atmar, 1994, Chaudhry et al., 2000, Fogel,
1994, Srinivas and Patnaik, 1994)." These days, though, everybody says
that it is De Vries's. Now, what and why? And, frankly, I am really
puzzled how suddenly you don't know anything about it.
I see a lot of different people around me. Everybody has >>>>> different dimensions, although we have similar genes.
Slightly different alleles of some of those genes, though, and this
accounts for a good fraction of the differences you observe.
This is enough for evolution to work, you don't need a gene
manipulation, there is enough of change already in it, you don't
need more of it.
That's true. Standing genetic variation can power evolution for a
while. But eventually it runs out and evolution would stop unless
there were a source of new variation, i.e. mutation.
Mutation will not help, mutation is malfunction, and
organism has the way to deal with mutations, as far as I know
organism corrects mutations. I can trace my five fingers long way
down the evolution chain, and people in this forum should know about
it. It didn't stop to evolve. You can find the origin of everything
down the evolution chain. I doubt that this would be caused by
mutation. The "mutation" is the answer when you don't know the answer.
Again, you seem to have zero knowledge of evolutionary biology. If you
learned about it, all those questions would be answered. Organisms do
correct mutations; that's called proofreading and repair. But repair
doesn't fix all mutations and it actually causes some of them.
Observed mutation rates take repair into account. Not sure what "it
didn't stop to evolve" is about. Mutations do happen, some of them
affect phenotype, and some of them are beneficial. That's how adaptive
evolution works.
I am giving up.
You only need deliberate "gene change" if you want God to be
involved in the story, and if you really desperately need some
special extraterrestrial magical effects, like "intelligence".
Nobody said any of this mutation is deliberate. Well, nobody except
ID crackpots.
It allows for god's intervention, this is why Catholic
church is pushing it. Just like the Big Bang Theory, which allows for
God's creation.
It also allows for God's non-intervention. Again, your statements are
just wrong. I don't think the Catholic church is even pushing
mutation. Where do you get this idea?
From the fact that the Genetic Mutation Theory was accepted after it was rediscovered by three independent scientists in a matter of
two months, in a time when there wasn't even a radio. If you would use
your brain you would figure out the trick, but I don't expect this from
you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Rediscovery_of_Mendel's_work
First, this Catholic priest was a liar, then "somebody" used trick to sell his theory to the world.
Harshman, I had enough of you.
Suddenly you "play stupid" (Croatia expression), like "First time I ever heard this, are you imagining things?". Don't you say.
I mean, I don't know anything about genetics. But, somehow I know who is the father of genetics, and you don't know anything about
it. Hm, "strange".
So, now I have to deal with a lot of idiots who prey to magic,
because they see themselves as being magical. No, we are just
normal animals, earthly beings, nothing else. But if you see all
those scientific theories, they all revolve around "intelligence".
We are tall because we are intelligent, we have long hair because
we are intelligent, we have blue eyes because we are intelligent,
and so on, and so on, the source of every trait in humans is our
"intelligence", "intelligence" is answer to everything (I just saw
a video, "Jesus is always the answer", kid wrote in test, :) ). And
this has to, somehow, fall from skies. And voila, we have genes,
and they can produce, literally, anything, including the "magical
stuff", and my god aren't we so magical.
Nothing you say in that paragraph is true. Nobody (again, with the
exception of a few ID crackpots) thinks any of that. You are arguing
against a small minority of people who aren't even here.
On 8/19/23 5:10 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 1:46, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 1:20 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 19.8.2023. 21:19, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 11:13 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 19.8.2023. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/18/23 9:37 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 19.8.2023. 4:12, John Harshman wrote:How do you know they exist? How do you know they're important?
You might try asking Mario what these "other ways" are. I'd be >>>>>>>>> interested in knowing. Perhaps he's thinking of "natural
genetic engineering" or "morphic resonance", but I'm willing to >>>>>>>>> bet it's some kind of woo.
No, I have not the slightest idea what these "other >>>>>>>> ways" are. I just said that science doesn't know about them. I, >>>>>>>> too, have not the slightest idea what they are.
Because "evolution by errors" is stupid to the bone. I >>>>>> don't know who actually invented this, but it is sneaked into
science by Catholic church, and called Genetic Mutation Theory, a
very well known fact. A typical story of science,stupid, and
manipulated by church. No sense in it at all.
I'm sorry, but that's insane. The Catholic Church had nothing to do
with introducing the concept of mutations into biology, and they
were introduced because they were actually observed. We know
mutations happen, we know how they happen, and we know what happens
to them afterwards. It's not weird magic.
Good for mutations. More than 20 years when I found myself
learning about paleoanthropology "Genetic Mutation Theory (Mendel is
the author) was them main word. It made fun of Darwin, Darwin was
the past, everybody was talking about Genetic Mutation Theory.
Today, if you type "Genetic Mutation Theory" into Wikipedia you will
get no results. But no, I am not insane, the whole science is
insane. And all this changed after I started to write about it on
forums. And yes, this actually happened, I am not insane.
I don't know what was happening in paleoanthropology 20 years ago.
But what you describe is not recognizable as anything in actual
evolutionary biology. Nor does Mendel have anything at all to do with
mutations. If paleoanthropologists said that, which I strongly doubt,
they were wrong.
You may not be insane, but what you're saying is nonsensical.
Hm, on papers 10 and more years old you can read that Genetic
Mutation Theory is by Mendel: "Genetic algorithm (GA) is an
optimization searching algorithm based on the theory of evolution and
the genetic mutation theory of Mendel (Atmar, 1994, Chaudhry et al.,
2000, Fogel, 1994, Srinivas and Patnaik, 1994)." These days, though,
everybody says that it is De Vries's. Now, what and why? And, frankly,
I am really puzzled how suddenly you don't know anything about it.
What are you quoting there? What are the cited references? If it's about genetic algorithms is would seem very peripheral to evolutionary
biology, and I wouldn't be confident that it's right in its attributions.
It's true that De Vries had a theory of mutation, though Mendel did not.
I see a lot of different people around me. Everybody has
different dimensions, although we have similar genes.
Slightly different alleles of some of those genes, though, and this
accounts for a good fraction of the differences you observe.
This is enough for evolution to work, you don't need a gene
manipulation, there is enough of change already in it, you don't
need more of it.
That's true. Standing genetic variation can power evolution for a
while. But eventually it runs out and evolution would stop unless
there were a source of new variation, i.e. mutation.
Mutation will not help, mutation is malfunction, and
organism has the way to deal with mutations, as far as I know
organism corrects mutations. I can trace my five fingers long way
down the evolution chain, and people in this forum should know about
it. It didn't stop to evolve. You can find the origin of everything
down the evolution chain. I doubt that this would be caused by
mutation. The "mutation" is the answer when you don't know the answer.
Again, you seem to have zero knowledge of evolutionary biology. If
you learned about it, all those questions would be answered.
Organisms do correct mutations; that's called proofreading and
repair. But repair doesn't fix all mutations and it actually causes
some of them. Observed mutation rates take repair into account. Not
sure what "it didn't stop to evolve" is about. Mutations do happen,
some of them affect phenotype, and some of them are beneficial.
That's how adaptive evolution works.
I am giving up.
If only that were true.
You only need deliberate "gene change" if you want God to be
involved in the story, and if you really desperately need some
special extraterrestrial magical effects, like "intelligence".
Nobody said any of this mutation is deliberate. Well, nobody except
ID crackpots.
It allows for god's intervention, this is why Catholic >>>> church is pushing it. Just like the Big Bang Theory, which allows
for God's creation.
It also allows for God's non-intervention. Again, your statements are
just wrong. I don't think the Catholic church is even pushing
mutation. Where do you get this idea?
From the fact that the Genetic Mutation Theory was accepted >> after it was rediscovered by three independent scientists in a matter
of two months, in a time when there wasn't even a radio. If you would
use your brain you would figure out the trick, but I don't expect this
from you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Rediscovery_of_Mendel's_work
Notice that nowhere in that article is there any mention of mutation.
And if you actually read it you will find that the rediscovery of Mendel
is all about the fact that inheritance is particulate, not blending.
That's Mendel's work and that's Mendel's theory.
First, this Catholic priest was a liar, then "somebody" used
trick to sell his theory to the world.
Nobody is saying any of that.
Harshman, I had enough of you. Suddenly you "play stupid" (Croatia
expression), like "First time I ever heard this, are you imagining
things?". Don't you say.
I mean, I don't know anything about genetics. But, somehow I
know who is the father of genetics, and you don't know anything about
it. Hm, "strange".
Mendel is the father of genetics. But there is no "genetic mutation
theory" in Mendel's work. Mutation was added to genetics later. I will
agree that you know nothing about genetics or, apparently, about its
history.
Strange indeed.
So, now I have to deal with a lot of idiots who prey to magic,
because they see themselves as being magical. No, we are just
normal animals, earthly beings, nothing else. But if you see all
those scientific theories, they all revolve around "intelligence". >>>>>> We are tall because we are intelligent, we have long hair because
we are intelligent, we have blue eyes because we are intelligent,
and so on, and so on, the source of every trait in humans is our
"intelligence", "intelligence" is answer to everything (I just saw >>>>>> a video, "Jesus is always the answer", kid wrote in test, :) ).
And this has to, somehow, fall from skies. And voila, we have
genes, and they can produce, literally, anything, including the
"magical stuff", and my god aren't we so magical.
Nothing you say in that paragraph is true. Nobody (again, with the
exception of a few ID crackpots) thinks any of that. You are
arguing against a small minority of people who aren't even here.
On 8/19/23 7:33 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 3:21, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 5:10 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 1:46, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 1:20 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 19.8.2023. 21:19, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 11:13 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 19.8.2023. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/18/23 9:37 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:Because "evolution by errors" is stupid to the bone. I
On 19.8.2023. 4:12, John Harshman wrote:How do you know they exist? How do you know they're important? >>>>>>>>
You might try asking Mario what these "other ways" are. I'd >>>>>>>>>>> be interested in knowing. Perhaps he's thinking of "natural >>>>>>>>>>> genetic engineering" or "morphic resonance", but I'm willing >>>>>>>>>>> to bet it's some kind of woo.
No, I have not the slightest idea what these "other >>>>>>>>>> ways" are. I just said that science doesn't know about them. >>>>>>>>>> I, too, have not the slightest idea what they are.
don't know who actually invented this, but it is sneaked into
science by Catholic church, and called Genetic Mutation Theory, >>>>>>>> a very well known fact. A typical story of science,stupid, and >>>>>>>> manipulated by church. No sense in it at all.
I'm sorry, but that's insane. The Catholic Church had nothing to >>>>>>> do with introducing the concept of mutations into biology, and
they were introduced because they were actually observed. We know >>>>>>> mutations happen, we know how they happen, and we know what
happens to them afterwards. It's not weird magic.
Good for mutations. More than 20 years when I found >>>>>> myself learning about paleoanthropology "Genetic Mutation Theory
(Mendel is the author) was them main word. It made fun of Darwin,
Darwin was the past, everybody was talking about Genetic Mutation
Theory. Today, if you type "Genetic Mutation Theory" into
Wikipedia you will get no results. But no, I am not insane, the
whole science is insane. And all this changed after I started to
write about it on forums. And yes, this actually happened, I am
not insane.
I don't know what was happening in paleoanthropology 20 years ago.
But what you describe is not recognizable as anything in actual
evolutionary biology. Nor does Mendel have anything at all to do
with mutations. If paleoanthropologists said that, which I strongly
doubt, they were wrong.
You may not be insane, but what you're saying is nonsensical.
Hm, on papers 10 and more years old you can read that >>>> Genetic Mutation Theory is by Mendel: "Genetic algorithm (GA) is an
optimization searching algorithm based on the theory of evolution
and the genetic mutation theory of Mendel (Atmar, 1994, Chaudhry et
al., 2000, Fogel, 1994, Srinivas and Patnaik, 1994)." These days,
though, everybody says that it is De Vries's. Now, what and why?
And, frankly, I am really puzzled how suddenly you don't know
anything about it.
What are you quoting there? What are the cited references? If it's
about genetic algorithms is would seem very peripheral to
evolutionary biology, and I wouldn't be confident that it's right in
its attributions.
It's true that De Vries had a theory of mutation, though Mendel did not. >>>
I see a lot of different people around me. Everybody >>>>>>>> has different dimensions, although we have similar genes.
Slightly different alleles of some of those genes, though, and
this accounts for a good fraction of the differences you observe. >>>>>>>
This is enough for evolution to work, you don't need a gene
manipulation, there is enough of change already in it, you don't >>>>>>>> need more of it.
That's true. Standing genetic variation can power evolution for a >>>>>>> while. But eventually it runs out and evolution would stop unless >>>>>>> there were a source of new variation, i.e. mutation.
Mutation will not help, mutation is malfunction, and >>>>>> organism has the way to deal with mutations, as far as I know
organism corrects mutations. I can trace my five fingers long way
down the evolution chain, and people in this forum should know
about it. It didn't stop to evolve. You can find the origin of
everything down the evolution chain. I doubt that this would be
caused by mutation. The "mutation" is the answer when you don't
know the answer.
Again, you seem to have zero knowledge of evolutionary biology. If
you learned about it, all those questions would be answered.
Organisms do correct mutations; that's called proofreading and
repair. But repair doesn't fix all mutations and it actually causes
some of them. Observed mutation rates take repair into account. Not
sure what "it didn't stop to evolve" is about. Mutations do happen,
some of them affect phenotype, and some of them are beneficial.
That's how adaptive evolution works.
I am giving up.
If only that were true.
Notice that nowhere in that article is there any mention of mutation.You only need deliberate "gene change" if you want God to be
involved in the story, and if you really desperately need some >>>>>>>> special extraterrestrial magical effects, like "intelligence".
Nobody said any of this mutation is deliberate. Well, nobody
except ID crackpots.
It allows for god's intervention, this is why Catholic >>>>>> church is pushing it. Just like the Big Bang Theory, which allows
for God's creation.
It also allows for God's non-intervention. Again, your statements
are just wrong. I don't think the Catholic church is even pushing
mutation. Where do you get this idea?
From the fact that the Genetic Mutation Theory was accepted
after it was rediscovered by three independent scientists in a
matter of two months, in a time when there wasn't even a radio. If
you would use your brain you would figure out the trick, but I don't
expect this from you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Rediscovery_of_Mendel's_work >>>
And if you actually read it you will find that the rediscovery of
Mendel is all about the fact that inheritance is particulate, not
blending. That's Mendel's work and that's Mendel's theory.
First, this Catholic priest was a liar, then "somebody" >>>> used trick to sell his theory to the world.
Nobody is saying any of that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Mendelian_paradox
That has nothing to do with any of your claims.
On 20.8.2023. 3:21, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 5:10 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 1:46, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 1:20 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 19.8.2023. 21:19, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 11:13 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 19.8.2023. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/18/23 9:37 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 19.8.2023. 4:12, John Harshman wrote:How do you know they exist? How do you know they're important?
You might try asking Mario what these "other ways" are. I'd be >>>>>>>>>> interested in knowing. Perhaps he's thinking of "natural
genetic engineering" or "morphic resonance", but I'm willing >>>>>>>>>> to bet it's some kind of woo.
No, I have not the slightest idea what these "other >>>>>>>>> ways" are. I just said that science doesn't know about them. I, >>>>>>>>> too, have not the slightest idea what they are.
Because "evolution by errors" is stupid to the bone. I >>>>>>> don't know who actually invented this, but it is sneaked into
science by Catholic church, and called Genetic Mutation Theory, a >>>>>>> very well known fact. A typical story of science,stupid, and
manipulated by church. No sense in it at all.
I'm sorry, but that's insane. The Catholic Church had nothing to
do with introducing the concept of mutations into biology, and
they were introduced because they were actually observed. We know
mutations happen, we know how they happen, and we know what
happens to them afterwards. It's not weird magic.
Good for mutations. More than 20 years when I found myself
learning about paleoanthropology "Genetic Mutation Theory (Mendel
is the author) was them main word. It made fun of Darwin, Darwin
was the past, everybody was talking about Genetic Mutation Theory.
Today, if you type "Genetic Mutation Theory" into Wikipedia you
will get no results. But no, I am not insane, the whole science is
insane. And all this changed after I started to write about it on
forums. And yes, this actually happened, I am not insane.
I don't know what was happening in paleoanthropology 20 years ago.
But what you describe is not recognizable as anything in actual
evolutionary biology. Nor does Mendel have anything at all to do
with mutations. If paleoanthropologists said that, which I strongly
doubt, they were wrong.
You may not be insane, but what you're saying is nonsensical.
Hm, on papers 10 and more years old you can read that
Genetic Mutation Theory is by Mendel: "Genetic algorithm (GA) is an
optimization searching algorithm based on the theory of evolution and
the genetic mutation theory of Mendel (Atmar, 1994, Chaudhry et al.,
2000, Fogel, 1994, Srinivas and Patnaik, 1994)." These days, though,
everybody says that it is De Vries's. Now, what and why? And,
frankly, I am really puzzled how suddenly you don't know anything
about it.
What are you quoting there? What are the cited references? If it's
about genetic algorithms is would seem very peripheral to evolutionary
biology, and I wouldn't be confident that it's right in its attributions.
It's true that De Vries had a theory of mutation, though Mendel did not.
I see a lot of different people around me. Everybody has
different dimensions, although we have similar genes.
Slightly different alleles of some of those genes, though, and
this accounts for a good fraction of the differences you observe.
This is enough for evolution to work, you don't need a gene
manipulation, there is enough of change already in it, you don't >>>>>>> need more of it.
That's true. Standing genetic variation can power evolution for a
while. But eventually it runs out and evolution would stop unless
there were a source of new variation, i.e. mutation.
Mutation will not help, mutation is malfunction, and >>>>> organism has the way to deal with mutations, as far as I know
organism corrects mutations. I can trace my five fingers long way
down the evolution chain, and people in this forum should know
about it. It didn't stop to evolve. You can find the origin of
everything down the evolution chain. I doubt that this would be
caused by mutation. The "mutation" is the answer when you don't
know the answer.
Again, you seem to have zero knowledge of evolutionary biology. If
you learned about it, all those questions would be answered.
Organisms do correct mutations; that's called proofreading and
repair. But repair doesn't fix all mutations and it actually causes
some of them. Observed mutation rates take repair into account. Not
sure what "it didn't stop to evolve" is about. Mutations do happen,
some of them affect phenotype, and some of them are beneficial.
That's how adaptive evolution works.
I am giving up.
If only that were true.
You only need deliberate "gene change" if you want God to be
involved in the story, and if you really desperately need some
special extraterrestrial magical effects, like "intelligence".
Nobody said any of this mutation is deliberate. Well, nobody
except ID crackpots.
It allows for god's intervention, this is why Catholic >>>>> church is pushing it. Just like the Big Bang Theory, which allows
for God's creation.
It also allows for God's non-intervention. Again, your statements
are just wrong. I don't think the Catholic church is even pushing
mutation. Where do you get this idea?
From the fact that the Genetic Mutation Theory was accepted
after it was rediscovered by three independent scientists in a matter
of two months, in a time when there wasn't even a radio. If you would
use your brain you would figure out the trick, but I don't expect
this from you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Rediscovery_of_Mendel's_work
Notice that nowhere in that article is there any mention of mutation.
And if you actually read it you will find that the rediscovery of
Mendel is all about the fact that inheritance is particulate, not
blending. That's Mendel's work and that's Mendel's theory.
First, this Catholic priest was a liar, then "somebody" used
trick to sell his theory to the world.
Nobody is saying any of that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Mendelian_paradox
Harshman, I had enough of you. Suddenly you "play stupid" (Croatia
expression), like "First time I ever heard this, are you imagining
things?". Don't you say.
I mean, I don't know anything about genetics. But, somehow I
know who is the father of genetics, and you don't know anything about
it. Hm, "strange".
Mendel is the father of genetics. But there is no "genetic mutation
theory" in Mendel's work. Mutation was added to genetics later. I will
agree that you know nothing about genetics or, apparently, about its
history.
Strange indeed.
So, now I have to deal with a lot of idiots who prey to magic,
because they see themselves as being magical. No, we are just
normal animals, earthly beings, nothing else. But if you see all >>>>>>> those scientific theories, they all revolve around
"intelligence". We are tall because we are intelligent, we have
long hair because we are intelligent, we have blue eyes because
we are intelligent, and so on, and so on, the source of every
trait in humans is our "intelligence", "intelligence" is answer
to everything (I just saw a video, "Jesus is always the answer", >>>>>>> kid wrote in test, :) ). And this has to, somehow, fall from
skies. And voila, we have genes, and they can produce, literally, >>>>>>> anything, including the "magical stuff", and my god aren't we so >>>>>>> magical.
Nothing you say in that paragraph is true. Nobody (again, with the >>>>>> exception of a few ID crackpots) thinks any of that. You are
arguing against a small minority of people who aren't even here.
On 20.8.2023. 4:50, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 7:33 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 3:21, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 5:10 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 1:46, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 1:20 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 19.8.2023. 21:19, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 11:13 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 19.8.2023. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/18/23 9:37 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:Because "evolution by errors" is stupid to the bone. I >>>>>>>> don't know who actually invented this, but it is sneaked into >>>>>>>> science by Catholic church, and called Genetic Mutation Theory, >>>>>>>> a very well known fact. A typical story of science,stupid, and >>>>>>>> manipulated by church. No sense in it at all.
On 19.8.2023. 4:12, John Harshman wrote:How do you know they exist? How do you know they're important? >>>>>>>>
You might try asking Mario what these "other ways" are. I'd >>>>>>>>>>> be interested in knowing. Perhaps he's thinking of "natural >>>>>>>>>>> genetic engineering" or "morphic resonance", but I'm willing >>>>>>>>>>> to bet it's some kind of woo.
No, I have not the slightest idea what these "other >>>>>>>>>> ways" are. I just said that science doesn't know about them. >>>>>>>>>> I, too, have not the slightest idea what they are.
I'm sorry, but that's insane. The Catholic Church had nothing to >>>>>>> do with introducing the concept of mutations into biology, and >>>>>>> they were introduced because they were actually observed. We know >>>>>>> mutations happen, we know how they happen, and we know what
happens to them afterwards. It's not weird magic.
Good for mutations. More than 20 years when I found
myself learning about paleoanthropology "Genetic Mutation Theory >>>>>> (Mendel is the author) was them main word. It made fun of Darwin, >>>>>> Darwin was the past, everybody was talking about Genetic Mutation >>>>>> Theory. Today, if you type "Genetic Mutation Theory" into
Wikipedia you will get no results. But no, I am not insane, the >>>>>> whole science is insane. And all this changed after I started to >>>>>> write about it on forums. And yes, this actually happened, I am >>>>>> not insane.
I don't know what was happening in paleoanthropology 20 years ago. >>>>> But what you describe is not recognizable as anything in actual
evolutionary biology. Nor does Mendel have anything at all to do
with mutations. If paleoanthropologists said that, which I strongly >>>>> doubt, they were wrong.
You may not be insane, but what you're saying is nonsensical.
Hm, on papers 10 and more years old you can read that
Genetic Mutation Theory is by Mendel: "Genetic algorithm (GA) is an >>>> optimization searching algorithm based on the theory of evolution
and the genetic mutation theory of Mendel (Atmar, 1994, Chaudhry et >>>> al., 2000, Fogel, 1994, Srinivas and Patnaik, 1994)." These days,
though, everybody says that it is De Vries's. Now, what and why?
And, frankly, I am really puzzled how suddenly you don't know
anything about it.
What are you quoting there? What are the cited references? If it's
about genetic algorithms is would seem very peripheral to
evolutionary biology, and I wouldn't be confident that it's right in
its attributions.
It's true that De Vries had a theory of mutation, though Mendel did not. >>>
I see a lot of different people around me. Everybody >>>>>>>> has different dimensions, although we have similar genes.
Slightly different alleles of some of those genes, though, and >>>>>>> this accounts for a good fraction of the differences you observe. >>>>>>>
This is enough for evolution to work, you don't need a gene >>>>>>>> manipulation, there is enough of change already in it, you don't >>>>>>>> need more of it.
That's true. Standing genetic variation can power evolution for a >>>>>>> while. But eventually it runs out and evolution would stop unless >>>>>>> there were a source of new variation, i.e. mutation.
Mutation will not help, mutation is malfunction, and
organism has the way to deal with mutations, as far as I know
organism corrects mutations. I can trace my five fingers long way >>>>>> down the evolution chain, and people in this forum should know
about it. It didn't stop to evolve. You can find the origin of
everything down the evolution chain. I doubt that this would be >>>>>> caused by mutation. The "mutation" is the answer when you don't >>>>>> know the answer.
Again, you seem to have zero knowledge of evolutionary biology. If >>>>> you learned about it, all those questions would be answered.
Organisms do correct mutations; that's called proofreading and
repair. But repair doesn't fix all mutations and it actually causes >>>>> some of them. Observed mutation rates take repair into account. Not >>>>> sure what "it didn't stop to evolve" is about. Mutations do happen, >>>>> some of them affect phenotype, and some of them are beneficial.
That's how adaptive evolution works.
I am giving up.
If only that were true.
You only need deliberate "gene change" if you want God to be >>>>>>>> involved in the story, and if you really desperately need some >>>>>>>> special extraterrestrial magical effects, like "intelligence". >>>>>>>Nobody said any of this mutation is deliberate. Well, nobody
except ID crackpots.
It allows for god's intervention, this is why Catholic >>>>>> church is pushing it. Just like the Big Bang Theory, which allows >>>>>> for God's creation.
It also allows for God's non-intervention. Again, your statements >>>>> are just wrong. I don't think the Catholic church is even pushing >>>>> mutation. Where do you get this idea?
From the fact that the Genetic Mutation Theory was accepted >>>> after it was rediscovered by three independent scientists in a
matter of two months, in a time when there wasn't even a radio. If
you would use your brain you would figure out the trick, but I don't >>>> expect this from you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Rediscovery_of_Mendel's_work
Notice that nowhere in that article is there any mention of mutation. >>> And if you actually read it you will find that the rediscovery of
Mendel is all about the fact that inheritance is particulate, not
blending. That's Mendel's work and that's Mendel's theory.
First, this Catholic priest was a liar, then "somebody"
used trick to sell his theory to the world.
Nobody is saying any of that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Mendelian_paradox
That has nothing to do with any of your claims.
Mendel was a liar
plus a lot of them are pedophiles,
plus, the ones who aren't, those protect
pedophiles),
and Catholic church used psychological trick to sneak in
Mendel's work.
And the Big Bang Theory also originated in Vatican.
More
than enough said.
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 11:01:52 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 4:50, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 7:33 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 3:21, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 5:10 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 1:46, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 1:20 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 19.8.2023. 21:19, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 11:13 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 19.8.2023. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/18/23 9:37 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:Because "evolution by errors" is stupid to the bone. I >>>>>>>>>> don't know who actually invented this, but it is sneaked into >>>>>>>>>> science by Catholic church, and called Genetic Mutation Theory, >>>>>>>>>> a very well known fact. A typical story of science,stupid, and >>>>>>>>>> manipulated by church. No sense in it at all.
On 19.8.2023. 4:12, John Harshman wrote:How do you know they exist? How do you know they're important? >>>>>>>>>>
You might try asking Mario what these "other ways" are. I'd >>>>>>>>>>>>> be interested in knowing. Perhaps he's thinking of "natural >>>>>>>>>>>>> genetic engineering" or "morphic resonance", but I'm willing >>>>>>>>>>>>> to bet it's some kind of woo.
No, I have not the slightest idea what these "other >>>>>>>>>>>> ways" are. I just said that science doesn't know about them. >>>>>>>>>>>> I, too, have not the slightest idea what they are.
I'm sorry, but that's insane. The Catholic Church had nothing to >>>>>>>>> do with introducing the concept of mutations into biology, and >>>>>>>>> they were introduced because they were actually observed. We know >>>>>>>>> mutations happen, we know how they happen, and we know what
happens to them afterwards. It's not weird magic.
Good for mutations. More than 20 years when I found
myself learning about paleoanthropology "Genetic Mutation Theory >>>>>>>> (Mendel is the author) was them main word. It made fun of Darwin, >>>>>>>> Darwin was the past, everybody was talking about Genetic Mutation >>>>>>>> Theory. Today, if you type "Genetic Mutation Theory" into
Wikipedia you will get no results. But no, I am not insane, the >>>>>>>> whole science is insane. And all this changed after I started to >>>>>>>> write about it on forums. And yes, this actually happened, I am >>>>>>>> not insane.
I don't know what was happening in paleoanthropology 20 years ago. >>>>>>> But what you describe is not recognizable as anything in actual
evolutionary biology. Nor does Mendel have anything at all to do >>>>>>> with mutations. If paleoanthropologists said that, which I strongly >>>>>>> doubt, they were wrong.
You may not be insane, but what you're saying is nonsensical.
Hm, on papers 10 and more years old you can read that
Genetic Mutation Theory is by Mendel: "Genetic algorithm (GA) is an >>>>>> optimization searching algorithm based on the theory of evolution
and the genetic mutation theory of Mendel (Atmar, 1994, Chaudhry et >>>>>> al., 2000, Fogel, 1994, Srinivas and Patnaik, 1994)." These days,
though, everybody says that it is De Vries's. Now, what and why?
And, frankly, I am really puzzled how suddenly you don't know
anything about it.
What are you quoting there? What are the cited references? If it's
about genetic algorithms is would seem very peripheral to
evolutionary biology, and I wouldn't be confident that it's right in >>>>> its attributions.
It's true that De Vries had a theory of mutation, though Mendel did not. >>>>>
I see a lot of different people around me. Everybody >>>>>>>>>> has different dimensions, although we have similar genes.
Slightly different alleles of some of those genes, though, and >>>>>>>>> this accounts for a good fraction of the differences you observe. >>>>>>>>>
This is enough for evolution to work, you don't need a gene >>>>>>>>>> manipulation, there is enough of change already in it, you don't >>>>>>>>>> need more of it.
That's true. Standing genetic variation can power evolution for a >>>>>>>>> while. But eventually it runs out and evolution would stop unless >>>>>>>>> there were a source of new variation, i.e. mutation.
Mutation will not help, mutation is malfunction, and >>>>>>>> organism has the way to deal with mutations, as far as I know
organism corrects mutations. I can trace my five fingers long way >>>>>>>> down the evolution chain, and people in this forum should know >>>>>>>> about it. It didn't stop to evolve. You can find the origin of >>>>>>>> everything down the evolution chain. I doubt that this would be >>>>>>>> caused by mutation. The "mutation" is the answer when you don't >>>>>>>> know the answer.
Again, you seem to have zero knowledge of evolutionary biology. If >>>>>>> you learned about it, all those questions would be answered.
Organisms do correct mutations; that's called proofreading and
repair. But repair doesn't fix all mutations and it actually causes >>>>>>> some of them. Observed mutation rates take repair into account. Not >>>>>>> sure what "it didn't stop to evolve" is about. Mutations do happen, >>>>>>> some of them affect phenotype, and some of them are beneficial.
That's how adaptive evolution works.
I am giving up.
If only that were true.
Notice that nowhere in that article is there any mention of mutation. >>>>> And if you actually read it you will find that the rediscovery ofYou only need deliberate "gene change" if you want God to be >>>>>>>>>> involved in the story, and if you really desperately need some >>>>>>>>>> special extraterrestrial magical effects, like "intelligence". >>>>>>>>>Nobody said any of this mutation is deliberate. Well, nobody >>>>>>>>> except ID crackpots.
It allows for god's intervention, this is why Catholic >>>>>>>> church is pushing it. Just like the Big Bang Theory, which allows >>>>>>>> for God's creation.
It also allows for God's non-intervention. Again, your statements >>>>>>> are just wrong. I don't think the Catholic church is even pushing >>>>>>> mutation. Where do you get this idea?
From the fact that the Genetic Mutation Theory was accepted >>>>>> after it was rediscovered by three independent scientists in a
matter of two months, in a time when there wasn't even a radio. If >>>>>> you would use your brain you would figure out the trick, but I don't >>>>>> expect this from you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Rediscovery_of_Mendel's_work >>>>>
Mendel is all about the fact that inheritance is particulate, not
blending. That's Mendel's work and that's Mendel's theory.
First, this Catholic priest was a liar, then "somebody"
used trick to sell his theory to the world.
Nobody is saying any of that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Mendelian_paradox
That has nothing to do with any of your claims.
You seem to have a bee in your bonnet [are you familiar with this colloquialism?]
about the Catholic Church, Mario.
Your being 61 correlates to your being about 2 years old when Brezhnev took power in 1964, and so your formative years were spent until he died in 1982, when you would have been an adult. You were in Yugoslavia the whole time;
and I suspect your education was steeped in anti-Catholic propaganda
much of the time. Catholicism was especially opposed of the Christian denominations,
because of its unified character, making it a more formidable enemy of Communism
than perhaps all the Protestant denominations put together.
We were once given an abominable anti-Christian book for elementary school children,
written in Hungarian and published in Hungary in the 1960's. It opened with a fiction
loosely based on the book of Genesis, making God look like a bumbling idiot whose behavior
was nothing like what Genesis depicts. Yet it was written "with a straight face" as though
it were an accurate portrayal of what Christians believe.
I say all this because what you write below reads like it was permeated
with anti-Catholic propaganda that you may have accepted uncritically.
I've kept it intact at first, then picked it apart because it contains
such concentrated mistakes.
Mendel was a liar
He simplified some data to make it look like inheritance of traits was
more perfectly describable in multiples of 1/4 or 1/8 or whatever
negative power of 2 was appropriate to the situation. But as
a general approximation to the truth it was good enough for practical purposes.
If this is the only lie that Mendel was guilty of, then he was less of a liar than two of the participants in this thread, and many other participants in talk.origins.
(just like all Catholic priests are,
Is that what you were taught through much of your education?
plus a lot of them are pedophiles,
About 5% engaged in sexually inappropriate behavior with underage minors during the
height of sex abuse, only about one-fifth of which were children below puberty,
the only young people to whom the word "pedophile" applies. You find similar figures in lots of places, including the public schools.
plus, the ones who aren't, those protect
pedophiles),
You have been reading a lot of anti-Catholic propaganda that
ultimately has Marxist roots. It's late, otherwise I'd go into the
whole story. Maybe tomorrow I'll have the time.
and Catholic church used psychological trick to sneak in
Mendel's work.
I can't imagine a source for this except Stalinist propagandists
steeped in Lysenkoism.
And the Big Bang Theory also originated in Vatican.
The Vatican had no role in it, and besides, why do you
think it is incorrect at all?
More
than enough said.
It would probably have been best to have it all unsaid.
But at least this way I think we might be able to
clear up some of these misconceptions.
On 22.8.2023. 4:42, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 11:01:52 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic
wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 4:50, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 7:33 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 3:21, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 5:10 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 1:46, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 1:20 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 19.8.2023. 21:19, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 11:13 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 19.8.2023. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/18/23 9:37 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:Because "evolution by errors" is stupid to the bone. I
On 19.8.2023. 4:12, John Harshman wrote:How do you know they exist? How do you know they're important? >>>>>>>>>>>
You might try asking Mario what these "other ways" are. I'd >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be interested in knowing. Perhaps he's thinking of "natural >>>>>>>>>>>>>> genetic engineering" or "morphic resonance", but I'm willing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to bet it's some kind of woo.
No, I have not the slightest idea what these "other
ways" are. I just said that science doesn't know about them. >>>>>>>>>>>>> I, too, have not the slightest idea what they are.
don't know who actually invented this, but it is sneaked into >>>>>>>>>>> science by Catholic church, and called Genetic Mutation Theory, >>>>>>>>>>> a very well known fact. A typical story of science,stupid, and >>>>>>>>>>> manipulated by church. No sense in it at all.
I'm sorry, but that's insane. The Catholic Church had nothing to >>>>>>>>>> do with introducing the concept of mutations into biology, and >>>>>>>>>> they were introduced because they were actually observed. We know >>>>>>>>>> mutations happen, we know how they happen, and we know what >>>>>>>>>> happens to them afterwards. It's not weird magic.
Good for mutations. More than 20 years when I found
myself learning about paleoanthropology "Genetic Mutation Theory >>>>>>>>> (Mendel is the author) was them main word. It made fun of Darwin, >>>>>>>>> Darwin was the past, everybody was talking about Genetic Mutation >>>>>>>>> Theory. Today, if you type "Genetic Mutation Theory" into
Wikipedia you will get no results. But no, I am not insane, the >>>>>>>>> whole science is insane. And all this changed after I started to >>>>>>>>> write about it on forums. And yes, this actually happened, I am >>>>>>>>> not insane.
I don't know what was happening in paleoanthropology 20 years ago. >>>>>>>> But what you describe is not recognizable as anything in actual >>>>>>>> evolutionary biology. Nor does Mendel have anything at all to do >>>>>>>> with mutations. If paleoanthropologists said that, which I strongly >>>>>>>> doubt, they were wrong.
You may not be insane, but what you're saying is nonsensical.
Hm, on papers 10 and more years old you can read that
Genetic Mutation Theory is by Mendel: "Genetic algorithm (GA) is an >>>>>>> optimization searching algorithm based on the theory of evolution >>>>>>> and the genetic mutation theory of Mendel (Atmar, 1994, Chaudhry et >>>>>>> al., 2000, Fogel, 1994, Srinivas and Patnaik, 1994)." These days, >>>>>>> though, everybody says that it is De Vries's. Now, what and why? >>>>>>> And, frankly, I am really puzzled how suddenly you don't know
anything about it.
What are you quoting there? What are the cited references? If it's >>>>>> about genetic algorithms is would seem very peripheral to
evolutionary biology, and I wouldn't be confident that it's right in >>>>>> its attributions.
It's true that De Vries had a theory of mutation, though Mendel
did not.
I see a lot of different people around me. EverybodySlightly different alleles of some of those genes, though, and >>>>>>>>>> this accounts for a good fraction of the differences you observe. >>>>>>>>>>
has different dimensions, although we have similar genes. >>>>>>>>>>
This is enough for evolution to work, you don't need a gene >>>>>>>>>>> manipulation, there is enough of change already in it, you don't >>>>>>>>>>> need more of it.
That's true. Standing genetic variation can power evolution for a >>>>>>>>>> while. But eventually it runs out and evolution would stop unless >>>>>>>>>> there were a source of new variation, i.e. mutation.
Mutation will not help, mutation is malfunction, and
organism has the way to deal with mutations, as far as I know >>>>>>>>> organism corrects mutations. I can trace my five fingers long way >>>>>>>>> down the evolution chain, and people in this forum should know >>>>>>>>> about it. It didn't stop to evolve. You can find the origin of >>>>>>>>> everything down the evolution chain. I doubt that this would be >>>>>>>>> caused by mutation. The "mutation" is the answer when you don't >>>>>>>>> know the answer.
Again, you seem to have zero knowledge of evolutionary biology. If >>>>>>>> you learned about it, all those questions would be answered.
Organisms do correct mutations; that's called proofreading and >>>>>>>> repair. But repair doesn't fix all mutations and it actually causes >>>>>>>> some of them. Observed mutation rates take repair into account. Not >>>>>>>> sure what "it didn't stop to evolve" is about. Mutations do happen, >>>>>>>> some of them affect phenotype, and some of them are beneficial. >>>>>>>> That's how adaptive evolution works.
I am giving up.
If only that were true.
You only need deliberate "gene change" if you want God to be >>>>>>>>>>> involved in the story, and if you really desperately need some >>>>>>>>>>> special extraterrestrial magical effects, like "intelligence". >>>>>>>>>>Nobody said any of this mutation is deliberate. Well, nobody >>>>>>>>>> except ID crackpots.
It allows for god's intervention, this is why Catholic
church is pushing it. Just like the Big Bang Theory, which allows >>>>>>>>> for God's creation.
It also allows for God's non-intervention. Again, your statements >>>>>>>> are just wrong. I don't think the Catholic church is even pushing >>>>>>>> mutation. Where do you get this idea?
From the fact that the Genetic Mutation Theory was >>>>>>> accepted
after it was rediscovered by three independent scientists in a
matter of two months, in a time when there wasn't even a radio. If >>>>>>> you would use your brain you would figure out the trick, but I don't >>>>>>> expect this from you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Rediscovery_of_Mendel's_work
Notice that nowhere in that article is there any mention of mutation. >>>>>> And if you actually read it you will find that the rediscovery of
Mendel is all about the fact that inheritance is particulate, not
blending. That's Mendel's work and that's Mendel's theory.
First, this Catholic priest was a liar, then "somebody"
used trick to sell his theory to the world.
Nobody is saying any of that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Mendelian_paradox
That has nothing to do with any of your claims.
You seem to have a bee in your bonnet [are you familiar with this
colloquialism?]
about the Catholic Church, Mario.
Your being 61 correlates to your being about 2 years old when Brezhnev
took
power in 1964, and so your formative years were spent until he died in
1982,
when you would have been an adult. You were in Yugoslavia the whole time;
and I suspect your education was steeped in anti-Catholic propaganda
much of the time. Catholicism was especially opposed of the Christian
denominations,
because of its unified character, making it a more formidable enemy of
Communism
than perhaps all the Protestant denominations put together.
We were once given an abominable anti-Christian book for elementary
school children,
written in Hungarian and published in Hungary in the 1960's. It opened
with a fiction
loosely based on the book of Genesis, making God look like a bumbling
idiot whose behavior
was nothing like what Genesis depicts. Yet it was written "with a
straight face" as though
it were an accurate portrayal of what Christians believe.
I say all this because what you write below reads like it was permeated
with anti-Catholic propaganda that you may have accepted uncritically.
I've kept it intact at first, then picked it apart because it contains
such concentrated mistakes.
Mendel was a liar
He simplified some data to make it look like inheritance of traits was
more perfectly describable in multiples of 1/4 or 1/8 or whatever
negative power of 2 was appropriate to the situation. But as
a general approximation to the truth it was good enough for practical
purposes.
If this is the only lie that Mendel was guilty of, then he was less of a >> liar than two of the participants in this thread, and many other
participants
in talk.origins.
(just like all Catholic priests are,
Is that what you were taught through much of your education?
plus a lot of them are pedophiles,
About 5% engaged in sexually inappropriate behavior with underage
minors during the
height of sex abuse, only about one-fifth of which were children below
puberty,
the only young people to whom the word "pedophile" applies. You find
similar
figures in lots of places, including the public schools.
plus, the ones who aren't, those protect
pedophiles),
You have been reading a lot of anti-Catholic propaganda that
ultimately has Marxist roots. It's late, otherwise I'd go into the
whole story. Maybe tomorrow I'll have the time.
and Catholic church used psychological trick to sneak in
Mendel's work.
I can't imagine a source for this except Stalinist propagandists
steeped in Lysenkoism.
And the Big Bang Theory also originated in Vatican.
The Vatican had no role in it, and besides, why do you
think it is incorrect at all?
More
than enough said.
It would probably have been best to have it all unsaid.
But at least this way I think we might be able to
clear up some of these misconceptions.
First Peter, thanks for taking care about it.
Ok, lets start with clearing misconceptions about my uprising,
regarding Catholicism. My mother was strong believer. She had some
problems with communists in her life, so she never raised us in
Catholicism and nationalism, so, she, although being strong Catholic,
kept it for herself. We (me and my two twin sisters) went to Catholic
Sunday School. Here children go by the age of 8. I didn't go at that age because my mother wanted me to go along with my sisters (for obvious
reasons, you say that there 5 % pedophiles, this are just the proven
ones), so I started to go by the age of 10 (when my sisters were 8). At
that age I was old enough to understand things, and smart enough to pick
up the logic of it. I was eager to find out what it is all about. I
presumed that the basis of it are 10 commandments. We had Sunday School
in one of the more known church in Zagreb, St.Peter's Church, in Vlaska street, very close to the center of the town. But the teacher wasn't a priest, ti was a layman. So, I was eager to pick up the logic behind it,
and I was shocked when the guy said, "We will not talk about 10
Commandments, you have it in catechism (small white booklet), you can do
it at home by yourself.". Frankly, I got the impression that the guy
wouldn't be able to name all 10 Commandments if somebody would ask him
to do it. This was extremely strange to me, since the whole logic should
lay upon 10 Commandments. Instead of that he was talking about two
things every time:
1) The first Catholics, those in Roman Empire, were living in communes. This is the original Communism, a system we should strive to
have.
2) "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle
then for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!", explaining how in
the past those "rich men" were Pharisees, while today they are those
ugly fat American capitalists.
In other words, he was saying how communism is a system we should strive to achieve, and how capitalism is bad.
He was talking about it and explaining it widely every single time, in fact this was the only thing he was doing. Of course, he was
young. I don't know what relationship he had with some of the girls of
my age, but they were all in love with him, and close with him.
Regarding official education, Yugoslavia wasn't so rigid, in fact Tito had very warm relationships with the West, so there wasn't anti-catholic education at all in our school. I remember only once, our elementary school teacher was asking who believes in God. There were
some people from my class that also went to Sunday School, but only I
replied that I believe in God. In fact, I didn't believe in God at that
time (nor ever), I just tried to protect my mother's views, who is she
(that teacher) to ridicule the believes of my mother. And this was the
only occasion when anybody said anything against Catholic religion.
I was never raised to be against communism also, but it was obvious, from a faces she made, that my mother doesn't like it at all.
Of course I had strong feeling for justice since I was a kid, and I
noticed how bad communism is, very early. I didn't like it at all, in
fact, when everybody was accepted in Communist Youth (I believe it is by
the age of 12 or 13), I was contemplating not to do it. At the last
moment I decided to do it, otherwise I would be the only pupil in the
whole school not to do it (maybe even in the whole town, :) ), and this
would affect my life very badly, so I decided to do it.
When I started to hate Catholicism? My country went through some transitions, the moral standards of Croats were extremely low, and
I realized that Catholic church is the main responsible for it. I
followed politics, and what's going on around me, saw what is happening,
and realized that Catholic church is extremely bad institution. Didn't
you notice that Pope condemns the West for Ukrainian war, and justifies Putin? Vatican hates UK and USA for the reason that those two countries
are the sources of democracy, Vatican thinks that people should be
Vatican's sheep. People take this lightly, but what really is going on
is that Vatican sees it in the most ugly way, they really do think, and behave towards humans, like humans are their stupid sheep.
I even went to Catholic kindergarten, and as a really small kid I noticed how soulless those nuns are. They were behaving towards children as they are things, like they are not something worthy.
Anyway, I didn't learn anything in Sunday School, I didn't like
that I had to use my free Sundays for it (at that time normal school was
from Monday to Saturday), so as soon as I got first Communion I stopped
to go there (my sisters continued with it).
On 22.8.2023. 6:10, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 22.8.2023. 4:42, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 11:01:52 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic
wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 4:50, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 7:33 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 3:21, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 5:10 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 1:46, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 1:20 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:Hm, on papers 10 and more years old you can read that
On 19.8.2023. 21:19, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 11:13 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 19.8.2023. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/18/23 9:37 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:Because "evolution by errors" is stupid to the >>>>>>>>>>>> bone. I
On 19.8.2023. 4:12, John Harshman wrote:How do you know they exist? How do you know they're important? >>>>>>>>>>>>
You might try asking Mario what these "other ways" are. I'd >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be interested in knowing. Perhaps he's thinking of "natural >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> genetic engineering" or "morphic resonance", but I'm willing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to bet it's some kind of woo.
No, I have not the slightest idea what these "other
ways" are. I just said that science doesn't know about them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I, too, have not the slightest idea what they are. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
don't know who actually invented this, but it is sneaked into >>>>>>>>>>>> science by Catholic church, and called Genetic Mutation Theory, >>>>>>>>>>>> a very well known fact. A typical story of science,stupid, and >>>>>>>>>>>> manipulated by church. No sense in it at all.
I'm sorry, but that's insane. The Catholic Church had nothing to >>>>>>>>>>> do with introducing the concept of mutations into biology, and >>>>>>>>>>> they were introduced because they were actually observed. We >>>>>>>>>>> know
mutations happen, we know how they happen, and we know what >>>>>>>>>>> happens to them afterwards. It's not weird magic.
Good for mutations. More than 20 years when I found
myself learning about paleoanthropology "Genetic Mutation Theory >>>>>>>>>> (Mendel is the author) was them main word. It made fun of Darwin, >>>>>>>>>> Darwin was the past, everybody was talking about Genetic Mutation >>>>>>>>>> Theory. Today, if you type "Genetic Mutation Theory" into
Wikipedia you will get no results. But no, I am not insane, the >>>>>>>>>> whole science is insane. And all this changed after I started to >>>>>>>>>> write about it on forums. And yes, this actually happened, I am >>>>>>>>>> not insane.
I don't know what was happening in paleoanthropology 20 years ago. >>>>>>>>> But what you describe is not recognizable as anything in actual >>>>>>>>> evolutionary biology. Nor does Mendel have anything at all to do >>>>>>>>> with mutations. If paleoanthropologists said that, which I
strongly
doubt, they were wrong.
You may not be insane, but what you're saying is nonsensical. >>>>>>>>
Genetic Mutation Theory is by Mendel: "Genetic algorithm (GA) is an >>>>>>>> optimization searching algorithm based on the theory of evolution >>>>>>>> and the genetic mutation theory of Mendel (Atmar, 1994, Chaudhry et >>>>>>>> al., 2000, Fogel, 1994, Srinivas and Patnaik, 1994)." These days, >>>>>>>> though, everybody says that it is De Vries's. Now, what and why? >>>>>>>> And, frankly, I am really puzzled how suddenly you don't know
anything about it.
What are you quoting there? What are the cited references? If it's >>>>>>> about genetic algorithms is would seem very peripheral to
evolutionary biology, and I wouldn't be confident that it's right in >>>>>>> its attributions.
It's true that De Vries had a theory of mutation, though Mendel
did not.
I see a lot of different people around me. EverybodySlightly different alleles of some of those genes, though, and >>>>>>>>>>> this accounts for a good fraction of the differences you >>>>>>>>>>> observe.
has different dimensions, although we have similar genes. >>>>>>>>>>>
This is enough for evolution to work, you don't need a gene >>>>>>>>>>>> manipulation, there is enough of change already in it, you >>>>>>>>>>>> don't
need more of it.
That's true. Standing genetic variation can power evolution >>>>>>>>>>> for a
while. But eventually it runs out and evolution would stop >>>>>>>>>>> unless
there were a source of new variation, i.e. mutation.
Mutation will not help, mutation is malfunction, and
organism has the way to deal with mutations, as far as I know >>>>>>>>>> organism corrects mutations. I can trace my five fingers long way >>>>>>>>>> down the evolution chain, and people in this forum should know >>>>>>>>>> about it. It didn't stop to evolve. You can find the origin of >>>>>>>>>> everything down the evolution chain. I doubt that this would be >>>>>>>>>> caused by mutation. The "mutation" is the answer when you don't >>>>>>>>>> know the answer.
Again, you seem to have zero knowledge of evolutionary biology. If >>>>>>>>> you learned about it, all those questions would be answered. >>>>>>>>> Organisms do correct mutations; that's called proofreading and >>>>>>>>> repair. But repair doesn't fix all mutations and it actually >>>>>>>>> causes
some of them. Observed mutation rates take repair into account. >>>>>>>>> Not
sure what "it didn't stop to evolve" is about. Mutations do
happen,
some of them affect phenotype, and some of them are beneficial. >>>>>>>>> That's how adaptive evolution works.
I am giving up.
If only that were true.
You only need deliberate "gene change" if you want God to be >>>>>>>>>>>> involved in the story, and if you really desperately need some >>>>>>>>>>>> special extraterrestrial magical effects, like "intelligence". >>>>>>>>>>>Nobody said any of this mutation is deliberate. Well, nobody >>>>>>>>>>> except ID crackpots.
It allows for god's intervention, this is why Catholic
church is pushing it. Just like the Big Bang Theory, which allows >>>>>>>>>> for God's creation.
It also allows for God's non-intervention. Again, your statements >>>>>>>>> are just wrong. I don't think the Catholic church is even pushing >>>>>>>>> mutation. Where do you get this idea?
From the fact that the Genetic Mutation Theory was >>>>>>>> accepted
after it was rediscovered by three independent scientists in a >>>>>>>> matter of two months, in a time when there wasn't even a radio. If >>>>>>>> you would use your brain you would figure out the trick, but I >>>>>>>> don't
expect this from you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Rediscovery_of_Mendel's_work
Notice that nowhere in that article is there any mention of
mutation.
And if you actually read it you will find that the rediscovery of >>>>>>> Mendel is all about the fact that inheritance is particulate, not >>>>>>> blending. That's Mendel's work and that's Mendel's theory.
First, this Catholic priest was a liar, then "somebody"
used trick to sell his theory to the world.
Nobody is saying any of that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Mendelian_paradox
That has nothing to do with any of your claims.
You seem to have a bee in your bonnet [are you familiar with this
colloquialism?]
about the Catholic Church, Mario.
Your being 61 correlates to your being about 2 years old when
Brezhnev took
power in 1964, and so your formative years were spent until he died
in 1982,
when you would have been an adult. You were in Yugoslavia the whole
time;
and I suspect your education was steeped in anti-Catholic propaganda
much of the time. Catholicism was especially opposed of the Christian
denominations,
because of its unified character, making it a more formidable enemy
of Communism
than perhaps all the Protestant denominations put together.
We were once given an abominable anti-Christian book for elementary
school children,
written in Hungarian and published in Hungary in the 1960's. It
opened with a fiction
loosely based on the book of Genesis, making God look like a
bumbling idiot whose behavior
was nothing like what Genesis depicts. Yet it was written "with a
straight face" as though
it were an accurate portrayal of what Christians believe.
I say all this because what you write below reads like it was permeated
with anti-Catholic propaganda that you may have accepted uncritically.
I've kept it intact at first, then picked it apart because it contains
such concentrated mistakes.
Mendel was a liar
He simplified some data to make it look like inheritance of traits was
more perfectly describable in multiples of 1/4 or 1/8 or whatever
negative power of 2 was appropriate to the situation. But as
a general approximation to the truth it was good enough for practical
purposes.
If this is the only lie that Mendel was guilty of, then he was less
of a
liar than two of the participants in this thread, and many other
participants
in talk.origins.
(just like all Catholic priests are,
Is that what you were taught through much of your education?
plus a lot of them are pedophiles,
About 5% engaged in sexually inappropriate behavior with underage
minors during the
height of sex abuse, only about one-fifth of which were children
below puberty,
the only young people to whom the word "pedophile" applies. You find
similar
figures in lots of places, including the public schools.
plus, the ones who aren't, those protect
pedophiles),
You have been reading a lot of anti-Catholic propaganda that
ultimately has Marxist roots. It's late, otherwise I'd go into the
whole story. Maybe tomorrow I'll have the time.
and Catholic church used psychological trick to sneak in
Mendel's work.
I can't imagine a source for this except Stalinist propagandists
steeped in Lysenkoism.
And the Big Bang Theory also originated in Vatican.
The Vatican had no role in it, and besides, why do you
think it is incorrect at all?
More
than enough said.
It would probably have been best to have it all unsaid.
But at least this way I think we might be able to
clear up some of these misconceptions.
First Peter, thanks for taking care about it.
Ok, lets start with clearing misconceptions about my
uprising, regarding Catholicism. My mother was strong believer. She
had some problems with communists in her life, so she never raised us
in Catholicism and nationalism, so, she, although being strong
Catholic, kept it for herself. We (me and my two twin sisters) went to
Catholic Sunday School. Here children go by the age of 8. I didn't go
at that age because my mother wanted me to go along with my sisters
(for obvious reasons, you say that there 5 % pedophiles, this are just
the proven ones), so I started to go by the age of 10 (when my sisters
were 8). At that age I was old enough to understand things, and smart
enough to pick up the logic of it. I was eager to find out what it is
all about. I presumed that the basis of it are 10 commandments. We had
Sunday School in one of the more known church in Zagreb, St.Peter's
Church, in Vlaska street, very close to the center of the town. But
the teacher wasn't a priest, ti was a layman. So, I was eager to pick
up the logic behind it, and I was shocked when the guy said, "We will
not talk about 10 Commandments, you have it in catechism (small white
booklet), you can do it at home by yourself.". Frankly, I got the
impression that the guy wouldn't be able to name all 10 Commandments
if somebody would ask him to do it. This was extremely strange to me,
since the whole logic should lay upon 10 Commandments. Instead of that
he was talking about two things every time:
1) The first Catholics, those in Roman Empire, were living in
communes. This is the original Communism, a system we should strive to
have.
2) "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a
needle then for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!",
explaining how in the past those "rich men" were Pharisees, while
today they are those ugly fat American capitalists.
In other words, he was saying how communism is a system we >> should strive to achieve, and how capitalism is bad.
He was talking about it and explaining it widely every single
time, in fact this was the only thing he was doing. Of course, he was
young. I don't know what relationship he had with some of the girls of
my age, but they were all in love with him, and close with him.
Regarding official education, Yugoslavia wasn't so rigid, in
fact Tito had very warm relationships with the West, so there wasn't
anti-catholic education at all in our school. I remember only once,
our elementary school teacher was asking who believes in God. There
were some people from my class that also went to Sunday School, but
only I replied that I believe in God. In fact, I didn't believe in God
at that time (nor ever), I just tried to protect my mother's views,
who is she (that teacher) to ridicule the believes of my mother. And
this was the only occasion when anybody said anything against Catholic
religion.
I was never raised to be against communism also, but it was >> obvious, from a faces she made, that my mother doesn't like it at all.
Of course I had strong feeling for justice since I was a kid, and I
noticed how bad communism is, very early. I didn't like it at all, in
fact, when everybody was accepted in Communist Youth (I believe it is
by the age of 12 or 13), I was contemplating not to do it. At the last
moment I decided to do it, otherwise I would be the only pupil in the
whole school not to do it (maybe even in the whole town, :) ), and
this would affect my life very badly, so I decided to do it.
When I started to hate Catholicism? My country went through >> some transitions, the moral standards of Croats were extremely low,
and I realized that Catholic church is the main responsible for it. I
followed politics, and what's going on around me, saw what is
happening, and realized that Catholic church is extremely bad
institution. Didn't you notice that Pope condemns the West for
Ukrainian war, and justifies Putin? Vatican hates UK and USA for the
reason that those two countries are the sources of democracy, Vatican
thinks that people should be Vatican's sheep. People take this
lightly, but what really is going on is that Vatican sees it in the
most ugly way, they really do think, and behave towards humans, like
humans are their stupid sheep.
I even went to Catholic kindergarten, and as a really small >> kid I noticed how soulless those nuns are. They were behaving towards
children as they are things, like they are not something worthy.
Anyway, I didn't learn anything in Sunday School, I didn't >> like that I had to use my free Sundays for it (at that time normal
school was from Monday to Saturday), so as soon as I got first
Communion I stopped to go there (my sisters continued with it).
In fact, Christmas was a holiday in Yugoslavia, and Midnight Mass was big celebration, the whole town celebrated. It wasn't quiet, it wasn't "Silent Night", because this was a night when Croats were
celebrating their Christianity publicly, so this was huge celebration,
and everybody went to Zagreb Cathedral at that night. You may picture
how big celebration it is when even the nonbelievers (including me)
attended. Especially if you take into account that Orthodox Serbs
celebrate it using Gregorian calendar, so 15 days after Catholics. So at Christmas it was a time for celebration for Croats. But it was so huge celebration that even young Serbs would come to Zagreb Cathedral and
have fun. So, nothing like you think was happening in Yugoslavia, Christianity was tolerated, especially if you know that Vatican actually works for communists.
On 22.8.2023. 6:33, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 22.8.2023. 6:29, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 22.8.2023. 6:10, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 22.8.2023. 4:42, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 11:01:52 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic >>>>> wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 4:50, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 7:33 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 3:21, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 5:10 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 1:46, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 1:20 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:Hm, on papers 10 and more years old you can read that
On 19.8.2023. 21:19, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 11:13 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 19.8.2023. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/18/23 9:37 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 19.8.2023. 4:12, John Harshman wrote:How do you know they exist? How do you know they're >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important?
You might try asking Mario what these "other ways" are. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd
be interested in knowing. Perhaps he's thinking of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "natural
genetic engineering" or "morphic resonance", but I'm >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> willing
to bet it's some kind of woo.
No, I have not the slightest idea what these
"other
ways" are. I just said that science doesn't know about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.
I, too, have not the slightest idea what they are. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Because "evolution by errors" is stupid to the
bone. I
don't know who actually invented this, but it is sneaked into >>>>>>>>>>>>>> science by Catholic church, and called Genetic Mutation >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Theory,
a very well known fact. A typical story of science,stupid, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
manipulated by church. No sense in it at all.
I'm sorry, but that's insane. The Catholic Church had >>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing to
do with introducing the concept of mutations into biology, and >>>>>>>>>>>>> they were introduced because they were actually observed. >>>>>>>>>>>>> We know
mutations happen, we know how they happen, and we know what >>>>>>>>>>>>> happens to them afterwards. It's not weird magic.
Good for mutations. More than 20 years when I found
myself learning about paleoanthropology "Genetic Mutation >>>>>>>>>>>> Theory
(Mendel is the author) was them main word. It made fun of >>>>>>>>>>>> Darwin,
Darwin was the past, everybody was talking about Genetic >>>>>>>>>>>> Mutation
Theory. Today, if you type "Genetic Mutation Theory" into >>>>>>>>>>>> Wikipedia you will get no results. But no, I am not insane, the >>>>>>>>>>>> whole science is insane. And all this changed after I
started to
write about it on forums. And yes, this actually happened, I am >>>>>>>>>>>> not insane.
I don't know what was happening in paleoanthropology 20 years >>>>>>>>>>> ago.
But what you describe is not recognizable as anything in actual >>>>>>>>>>> evolutionary biology. Nor does Mendel have anything at all to do >>>>>>>>>>> with mutations. If paleoanthropologists said that, which I >>>>>>>>>>> strongly
doubt, they were wrong.
You may not be insane, but what you're saying is nonsensical. >>>>>>>>>>
Genetic Mutation Theory is by Mendel: "Genetic algorithm (GA) >>>>>>>>>> is an
optimization searching algorithm based on the theory of evolution >>>>>>>>>> and the genetic mutation theory of Mendel (Atmar, 1994,
Chaudhry et
al., 2000, Fogel, 1994, Srinivas and Patnaik, 1994)." These days, >>>>>>>>>> though, everybody says that it is De Vries's. Now, what and why? >>>>>>>>>> And, frankly, I am really puzzled how suddenly you don't know >>>>>>>>>> anything about it.
What are you quoting there? What are the cited references? If it's >>>>>>>>> about genetic algorithms is would seem very peripheral to
evolutionary biology, and I wouldn't be confident that it's
right in
its attributions.
It's true that De Vries had a theory of mutation, though Mendel >>>>>>>>> did not.
I see a lot of different people around me. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> EverybodySlightly different alleles of some of those genes, though, and >>>>>>>>>>>>> this accounts for a good fraction of the differences you >>>>>>>>>>>>> observe.
has different dimensions, although we have similar genes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is enough for evolution to work, you don't need a gene >>>>>>>>>>>>>> manipulation, there is enough of change already in it, you >>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
need more of it.
That's true. Standing genetic variation can power evolution >>>>>>>>>>>>> for a
while. But eventually it runs out and evolution would stop >>>>>>>>>>>>> unless
there were a source of new variation, i.e. mutation.
Mutation will not help, mutation is malfunction, and
organism has the way to deal with mutations, as far as I know >>>>>>>>>>>> organism corrects mutations. I can trace my five fingers >>>>>>>>>>>> long way
down the evolution chain, and people in this forum should know >>>>>>>>>>>> about it. It didn't stop to evolve. You can find the origin of >>>>>>>>>>>> everything down the evolution chain. I doubt that this would be >>>>>>>>>>>> caused by mutation. The "mutation" is the answer when you don't >>>>>>>>>>>> know the answer.
Again, you seem to have zero knowledge of evolutionary
biology. If
you learned about it, all those questions would be answered. >>>>>>>>>>> Organisms do correct mutations; that's called proofreading and >>>>>>>>>>> repair. But repair doesn't fix all mutations and it actually >>>>>>>>>>> causes
some of them. Observed mutation rates take repair into
account. Not
sure what "it didn't stop to evolve" is about. Mutations do >>>>>>>>>>> happen,
some of them affect phenotype, and some of them are beneficial. >>>>>>>>>>> That's how adaptive evolution works.
I am giving up.
If only that were true.
You only need deliberate "gene change" if you want God to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> involved in the story, and if you really desperately need >>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
special extraterrestrial magical effects, like
"intelligence".
Nobody said any of this mutation is deliberate. Well, nobody >>>>>>>>>>>>> except ID crackpots.
It allows for god's intervention, this is why >>>>>>>>>>>> Catholic
church is pushing it. Just like the Big Bang Theory, which >>>>>>>>>>>> allows
for God's creation.
It also allows for God's non-intervention. Again, your
statements
are just wrong. I don't think the Catholic church is even >>>>>>>>>>> pushing
mutation. Where do you get this idea?
From the fact that the Genetic Mutation Theory was
accepted
after it was rediscovered by three independent scientists in a >>>>>>>>>> matter of two months, in a time when there wasn't even a
radio. If
you would use your brain you would figure out the trick, but I >>>>>>>>>> don't
expect this from you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Rediscovery_of_Mendel's_work
Notice that nowhere in that article is there any mention of
mutation.
And if you actually read it you will find that the rediscovery of >>>>>>>>> Mendel is all about the fact that inheritance is particulate, not >>>>>>>>> blending. That's Mendel's work and that's Mendel's theory.
First, this Catholic priest was a liar, then "somebody"
used trick to sell his theory to the world.
Nobody is saying any of that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Mendelian_paradox
That has nothing to do with any of your claims.
You seem to have a bee in your bonnet [are you familiar with this
colloquialism?]
about the Catholic Church, Mario.
Your being 61 correlates to your being about 2 years old when
Brezhnev took
power in 1964, and so your formative years were spent until he died
in 1982,
when you would have been an adult. You were in Yugoslavia the whole
time;
and I suspect your education was steeped in anti-Catholic propaganda >>>>> much of the time. Catholicism was especially opposed of the
Christian denominations,
because of its unified character, making it a more formidable enemy
of Communism
than perhaps all the Protestant denominations put together.
We were once given an abominable anti-Christian book for elementary
school children,
written in Hungarian and published in Hungary in the 1960's. It
opened with a fiction
loosely based on the book of Genesis, making God look like a
bumbling idiot whose behavior
was nothing like what Genesis depicts. Yet it was written "with a
straight face" as though
it were an accurate portrayal of what Christians believe.
I say all this because what you write below reads like it was
permeated
with anti-Catholic propaganda that you may have accepted uncritically. >>>>> I've kept it intact at first, then picked it apart because it contains >>>>> such concentrated mistakes.
Mendel was a liar
He simplified some data to make it look like inheritance of traits was >>>>> more perfectly describable in multiples of 1/4 or 1/8 or whatever
negative power of 2 was appropriate to the situation. But as
a general approximation to the truth it was good enough for
practical purposes.
If this is the only lie that Mendel was guilty of, then he was
less of a
liar than two of the participants in this thread, and many other
participants
in talk.origins.
(just like all Catholic priests are,
Is that what you were taught through much of your education?
plus a lot of them are pedophiles,
About 5% engaged in sexually inappropriate behavior with underage
minors during the
height of sex abuse, only about one-fifth of which were children
below puberty,
the only young people to whom the word "pedophile" applies. You
find similar
figures in lots of places, including the public schools.
plus, the ones who aren't, those protect
pedophiles),
You have been reading a lot of anti-Catholic propaganda that
ultimately has Marxist roots. It's late, otherwise I'd go into the
whole story. Maybe tomorrow I'll have the time.
and Catholic church used psychological trick to sneak in
Mendel's work.
I can't imagine a source for this except Stalinist propagandists
steeped in Lysenkoism.
And the Big Bang Theory also originated in Vatican.
The Vatican had no role in it, and besides, why do you
think it is incorrect at all?
More
than enough said.
It would probably have been best to have it all unsaid.
But at least this way I think we might be able to
clear up some of these misconceptions.
First Peter, thanks for taking care about it.
Ok, lets start with clearing misconceptions about my
uprising, regarding Catholicism. My mother was strong believer. She
had some problems with communists in her life, so she never raised
us in Catholicism and nationalism, so, she, although being strong
Catholic, kept it for herself. We (me and my two twin sisters) went
to Catholic Sunday School. Here children go by the age of 8. I
didn't go at that age because my mother wanted me to go along with
my sisters (for obvious reasons, you say that there 5 % pedophiles,
this are just the proven ones), so I started to go by the age of 10
(when my sisters were 8). At that age I was old enough to understand
things, and smart enough to pick up the logic of it. I was eager to
find out what it is all about. I presumed that the basis of it are
10 commandments. We had Sunday School in one of the more known
church in Zagreb, St.Peter's Church, in Vlaska street, very close to
the center of the town. But the teacher wasn't a priest, ti was a
layman. So, I was eager to pick up the logic behind it, and I was
shocked when the guy said, "We will not talk about 10 Commandments,
you have it in catechism (small white booklet), you can do it at
home by yourself.". Frankly, I got the impression that the guy
wouldn't be able to name all 10 Commandments if somebody would ask
him to do it. This was extremely strange to me, since the whole
logic should lay upon 10 Commandments. Instead of that he was
talking about two things every time:
1) The first Catholics, those in Roman Empire, were living
in communes. This is the original Communism, a system we should
strive to have.
2) "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a >>>> needle then for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!",
explaining how in the past those "rich men" were Pharisees, while
today they are those ugly fat American capitalists.
In other words, he was saying how communism is a system we
should strive to achieve, and how capitalism is bad.
He was talking about it and explaining it widely every >>>> single time, in fact this was the only thing he was doing. Of
course, he was young. I don't know what relationship he had with
some of the girls of my age, but they were all in love with him, and
close with him.
Regarding official education, Yugoslavia wasn't so rigid, >>>> in fact Tito had very warm relationships with the West, so there
wasn't anti-catholic education at all in our school. I remember only
once, our elementary school teacher was asking who believes in God.
There were some people from my class that also went to Sunday
School, but only I replied that I believe in God. In fact, I didn't
believe in God at that time (nor ever), I just tried to protect my
mother's views, who is she (that teacher) to ridicule the believes
of my mother. And this was the only occasion when anybody said
anything against Catholic religion.
I was never raised to be against communism also, but it was
obvious, from a faces she made, that my mother doesn't like it at
all. Of course I had strong feeling for justice since I was a kid,
and I noticed how bad communism is, very early. I didn't like it at
all, in fact, when everybody was accepted in Communist Youth (I
believe it is by the age of 12 or 13), I was contemplating not to do
it. At the last moment I decided to do it, otherwise I would be the
only pupil in the whole school not to do it (maybe even in the whole
town, :) ), and this would affect my life very badly, so I decided
to do it.
When I started to hate Catholicism? My country went through
some transitions, the moral standards of Croats were extremely low,
and I realized that Catholic church is the main responsible for it.
I followed politics, and what's going on around me, saw what is
happening, and realized that Catholic church is extremely bad
institution. Didn't you notice that Pope condemns the West for
Ukrainian war, and justifies Putin? Vatican hates UK and USA for the
reason that those two countries are the sources of democracy,
Vatican thinks that people should be Vatican's sheep. People take
this lightly, but what really is going on is that Vatican sees it in
the most ugly way, they really do think, and behave towards humans,
like humans are their stupid sheep.
I even went to Catholic kindergarten, and as a really small
kid I noticed how soulless those nuns are. They were behaving
towards children as they are things, like they are not something
worthy.
Anyway, I didn't learn anything in Sunday School, I didn't
like that I had to use my free Sundays for it (at that time normal
school was from Monday to Saturday), so as soon as I got first
Communion I stopped to go there (my sisters continued with it).
In fact, Christmas was a holiday in Yugoslavia, and Midnight
Mass was big celebration, the whole town celebrated. It wasn't quiet,
it wasn't "Silent Night", because this was a night when Croats were
celebrating their Christianity publicly, so this was huge
celebration, and everybody went to Zagreb Cathedral at that night.
You may picture how big celebration it is when even the nonbelievers
(including me) attended. Especially if you take into account that
Orthodox Serbs celebrate it using Gregorian calendar, so 15 days
after Catholics. So at Christmas it was a time for celebration for
Croats. But it was so huge celebration that even young Serbs would
come to Zagreb Cathedral and have fun. So, nothing like you think was
happening in Yugoslavia, Christianity was tolerated, especially if
you know that Vatican actually works for communists.
Oh yes, it was big celebration, loud, with firecrackers.
Actually, it was the only occasion when you could hit firecracker
behind a policeman (police was very austere back then), and he
wouldn't do anything about it, :) .
Hm, I still wasn't clear enough. The strange things that I noticed in the past were nothing more than strange things, I thought
that they were exceptions, I thought about priests that they are good
mellow people, just like they like to present themselves. The hatred
towards Catholic church is new, maybe in the last 20 years.
There was one extremely amoral period in Croatian transition, some 20 years ago. In order to take loan from bank you needed to have
two guarantees. Well, the one who took loan would pay back, and
guarantees would need to pay back this loan. And it was one, or few occasions, it was mass occurrence, everybody was screwing everybody,
best friend would screw best friends. I gave my sister 8.000 $, and she didn't pay me back. And she even isn't particularly bad person, it is
just that everybody behaved like this at that time. We had low wages, it
took me three years to get out of this depth.
We already had internet, and I was writing on political forums.
And I was thinking about it. I thought, Catholic church is so strong
here, they are in charge of moral of this nation, what are they doing?
And then I started to unveil the truth, little by little. I guarantee
you, Catholic church is one extremely ugly and mean organization. When Ukraine was attacked, every European country stand behind Ukraine, in a matter of few days. For Vatican it took another two weeks, they waited
the last minute. But when Russians reached their maximum advance, and
now they needed peace agreement, Vatican reacted the same day, pushing
for peace. See this: https://www.politico.eu/article/pope-francis-nato-cause-ukraine-invasion-russia/
It is Vatican who is financing and organizing Muslim migrant invasion on Europe, for the reason to harm European democracy.
I was waiting for the transition, waiting eagerly to leave communism and join capitalist West, while Catholic church was spiting on
the West, accusing them of every evil, and pulling as back to Middle Ages.
This is what Serbian church organized one year ago: https://youtube.com/shorts/B7o2XT2I6qI?feature=share
Catholic church saw that and now we have every first Saturday in month Middle Age circus on the main square in Zagreb and other cities
in Croatia:
https://youtu.be/eoPq89g1pIQ
On 22.8.2023. 6:29, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 22.8.2023. 6:10, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 22.8.2023. 4:42, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 11:01:52 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic
wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 4:50, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 7:33 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 3:21, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 5:10 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 1:46, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 1:20 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:Hm, on papers 10 and more years old you can read that
On 19.8.2023. 21:19, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 11:13 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 19.8.2023. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/18/23 9:37 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 19.8.2023. 4:12, John Harshman wrote:How do you know they exist? How do you know they're >>>>>>>>>>>>>> important?
You might try asking Mario what these "other ways" are. I'd >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be interested in knowing. Perhaps he's thinking of "natural >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> genetic engineering" or "morphic resonance", but I'm >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> willing
to bet it's some kind of woo.
No, I have not the slightest idea what these >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "other
ways" are. I just said that science doesn't know about them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I, too, have not the slightest idea what they are. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Because "evolution by errors" is stupid to the >>>>>>>>>>>>> bone. I
don't know who actually invented this, but it is sneaked into >>>>>>>>>>>>> science by Catholic church, and called Genetic Mutation >>>>>>>>>>>>> Theory,
a very well known fact. A typical story of science,stupid, and >>>>>>>>>>>>> manipulated by church. No sense in it at all.
I'm sorry, but that's insane. The Catholic Church had
nothing to
do with introducing the concept of mutations into biology, and >>>>>>>>>>>> they were introduced because they were actually observed. We >>>>>>>>>>>> know
mutations happen, we know how they happen, and we know what >>>>>>>>>>>> happens to them afterwards. It's not weird magic.
Good for mutations. More than 20 years when I found
myself learning about paleoanthropology "Genetic Mutation Theory >>>>>>>>>>> (Mendel is the author) was them main word. It made fun of >>>>>>>>>>> Darwin,
Darwin was the past, everybody was talking about Genetic >>>>>>>>>>> Mutation
Theory. Today, if you type "Genetic Mutation Theory" into >>>>>>>>>>> Wikipedia you will get no results. But no, I am not insane, the >>>>>>>>>>> whole science is insane. And all this changed after I started to >>>>>>>>>>> write about it on forums. And yes, this actually happened, I am >>>>>>>>>>> not insane.
I don't know what was happening in paleoanthropology 20 years >>>>>>>>>> ago.
But what you describe is not recognizable as anything in actual >>>>>>>>>> evolutionary biology. Nor does Mendel have anything at all to do >>>>>>>>>> with mutations. If paleoanthropologists said that, which I >>>>>>>>>> strongly
doubt, they were wrong.
You may not be insane, but what you're saying is nonsensical. >>>>>>>>>
Genetic Mutation Theory is by Mendel: "Genetic algorithm (GA) >>>>>>>>> is an
optimization searching algorithm based on the theory of evolution >>>>>>>>> and the genetic mutation theory of Mendel (Atmar, 1994,
Chaudhry et
al., 2000, Fogel, 1994, Srinivas and Patnaik, 1994)." These days, >>>>>>>>> though, everybody says that it is De Vries's. Now, what and why? >>>>>>>>> And, frankly, I am really puzzled how suddenly you don't know >>>>>>>>> anything about it.
What are you quoting there? What are the cited references? If it's >>>>>>>> about genetic algorithms is would seem very peripheral to
evolutionary biology, and I wouldn't be confident that it's
right in
its attributions.
It's true that De Vries had a theory of mutation, though Mendel >>>>>>>> did not.
I see a lot of different people around me. EverybodySlightly different alleles of some of those genes, though, and >>>>>>>>>>>> this accounts for a good fraction of the differences you >>>>>>>>>>>> observe.
has different dimensions, although we have similar genes. >>>>>>>>>>>>
This is enough for evolution to work, you don't need a gene >>>>>>>>>>>>> manipulation, there is enough of change already in it, you >>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
need more of it.
That's true. Standing genetic variation can power evolution >>>>>>>>>>>> for a
while. But eventually it runs out and evolution would stop >>>>>>>>>>>> unless
there were a source of new variation, i.e. mutation.
Mutation will not help, mutation is malfunction, and
organism has the way to deal with mutations, as far as I know >>>>>>>>>>> organism corrects mutations. I can trace my five fingers long >>>>>>>>>>> way
down the evolution chain, and people in this forum should know >>>>>>>>>>> about it. It didn't stop to evolve. You can find the origin of >>>>>>>>>>> everything down the evolution chain. I doubt that this would be >>>>>>>>>>> caused by mutation. The "mutation" is the answer when you don't >>>>>>>>>>> know the answer.
Again, you seem to have zero knowledge of evolutionary
biology. If
you learned about it, all those questions would be answered. >>>>>>>>>> Organisms do correct mutations; that's called proofreading and >>>>>>>>>> repair. But repair doesn't fix all mutations and it actually >>>>>>>>>> causes
some of them. Observed mutation rates take repair into
account. Not
sure what "it didn't stop to evolve" is about. Mutations do >>>>>>>>>> happen,
some of them affect phenotype, and some of them are beneficial. >>>>>>>>>> That's how adaptive evolution works.
I am giving up.
If only that were true.
You only need deliberate "gene change" if you want God to be >>>>>>>>>>>>> involved in the story, and if you really desperately need some >>>>>>>>>>>>> special extraterrestrial magical effects, like "intelligence". >>>>>>>>>>>>Nobody said any of this mutation is deliberate. Well, nobody >>>>>>>>>>>> except ID crackpots.
It allows for god's intervention, this is why Catholic
church is pushing it. Just like the Big Bang Theory, which >>>>>>>>>>> allows
for God's creation.
It also allows for God's non-intervention. Again, your statements >>>>>>>>>> are just wrong. I don't think the Catholic church is even pushing >>>>>>>>>> mutation. Where do you get this idea?
From the fact that the Genetic Mutation Theory was >>>>>>>>> accepted
after it was rediscovered by three independent scientists in a >>>>>>>>> matter of two months, in a time when there wasn't even a radio. If >>>>>>>>> you would use your brain you would figure out the trick, but I >>>>>>>>> don't
expect this from you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Rediscovery_of_Mendel's_work
Notice that nowhere in that article is there any mention of
mutation.
And if you actually read it you will find that the rediscovery of >>>>>>>> Mendel is all about the fact that inheritance is particulate, not >>>>>>>> blending. That's Mendel's work and that's Mendel's theory.
First, this Catholic priest was a liar, then "somebody"
used trick to sell his theory to the world.
Nobody is saying any of that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Mendelian_paradox
That has nothing to do with any of your claims.
You seem to have a bee in your bonnet [are you familiar with this
colloquialism?]
about the Catholic Church, Mario.
Your being 61 correlates to your being about 2 years old when
Brezhnev took
power in 1964, and so your formative years were spent until he died
in 1982,
when you would have been an adult. You were in Yugoslavia the whole
time;
and I suspect your education was steeped in anti-Catholic propaganda
much of the time. Catholicism was especially opposed of the
Christian denominations,
because of its unified character, making it a more formidable enemy
of Communism
than perhaps all the Protestant denominations put together.
We were once given an abominable anti-Christian book for elementary
school children,
written in Hungarian and published in Hungary in the 1960's. It
opened with a fiction
loosely based on the book of Genesis, making God look like a
bumbling idiot whose behavior
was nothing like what Genesis depicts. Yet it was written "with a
straight face" as though
it were an accurate portrayal of what Christians believe.
I say all this because what you write below reads like it was permeated >>>> with anti-Catholic propaganda that you may have accepted uncritically. >>>> I've kept it intact at first, then picked it apart because it contains >>>> such concentrated mistakes.
Mendel was a liar
He simplified some data to make it look like inheritance of traits was >>>> more perfectly describable in multiples of 1/4 or 1/8 or whatever
negative power of 2 was appropriate to the situation. But as
a general approximation to the truth it was good enough for
practical purposes.
If this is the only lie that Mendel was guilty of, then he was less
of a
liar than two of the participants in this thread, and many other
participants
in talk.origins.
(just like all Catholic priests are,
Is that what you were taught through much of your education?
plus a lot of them are pedophiles,
About 5% engaged in sexually inappropriate behavior with underage
minors during the
height of sex abuse, only about one-fifth of which were children
below puberty,
the only young people to whom the word "pedophile" applies. You find
similar
figures in lots of places, including the public schools.
plus, the ones who aren't, those protect
pedophiles),
You have been reading a lot of anti-Catholic propaganda that
ultimately has Marxist roots. It's late, otherwise I'd go into the
whole story. Maybe tomorrow I'll have the time.
and Catholic church used psychological trick to sneak in
Mendel's work.
I can't imagine a source for this except Stalinist propagandists
steeped in Lysenkoism.
And the Big Bang Theory also originated in Vatican.
The Vatican had no role in it, and besides, why do you
think it is incorrect at all?
More
than enough said.
It would probably have been best to have it all unsaid.
But at least this way I think we might be able to
clear up some of these misconceptions.
First Peter, thanks for taking care about it.
Ok, lets start with clearing misconceptions about my
uprising, regarding Catholicism. My mother was strong believer. She
had some problems with communists in her life, so she never raised us
in Catholicism and nationalism, so, she, although being strong
Catholic, kept it for herself. We (me and my two twin sisters) went
to Catholic Sunday School. Here children go by the age of 8. I didn't
go at that age because my mother wanted me to go along with my
sisters (for obvious reasons, you say that there 5 % pedophiles, this
are just the proven ones), so I started to go by the age of 10 (when
my sisters were 8). At that age I was old enough to understand
things, and smart enough to pick up the logic of it. I was eager to
find out what it is all about. I presumed that the basis of it are 10
commandments. We had Sunday School in one of the more known church in
Zagreb, St.Peter's Church, in Vlaska street, very close to the center
of the town. But the teacher wasn't a priest, ti was a layman. So, I
was eager to pick up the logic behind it, and I was shocked when the
guy said, "We will not talk about 10 Commandments, you have it in
catechism (small white booklet), you can do it at home by yourself.".
Frankly, I got the impression that the guy wouldn't be able to name
all 10 Commandments if somebody would ask him to do it. This was
extremely strange to me, since the whole logic should lay upon 10
Commandments. Instead of that he was talking about two things every
time:
1) The first Catholics, those in Roman Empire, were living >>> in communes. This is the original Communism, a system we should
strive to have.
2) "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a >>> needle then for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!",
explaining how in the past those "rich men" were Pharisees, while
today they are those ugly fat American capitalists.
In other words, he was saying how communism is a system we >>> should strive to achieve, and how capitalism is bad.
He was talking about it and explaining it widely every
single time, in fact this was the only thing he was doing. Of course,
he was young. I don't know what relationship he had with some of the
girls of my age, but they were all in love with him, and close with him. >>> Regarding official education, Yugoslavia wasn't so rigid, in
fact Tito had very warm relationships with the West, so there wasn't
anti-catholic education at all in our school. I remember only once,
our elementary school teacher was asking who believes in God. There
were some people from my class that also went to Sunday School, but
only I replied that I believe in God. In fact, I didn't believe in
God at that time (nor ever), I just tried to protect my mother's
views, who is she (that teacher) to ridicule the believes of my
mother. And this was the only occasion when anybody said anything
against Catholic religion.
I was never raised to be against communism also, but it was
obvious, from a faces she made, that my mother doesn't like it at
all. Of course I had strong feeling for justice since I was a kid,
and I noticed how bad communism is, very early. I didn't like it at
all, in fact, when everybody was accepted in Communist Youth (I
believe it is by the age of 12 or 13), I was contemplating not to do
it. At the last moment I decided to do it, otherwise I would be the
only pupil in the whole school not to do it (maybe even in the whole
town, :) ), and this would affect my life very badly, so I decided to
do it.
When I started to hate Catholicism? My country went through
some transitions, the moral standards of Croats were extremely low,
and I realized that Catholic church is the main responsible for it. I
followed politics, and what's going on around me, saw what is
happening, and realized that Catholic church is extremely bad
institution. Didn't you notice that Pope condemns the West for
Ukrainian war, and justifies Putin? Vatican hates UK and USA for the
reason that those two countries are the sources of democracy, Vatican
thinks that people should be Vatican's sheep. People take this
lightly, but what really is going on is that Vatican sees it in the
most ugly way, they really do think, and behave towards humans, like
humans are their stupid sheep.
I even went to Catholic kindergarten, and as a really small
kid I noticed how soulless those nuns are. They were behaving
towards children as they are things, like they are not something worthy. >>> Anyway, I didn't learn anything in Sunday School, I didn't >>> like that I had to use my free Sundays for it (at that time normal
school was from Monday to Saturday), so as soon as I got first
Communion I stopped to go there (my sisters continued with it).
In fact, Christmas was a holiday in Yugoslavia, and Midnight
Mass was big celebration, the whole town celebrated. It wasn't quiet,
it wasn't "Silent Night", because this was a night when Croats were
celebrating their Christianity publicly, so this was huge celebration,
and everybody went to Zagreb Cathedral at that night. You may picture
how big celebration it is when even the nonbelievers (including me)
attended. Especially if you take into account that Orthodox Serbs
celebrate it using Gregorian calendar, so 15 days after Catholics. So
at Christmas it was a time for celebration for Croats. But it was so
huge celebration that even young Serbs would come to Zagreb Cathedral
and have fun. So, nothing like you think was happening in Yugoslavia,
Christianity was tolerated, especially if you know that Vatican
actually works for communists.
Oh yes, it was big celebration, loud, with firecrackers. Actually, it was the only occasion when you could hit firecracker behind
a policeman (police was very austere back then), and he wouldn't do
anything about it, :) .
On 22.8.2023. 8:04, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 22.8.2023. 6:33, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 22.8.2023. 6:29, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 22.8.2023. 6:10, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 22.8.2023. 4:42, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 11:01:52 PM UTC-4, Mario
Petrinovic wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 4:50, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 7:33 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 3:21, John Harshman wrote:That has nothing to do with any of your claims.
On 8/19/23 5:10 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 1:46, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 1:20 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:Hm, on papers 10 and more years old you can read that
On 19.8.2023. 21:19, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 11:13 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 19.8.2023. 15:04, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/18/23 9:37 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 19.8.2023. 4:12, John Harshman wrote:How do you know they exist? How do you know they're >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important?
You might try asking Mario what these "other ways" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are. I'd
be interested in knowing. Perhaps he's thinking of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "natural
genetic engineering" or "morphic resonance", but I'm >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> willing
to bet it's some kind of woo.
No, I have not the slightest idea what these
"other
ways" are. I just said that science doesn't know about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.
I, too, have not the slightest idea what they are. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Because "evolution by errors" is stupid to the
bone. I
don't know who actually invented this, but it is sneaked >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
science by Catholic church, and called Genetic Mutation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Theory,
a very well known fact. A typical story of
science,stupid, and
manipulated by church. No sense in it at all.
I'm sorry, but that's insane. The Catholic Church had >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing to
do with introducing the concept of mutations into biology, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
they were introduced because they were actually observed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We know
mutations happen, we know how they happen, and we know what >>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens to them afterwards. It's not weird magic.
Good for mutations. More than 20 years when I found
myself learning about paleoanthropology "Genetic Mutation >>>>>>>>>>>>> Theory
(Mendel is the author) was them main word. It made fun of >>>>>>>>>>>>> Darwin,
Darwin was the past, everybody was talking about Genetic >>>>>>>>>>>>> Mutation
Theory. Today, if you type "Genetic Mutation Theory" into >>>>>>>>>>>>> Wikipedia you will get no results. But no, I am not insane, >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
whole science is insane. And all this changed after I >>>>>>>>>>>>> started to
write about it on forums. And yes, this actually happened, >>>>>>>>>>>>> I am
not insane.
I don't know what was happening in paleoanthropology 20 >>>>>>>>>>>> years ago.
But what you describe is not recognizable as anything in actual >>>>>>>>>>>> evolutionary biology. Nor does Mendel have anything at all >>>>>>>>>>>> to do
with mutations. If paleoanthropologists said that, which I >>>>>>>>>>>> strongly
doubt, they were wrong.
You may not be insane, but what you're saying is nonsensical. >>>>>>>>>>>
Genetic Mutation Theory is by Mendel: "Genetic algorithm (GA) >>>>>>>>>>> is an
optimization searching algorithm based on the theory of
evolution
and the genetic mutation theory of Mendel (Atmar, 1994,
Chaudhry et
al., 2000, Fogel, 1994, Srinivas and Patnaik, 1994)." These >>>>>>>>>>> days,
though, everybody says that it is De Vries's. Now, what and why? >>>>>>>>>>> And, frankly, I am really puzzled how suddenly you don't know >>>>>>>>>>> anything about it.
What are you quoting there? What are the cited references? If >>>>>>>>>> it's
about genetic algorithms is would seem very peripheral to
evolutionary biology, and I wouldn't be confident that it's >>>>>>>>>> right in
its attributions.
It's true that De Vries had a theory of mutation, though
Mendel did not.
Mutation will not help, mutation is malfunction, andI see a lot of different people around me. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EverybodySlightly different alleles of some of those genes, though, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
has different dimensions, although we have similar genes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
this accounts for a good fraction of the differences you >>>>>>>>>>>>>> observe.
This is enough for evolution to work, you don't need a gene >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manipulation, there is enough of change already in it, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't
need more of it.
That's true. Standing genetic variation can power
evolution for a
while. But eventually it runs out and evolution would stop >>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless
there were a source of new variation, i.e. mutation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
organism has the way to deal with mutations, as far as I know >>>>>>>>>>>>> organism corrects mutations. I can trace my five fingers >>>>>>>>>>>>> long way
down the evolution chain, and people in this forum should know >>>>>>>>>>>>> about it. It didn't stop to evolve. You can find the origin of >>>>>>>>>>>>> everything down the evolution chain. I doubt that this >>>>>>>>>>>>> would be
caused by mutation. The "mutation" is the answer when you >>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
know the answer.
Again, you seem to have zero knowledge of evolutionary >>>>>>>>>>>> biology. If
you learned about it, all those questions would be answered. >>>>>>>>>>>> Organisms do correct mutations; that's called proofreading and >>>>>>>>>>>> repair. But repair doesn't fix all mutations and it actually >>>>>>>>>>>> causes
some of them. Observed mutation rates take repair into >>>>>>>>>>>> account. Not
sure what "it didn't stop to evolve" is about. Mutations do >>>>>>>>>>>> happen,
some of them affect phenotype, and some of them are beneficial. >>>>>>>>>>>> That's how adaptive evolution works.
I am giving up.
If only that were true.
You only need deliberate "gene change" if you want God to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> involved in the story, and if you really desperately need >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
special extraterrestrial magical effects, like
"intelligence".
Nobody said any of this mutation is deliberate. Well, nobody >>>>>>>>>>>>>> except ID crackpots.
It allows for god's intervention, this is why >>>>>>>>>>>>> Catholic
church is pushing it. Just like the Big Bang Theory, which >>>>>>>>>>>>> allows
for God's creation.
It also allows for God's non-intervention. Again, your >>>>>>>>>>>> statements
are just wrong. I don't think the Catholic church is even >>>>>>>>>>>> pushing
mutation. Where do you get this idea?
From the fact that the Genetic Mutation Theory was
accepted
after it was rediscovered by three independent scientists in a >>>>>>>>>>> matter of two months, in a time when there wasn't even a >>>>>>>>>>> radio. If
you would use your brain you would figure out the trick, but >>>>>>>>>>> I don't
expect this from you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Rediscovery_of_Mendel's_work
Notice that nowhere in that article is there any mention of >>>>>>>>>> mutation.
And if you actually read it you will find that the rediscovery of >>>>>>>>>> Mendel is all about the fact that inheritance is particulate, not >>>>>>>>>> blending. That's Mendel's work and that's Mendel's theory. >>>>>>>>>>
First, this Catholic priest was a liar, then >>>>>>>>>>> "somebody"
used trick to sell his theory to the world.
Nobody is saying any of that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Mendelian_paradox >>>>>>>>
You seem to have a bee in your bonnet [are you familiar with this
colloquialism?]
about the Catholic Church, Mario.
Your being 61 correlates to your being about 2 years old when
Brezhnev took
power in 1964, and so your formative years were spent until he
died in 1982,
when you would have been an adult. You were in Yugoslavia the
whole time;
and I suspect your education was steeped in anti-Catholic propaganda >>>>>> much of the time. Catholicism was especially opposed of the
Christian denominations,
because of its unified character, making it a more formidable
enemy of Communism
than perhaps all the Protestant denominations put together.
We were once given an abominable anti-Christian book for
elementary school children,
written in Hungarian and published in Hungary in the 1960's. It
opened with a fiction
loosely based on the book of Genesis, making God look like a
bumbling idiot whose behavior
was nothing like what Genesis depicts. Yet it was written "with a
straight face" as though
it were an accurate portrayal of what Christians believe.
I say all this because what you write below reads like it was
permeated
with anti-Catholic propaganda that you may have accepted
uncritically.
I've kept it intact at first, then picked it apart because it
contains
such concentrated mistakes.
Mendel was a liar
He simplified some data to make it look like inheritance of traits >>>>>> was
more perfectly describable in multiples of 1/4 or 1/8 or whatever
negative power of 2 was appropriate to the situation. But as
a general approximation to the truth it was good enough for
practical purposes.
If this is the only lie that Mendel was guilty of, then he was
less of a
liar than two of the participants in this thread, and many other
participants
in talk.origins.
(just like all Catholic priests are,
Is that what you were taught through much of your education?
plus a lot of them are pedophiles,
About 5% engaged in sexually inappropriate behavior with underage
minors during the
height of sex abuse, only about one-fifth of which were children
below puberty,
the only young people to whom the word "pedophile" applies. You
find similar
figures in lots of places, including the public schools.
plus, the ones who aren't, those protect
pedophiles),
You have been reading a lot of anti-Catholic propaganda that
ultimately has Marxist roots. It's late, otherwise I'd go into the >>>>>> whole story. Maybe tomorrow I'll have the time.
and Catholic church used psychological trick to sneak in
Mendel's work.
I can't imagine a source for this except Stalinist propagandists
steeped in Lysenkoism.
And the Big Bang Theory also originated in Vatican.
The Vatican had no role in it, and besides, why do you
think it is incorrect at all?
More
than enough said.
It would probably have been best to have it all unsaid.
But at least this way I think we might be able to
clear up some of these misconceptions.
First Peter, thanks for taking care about it.
Ok, lets start with clearing misconceptions about my >>>>> uprising, regarding Catholicism. My mother was strong believer. She
had some problems with communists in her life, so she never raised
us in Catholicism and nationalism, so, she, although being strong
Catholic, kept it for herself. We (me and my two twin sisters) went
to Catholic Sunday School. Here children go by the age of 8. I
didn't go at that age because my mother wanted me to go along with
my sisters (for obvious reasons, you say that there 5 % pedophiles,
this are just the proven ones), so I started to go by the age of 10
(when my sisters were 8). At that age I was old enough to
understand things, and smart enough to pick up the logic of it. I
was eager to find out what it is all about. I presumed that the
basis of it are 10 commandments. We had Sunday School in one of the
more known church in Zagreb, St.Peter's Church, in Vlaska street,
very close to the center of the town. But the teacher wasn't a
priest, ti was a layman. So, I was eager to pick up the logic
behind it, and I was shocked when the guy said, "We will not talk
about 10 Commandments, you have it in catechism (small white
booklet), you can do it at home by yourself.". Frankly, I got the
impression that the guy wouldn't be able to name all 10
Commandments if somebody would ask him to do it. This was extremely
strange to me, since the whole logic should lay upon 10
Commandments. Instead of that he was talking about two things every
time:
1) The first Catholics, those in Roman Empire, were living
in communes. This is the original Communism, a system we should
strive to have.
2) "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a >>>>> needle then for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!",
explaining how in the past those "rich men" were Pharisees, while
today they are those ugly fat American capitalists.
In other words, he was saying how communism is a system we
should strive to achieve, and how capitalism is bad.
He was talking about it and explaining it widely every >>>>> single time, in fact this was the only thing he was doing. Of
course, he was young. I don't know what relationship he had with
some of the girls of my age, but they were all in love with him,
and close with him.
Regarding official education, Yugoslavia wasn't so rigid,
in fact Tito had very warm relationships with the West, so there
wasn't anti-catholic education at all in our school. I remember
only once, our elementary school teacher was asking who believes in
God. There were some people from my class that also went to Sunday
School, but only I replied that I believe in God. In fact, I didn't
believe in God at that time (nor ever), I just tried to protect my
mother's views, who is she (that teacher) to ridicule the believes
of my mother. And this was the only occasion when anybody said
anything against Catholic religion.
I was never raised to be against communism also, but it >>>>> was obvious, from a faces she made, that my mother doesn't like it
at all. Of course I had strong feeling for justice since I was a
kid, and I noticed how bad communism is, very early. I didn't like
it at all, in fact, when everybody was accepted in Communist Youth
(I believe it is by the age of 12 or 13), I was contemplating not
to do it. At the last moment I decided to do it, otherwise I would
be the only pupil in the whole school not to do it (maybe even in
the whole town, :) ), and this would affect my life very badly, so
I decided to do it.
When I started to hate Catholicism? My country went >>>>> through some transitions, the moral standards of Croats were
extremely low, and I realized that Catholic church is the main
responsible for it. I followed politics, and what's going on around
me, saw what is happening, and realized that Catholic church is
extremely bad institution. Didn't you notice that Pope condemns the
West for Ukrainian war, and justifies Putin? Vatican hates UK and
USA for the reason that those two countries are the sources of
democracy, Vatican thinks that people should be Vatican's sheep.
People take this lightly, but what really is going on is that
Vatican sees it in the most ugly way, they really do think, and
behave towards humans, like humans are their stupid sheep.
I even went to Catholic kindergarten, and as a really >>>>> small kid I noticed how soulless those nuns are. They were
behaving towards children as they are things, like they are not
something worthy.
Anyway, I didn't learn anything in Sunday School, I didn't
like that I had to use my free Sundays for it (at that time normal
school was from Monday to Saturday), so as soon as I got first
Communion I stopped to go there (my sisters continued with it).
In fact, Christmas was a holiday in Yugoslavia, and
Midnight Mass was big celebration, the whole town celebrated. It
wasn't quiet, it wasn't "Silent Night", because this was a night
when Croats were celebrating their Christianity publicly, so this
was huge celebration, and everybody went to Zagreb Cathedral at that
night. You may picture how big celebration it is when even the
nonbelievers (including me) attended. Especially if you take into
account that Orthodox Serbs celebrate it using Gregorian calendar,
so 15 days after Catholics. So at Christmas it was a time for
celebration for Croats. But it was so huge celebration that even
young Serbs would come to Zagreb Cathedral and have fun. So, nothing
like you think was happening in Yugoslavia, Christianity was
tolerated, especially if you know that Vatican actually works for
communists.
Oh yes, it was big celebration, loud, with firecrackers. >>> Actually, it was the only occasion when you could hit firecracker
behind a policeman (police was very austere back then), and he
wouldn't do anything about it, :) .
Hm, I still wasn't clear enough. The strange things that I >> noticed in the past were nothing more than strange things, I thought
that they were exceptions, I thought about priests that they are good
mellow people, just like they like to present themselves. The hatred
towards Catholic church is new, maybe in the last 20 years.
There was one extremely amoral period in Croatian transition,
some 20 years ago. In order to take loan from bank you needed to have
two guarantees. Well, the one who took loan would pay back, and
guarantees would need to pay back this loan. And it was one, or few
occasions, it was mass occurrence, everybody was screwing everybody,
best friend would screw best friends. I gave my sister 8.000 $, and
she didn't pay me back. And she even isn't particularly bad person, it
is just that everybody behaved like this at that time. We had low
wages, it took me three years to get out of this depth.
We already had internet, and I was writing on political
forums. And I was thinking about it. I thought, Catholic church is so
strong here, they are in charge of moral of this nation, what are they
doing? And then I started to unveil the truth, little by little. I
guarantee you, Catholic church is one extremely ugly and mean
organization. When Ukraine was attacked, every European country stand
behind Ukraine, in a matter of few days. For Vatican it took another
two weeks, they waited the last minute. But when Russians reached
their maximum advance, and now they needed peace agreement, Vatican
reacted the same day, pushing for peace. See this:
https://www.politico.eu/article/pope-francis-nato-cause-ukraine-invasion-russia/
It is Vatican who is financing and organizing Muslim migrant
invasion on Europe, for the reason to harm European democracy.
I was waiting for the transition, waiting eagerly to leave >> communism and join capitalist West, while Catholic church was spiting
on the West, accusing them of every evil, and pulling as back to
Middle Ages.
This is what Serbian church organized one year ago:
https://youtube.com/shorts/B7o2XT2I6qI?feature=share
Catholic church saw that and now we have every first Saturday
in month Middle Age circus on the main square in Zagreb and other
cities in Croatia:
https://youtu.be/eoPq89g1pIQ
Oops, I made a mistake, the one who took a loan didn't pay back, and guarantees would need to pay back instead.
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 11:01:52 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
More
than enough said.
It would probably have been best to have it all unsaid.
But at least this way I think we might be able to
clear up some of these misconceptions.
On Tuesday, 22 August 2023 at 05:42:15 UTC+3, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 11:01:52 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote: >>Dislike, despise, and/or being strongly prejudiced against some
More
than enough said.
It would probably have been best to have it all unsaid.
But at least this way I think we might be able to
clear up some of these misconceptions.
group of people can't be usually altered with logic. Even if the
person wants to but usually they don't. It is just like trying to
convince someone out of their acrophobia, claustrophobia,
arachnophobia, mysophobia or such. They just feel you are
fool trying to convince them into some horrible error.
You can get pile of to the old wives' tales how earwigs burrowed
into the brains of humans through the ear and laid their eggs
there. It will have nothing to do with anything discussed like
birds, mutations, beaks, Mendel ... you see.
On 22.8.2023. 10:07, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
On Tuesday, 22 August 2023 at 05:42:15 UTC+3, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 11:01:52 PM UTC-4, Mario PetrinovicDislike, despise, and/or being strongly prejudiced against some
wrote:
More
than enough said.
It would probably have been best to have it all unsaid.
But at least this way I think we might be able to
clear up some of these misconceptions.
group of people can't be usually altered with logic. Even if the
person wants to but usually they don't. It is just like trying to
convince someone out of their acrophobia, claustrophobia,
arachnophobia, mysophobia or such. They just feel you are
fool trying to convince them into some horrible error.
You can get pile of to the old wives' tales how earwigs burrowed
into the brains of humans through the ear and laid their eggs
there. It will have nothing to do with anything discussed like
birds, mutations, beaks, Mendel ... you see.
Well, now I have to say that all individuals aren't the same, but also all societies aren't the same, that individuals make societies. These are all facts. I don't understand why you are so desperately
trying to influence the acknowledgement of those facts? Is there any particular reason why you don't like a group of people that think the
same as me? I mean, I didn't express any intolerance against your views
on this subject.
You are just another case o brain washing, I am used to it. Just the other day I heard how Russians are surprised why Ukrainians
hate them, Russians don't hate Ukrainians. But they would hate them if Ukrainians do to them what Russians are doing to Ukrainians.
It is kind of attitude, I rape your daughter every day in a most brutal way, and I don't hate anybody, and if you hate me, there is something wrong with you. Simple and stupid. Science is full with it.
How long you've been in Afghanistan? You achieved nothing, neither you ever will, although you may talk to the end of the world how
all humans are just the same. And guess what, Vatican just love
Afghanistan, and just hates you.
On 22.8.2023. 11:03, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 22.8.2023. 10:55, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 22.8.2023. 10:07, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
On Tuesday, 22 August 2023 at 05:42:15 UTC+3, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 11:01:52 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic >>>>> wrote:Dislike, despise, and/or being strongly prejudiced against some
More
than enough said.
It would probably have been best to have it all unsaid.
But at least this way I think we might be able to
clear up some of these misconceptions.
group of people can't be usually altered with logic. Even if the
person wants to but usually they don't. It is just like trying to
convince someone out of their acrophobia, claustrophobia,
arachnophobia, mysophobia or such. They just feel you are
fool trying to convince them into some horrible error.
You can get pile of to the old wives' tales how earwigs burrowed
into the brains of humans through the ear and laid their eggs
there. It will have nothing to do with anything discussed like
birds, mutations, beaks, Mendel ... you see.
Well, now I have to say that all individuals aren't the >>> same, but also all societies aren't the same, that individuals make
societies. These are all facts. I don't understand why you are so
desperately trying to influence the acknowledgement of those facts?
Is there any particular reason why you don't like a group of people
that think the same as me? I mean, I didn't express any intolerance
against your views on this subject.
You are just another case o brain washing, I am used to it.
Just the other day I heard how Russians are surprised why Ukrainians
hate them, Russians don't hate Ukrainians. But they would hate them
if Ukrainians do to them what Russians are doing to Ukrainians.
It is kind of attitude, I rape your daughter every day in a
most brutal way, and I don't hate anybody, and if you hate me, there
is something wrong with you. Simple and stupid. Science is full with it. >>> How long you've been in Afghanistan? You achieved nothing, >>> neither you ever will, although you may talk to the end of the world
how all humans are just the same. And guess what, Vatican just love
Afghanistan, and just hates you.
Oh yes, if you didn't get it, "don't hate your abuser, your >> abuser doesn't hate yo, and if you hate him, there is something wrong
with you" is the pivotal idea of Catholic church. Now you see how sick
all this is, and for whom Catholic church works. And also you can see
who brainwashed you, and you can see also *why*, for what reason, they
brainwashed you.
In short, if you would be smart enough to take a closer look, you will understand that the type of people who hate are the victims,
they hate their abusers. Whoever told you to hate the ones who hate, he
told you to hate victims, and to give open hands for abusers to continue
with abusing. This is the core meaning of Catholic church.
On 22.8.2023. 10:55, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 22.8.2023. 10:07, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
On Tuesday, 22 August 2023 at 05:42:15 UTC+3, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 11:01:52 PM UTC-4, Mario PetrinovicDislike, despise, and/or being strongly prejudiced against some
wrote:
More
than enough said.
It would probably have been best to have it all unsaid.
But at least this way I think we might be able to
clear up some of these misconceptions.
group of people can't be usually altered with logic. Even if the
person wants to but usually they don't. It is just like trying to
convince someone out of their acrophobia, claustrophobia,
arachnophobia, mysophobia or such. They just feel you are
fool trying to convince them into some horrible error.
You can get pile of to the old wives' tales how earwigs burrowed
into the brains of humans through the ear and laid their eggs
there. It will have nothing to do with anything discussed like
birds, mutations, beaks, Mendel ... you see.
Well, now I have to say that all individuals aren't the same,
but also all societies aren't the same, that individuals make
societies. These are all facts. I don't understand why you are so
desperately trying to influence the acknowledgement of those facts? Is
there any particular reason why you don't like a group of people that
think the same as me? I mean, I didn't express any intolerance against
your views on this subject.
You are just another case o brain washing, I am used to it. >> Just the other day I heard how Russians are surprised why Ukrainians
hate them, Russians don't hate Ukrainians. But they would hate them if
Ukrainians do to them what Russians are doing to Ukrainians.
It is kind of attitude, I rape your daughter every day in a >> most brutal way, and I don't hate anybody, and if you hate me, there
is something wrong with you. Simple and stupid. Science is full with it.
How long you've been in Afghanistan? You achieved nothing, >> neither you ever will, although you may talk to the end of the world
how all humans are just the same. And guess what, Vatican just love
Afghanistan, and just hates you.
Oh yes, if you didn't get it, "don't hate your abuser, your abuser doesn't hate yo, and if you hate him, there is something wrong
with you" is the pivotal idea of Catholic church. Now you see how sick
all this is, and for whom Catholic church works. And also you can see
who brainwashed you, and you can see also *why*, for what reason, they brainwashed you.
On 22.8.2023. 12:50, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 22.8.2023. 11:03, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 22.8.2023. 10:55, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 22.8.2023. 10:07, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
On Tuesday, 22 August 2023 at 05:42:15 UTC+3, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 11:01:52 PM UTC-4, MarioDislike, despise, and/or being strongly prejudiced against some
Petrinovic wrote:
More
than enough said.
It would probably have been best to have it all unsaid.
But at least this way I think we might be able to
clear up some of these misconceptions.
group of people can't be usually altered with logic. Even if the
person wants to but usually they don't. It is just like trying to
convince someone out of their acrophobia, claustrophobia,
arachnophobia, mysophobia or such. They just feel you are
fool trying to convince them into some horrible error.
You can get pile of to the old wives' tales how earwigs burrowed
into the brains of humans through the ear and laid their eggs
there. It will have nothing to do with anything discussed like
birds, mutations, beaks, Mendel ... you see.
Well, now I have to say that all individuals aren't the >>>> same, but also all societies aren't the same, that individuals make
societies. These are all facts. I don't understand why you are so
desperately trying to influence the acknowledgement of those facts?
Is there any particular reason why you don't like a group of people
that think the same as me? I mean, I didn't express any intolerance
against your views on this subject.
You are just another case o brain washing, I am used to it.
Just the other day I heard how Russians are surprised why Ukrainians
hate them, Russians don't hate Ukrainians. But they would hate them
if Ukrainians do to them what Russians are doing to Ukrainians.
It is kind of attitude, I rape your daughter every day in a
most brutal way, and I don't hate anybody, and if you hate me, there
is something wrong with you. Simple and stupid. Science is full with
it.
How long you've been in Afghanistan? You achieved nothing,
neither you ever will, although you may talk to the end of the world
how all humans are just the same. And guess what, Vatican just love
Afghanistan, and just hates you.
Oh yes, if you didn't get it, "don't hate your abuser, your
abuser doesn't hate yo, and if you hate him, there is something wrong
with you" is the pivotal idea of Catholic church. Now you see how
sick all this is, and for whom Catholic church works. And also you
can see who brainwashed you, and you can see also *why*, for what
reason, they brainwashed you.
In short, if you would be smart enough to take a closer look,
you will understand that the type of people who hate are the victims,
they hate their abusers. Whoever told you to hate the ones who hate,
he told you to hate victims, and to give open hands for abusers to
continue with abusing. This is the core meaning of Catholic church.
In other words, hatred is the sin, not abusing, abusing is ok.
Says Catholic church. And it made hatred the uttermost sin. Not a word against abusing. Although the victims are the ones who hate. And
Catholic church knows this very well, trust me.
On 22.8.2023. 12:57, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 22.8.2023. 12:50, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 22.8.2023. 11:03, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 22.8.2023. 10:55, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 22.8.2023. 10:07, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
On Tuesday, 22 August 2023 at 05:42:15 UTC+3, Peter Nyikos wrote: >>>>>>> On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 11:01:52 PM UTC-4, Mario
Petrinovic wrote:Dislike, despise, and/or being strongly prejudiced against some
More
than enough said.
It would probably have been best to have it all unsaid.
But at least this way I think we might be able to
clear up some of these misconceptions.
group of people can't be usually altered with logic. Even if the
person wants to but usually they don't. It is just like trying to
convince someone out of their acrophobia, claustrophobia,
arachnophobia, mysophobia or such. They just feel you are
fool trying to convince them into some horrible error.
You can get pile of to the old wives' tales how earwigs burrowed
into the brains of humans through the ear and laid their eggs
there. It will have nothing to do with anything discussed like
birds, mutations, beaks, Mendel ... you see.
Well, now I have to say that all individuals aren't the >>>>> same, but also all societies aren't the same, that individuals make
societies. These are all facts. I don't understand why you are so
desperately trying to influence the acknowledgement of those facts?
Is there any particular reason why you don't like a group of people
that think the same as me? I mean, I didn't express any intolerance
against your views on this subject.
You are just another case o brain washing, I am used to >>>>> it. Just the other day I heard how Russians are surprised why
Ukrainians hate them, Russians don't hate Ukrainians. But they
would hate them if Ukrainians do to them what Russians are doing to
Ukrainians.
It is kind of attitude, I rape your daughter every day in
a most brutal way, and I don't hate anybody, and if you hate me,
there is something wrong with you. Simple and stupid. Science is
full with it.
How long you've been in Afghanistan? You achieved nothing,
neither you ever will, although you may talk to the end of the
world how all humans are just the same. And guess what, Vatican
just love Afghanistan, and just hates you.
Oh yes, if you didn't get it, "don't hate your abuser, your
abuser doesn't hate yo, and if you hate him, there is something
wrong with you" is the pivotal idea of Catholic church. Now you see
how sick all this is, and for whom Catholic church works. And also
you can see who brainwashed you, and you can see also *why*, for
what reason, they brainwashed you.
In short, if you would be smart enough to take a closer >>> look, you will understand that the type of people who hate are the
victims, they hate their abusers. Whoever told you to hate the ones
who hate, he told you to hate victims, and to give open hands for
abusers to continue with abusing. This is the core meaning of
Catholic church.
In other words, hatred is the sin, not abusing, abusing is >> ok. Says Catholic church. And it made hatred the uttermost sin. Not a
word against abusing. Although the victims are the ones who hate. And
Catholic church knows this very well, trust me.
And guess what, what I just told you I didn't read in any book,
there is no book written which says what I just told you. Scientists
just repeat what Catholic church tells them. Simple and stupid. I had to figure out everything all by myself. Which makes me, automatically,
wrong. But I know that I am right. Whether you know that I am right is completely different matter.
On 22.8.2023. 13:39, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 22.8.2023. 12:57, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 22.8.2023. 12:50, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 22.8.2023. 11:03, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 22.8.2023. 10:55, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 22.8.2023. 10:07, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
On Tuesday, 22 August 2023 at 05:42:15 UTC+3, Peter Nyikos wrote: >>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 11:01:52 PM UTC-4, Mario
Petrinovic wrote:Dislike, despise, and/or being strongly prejudiced against some
More
than enough said.
It would probably have been best to have it all unsaid.
But at least this way I think we might be able to
clear up some of these misconceptions.
group of people can't be usually altered with logic. Even if the >>>>>>> person wants to but usually they don't. It is just like trying to >>>>>>> convince someone out of their acrophobia, claustrophobia,
arachnophobia, mysophobia or such. They just feel you are
fool trying to convince them into some horrible error.
You can get pile of to the old wives' tales how earwigs burrowed >>>>>>> into the brains of humans through the ear and laid their eggs
there. It will have nothing to do with anything discussed like
birds, mutations, beaks, Mendel ... you see.
Well, now I have to say that all individuals aren't the >>>>>> same, but also all societies aren't the same, that individuals
make societies. These are all facts. I don't understand why you
are so desperately trying to influence the acknowledgement of
those facts? Is there any particular reason why you don't like a
group of people that think the same as me? I mean, I didn't
express any intolerance against your views on this subject.
You are just another case o brain washing, I am used to >>>>>> it. Just the other day I heard how Russians are surprised why
Ukrainians hate them, Russians don't hate Ukrainians. But they
would hate them if Ukrainians do to them what Russians are doing
to Ukrainians.
It is kind of attitude, I rape your daughter every day in
a most brutal way, and I don't hate anybody, and if you hate me,
there is something wrong with you. Simple and stupid. Science is
full with it.
How long you've been in Afghanistan? You achieved >>>>>> nothing, neither you ever will, although you may talk to the end
of the world how all humans are just the same. And guess what,
Vatican just love Afghanistan, and just hates you.
Oh yes, if you didn't get it, "don't hate your abuser, >>>>> your abuser doesn't hate yo, and if you hate him, there is
something wrong with you" is the pivotal idea of Catholic church.
Now you see how sick all this is, and for whom Catholic church
works. And also you can see who brainwashed you, and you can see
also *why*, for what reason, they brainwashed you.
In short, if you would be smart enough to take a closer >>>> look, you will understand that the type of people who hate are the
victims, they hate their abusers. Whoever told you to hate the ones
who hate, he told you to hate victims, and to give open hands for
abusers to continue with abusing. This is the core meaning of
Catholic church.
In other words, hatred is the sin, not abusing, abusing is >>> ok. Says Catholic church. And it made hatred the uttermost sin. Not a
word against abusing. Although the victims are the ones who hate. And
Catholic church knows this very well, trust me.
And guess what, what I just told you I didn't read in any >> book, there is no book written which says what I just told you.
Scientists just repeat what Catholic church tells them. Simple and
stupid. I had to figure out everything all by myself. Which makes me,
automatically, wrong. But I know that I am right. Whether you know
that I am right is completely different matter.
Maybe now is the time to explain how I do it. This isn't a simple process, like you have some problem, and you solve it. Nothing
like this. First you have to make realistic basis. For the whole time
you must take great care to not be biased in any way. You mustn't have
any goal, and you mustn't be ambitious at all. If you don't follow each
and every point that I mentioned, you will fail. You must let your brain
to work, by instinct, you have to catch every hint, not just those that
are 100 % proved, like science does. You have to look as far as you can,
not just as close as you can, like science does. You got to have a sense
to smell blood, and to follow the scent. Everything has to be connected
by logic, so when logic forces you to research something, only then you
go and research, and what you find you incorporate into grid of logic,
where everything is connected. By logical connection you see when
something doesn't fit. Science just researches anything, in a hope that
it will find the magic key. I call this method counting grains of sand
in desert. I cannot read 10 books in 10 hours, it takes me half an hour
just to read one page. Because what I read I immediately incorporate
into logical grid. What I do is a matter of quality, what science does
is a matter of quantity. Of course I will be better than science, any
time, :) .
On 22.8.2023. 4:42, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 11:01:52 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 4:50, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 7:33 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 3:21, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 5:10 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 1:46, John Harshman wrote:
But what you describe is not recognizable as anything in actual >>>>>>> evolutionary biology. Nor does Mendel have anything at all to do >>>>>>> with mutations. If paleoanthropologists said that, which I strongly >>>>>>> doubt, they were wrong.
You may not be insane, but what you're saying is nonsensical.
Hm, on papers 10 and more years old you can read that
Genetic Mutation Theory is by Mendel: "Genetic algorithm (GA) is an >>>>>> optimization searching algorithm based on the theory of evolution >>>>>> and the genetic mutation theory of Mendel (Atmar, 1994, Chaudhry et >>>>>> al., 2000, Fogel, 1994, Srinivas and Patnaik, 1994)." These days, >>>>>> though, everybody says that it is De Vries's. Now, what and why? >>>>>> And, frankly, I am really puzzled how suddenly you don't know
anything about it.
What are you quoting there? What are the cited references? If it's >>>>> about genetic algorithms is would seem very peripheral to
evolutionary biology, and I wouldn't be confident that it's right in >>>>> its attributions.
It's true that De Vries had a theory of mutation, though Mendel did not.
Organisms do correct mutations; that's called proofreading and >>>>>>> repair. But repair doesn't fix all mutations and it actually causes >>>>>>> some of them. Observed mutation rates take repair into account. Not >>>>>>> sure what "it didn't stop to evolve" is about. Mutations do happen, >>>>>>> some of them affect phenotype, and some of them are beneficial. >>>>>>> That's how adaptive evolution works.
I am giving up.
If only that were true.
From the fact that the Genetic Mutation Theory was accepted
after it was rediscovered by three independent scientists in a
matter of two months, in a time when there wasn't even a radio. If >>>>>> you would use your brain you would figure out the trick, but I don't >>>>>> expect this from you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Rediscovery_of_Mendel's_work
Notice that nowhere in that article is there any mention of mutation. >>>>> And if you actually read it you will find that the rediscovery of >>>>> Mendel is all about the fact that inheritance is particulate, not >>>>> blending. That's Mendel's work and that's Mendel's theory.
First, this Catholic priest was a liar, then "somebody"
used trick to sell his theory to the world.
Nobody is saying any of that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Mendelian_paradox
That has nothing to do with any of your claims.
You seem to have a bee in your bonnet [are you familiar with this colloquialism?]
about the Catholic Church, Mario.
Your being 61 correlates to your being about 2 years old when Brezhnev took
power in 1964, and so your formative years were spent until he died in 1982,
when you would have been an adult. You were in Yugoslavia the whole time; and I suspect your education was steeped in anti-Catholic propaganda
much of the time. Catholicism was especially opposed of the Christian denominations,
because of its unified character, making it a more formidable enemy of Communism
than perhaps all the Protestant denominations put together.
We were once given an abominable anti-Christian book for elementary school children,
written in Hungarian and published in Hungary in the 1960's. It opened with a fiction
loosely based on the book of Genesis, making God look like a bumbling idiot whose behavior
was nothing like what Genesis depicts. Yet it was written "with a straight face" as though
it were an accurate portrayal of what Christians believe.
I say all this because what you write below reads like it was permeated with anti-Catholic propaganda that you may have accepted uncritically. I've kept it intact at first, then picked it apart because it contains such concentrated mistakes.
Mendel was a liar
He simplified some data to make it look like inheritance of traits was more perfectly describable in multiples of 1/4 or 1/8 or whatever
negative power of 2 was appropriate to the situation. But as
a general approximation to the truth it was good enough for practical purposes.
If this is the only lie that Mendel was guilty of, then he was less of a liar than two of the participants in this thread, and many other participants
in talk.origins.
(just like all Catholic priests are,
Is that what you were taught through much of your education?
plus a lot of them are pedophiles,
About 5% engaged in sexually inappropriate behavior with underage minors during the
height of sex abuse, only about one-fifth of which were children below puberty,
the only young people to whom the word "pedophile" applies. You find similar
figures in lots of places, including the public schools.
plus, the ones who aren't, those protect
pedophiles),
You have been reading a lot of anti-Catholic propaganda that
ultimately has Marxist roots. It's late, otherwise I'd go into the
whole story. Maybe tomorrow I'll have the time.
and Catholic church used psychological trick to sneak in
Mendel's work.
I can't imagine a source for this except Stalinist propagandists
steeped in Lysenkoism.
And the Big Bang Theory also originated in Vatican.
The Vatican had no role in it, and besides, why do you
think it is incorrect at all?
More
than enough said.
It would probably have been best to have it all unsaid.
But at least this way I think we might be able to
clear up some of these misconceptions.
First Peter, thanks for taking care about it.
Ok, lets start with clearing misconceptions about my uprising,
regarding Catholicism. My mother was strong believer. She had some
problems with communists in her life, so she never raised us in
Catholicism and nationalism, so, she, although being strong Catholic,
kept it for herself.
We (me and my two twin sisters) went to Catholic
Sunday School. Here children go by the age of 8. I didn't go at that age because my mother wanted me to go along with my sisters (for obvious reasons, you say that there 5 % pedophiles,
this are just the proven ones),
so I started to go by the age of 10 (when my sisters were 8). At
that age I was old enough to understand things, and smart enough to pick
up the logic of it. I was eager to find out what it is all about. I
presumed that the basis of it are 10 commandments. We had Sunday School
in one of the more known church in Zagreb, St.Peter's Church, in Vlaska street, very close to the center of the town. But the teacher wasn't a priest, ti was a layman. So, I was eager to pick up the logic behind it,
and I was shocked when the guy said, "We will not talk about 10 Commandments, you have it in catechism (small white booklet), you can do
it at home by yourself.". Frankly, I got the impression that the guy wouldn't be able to name all 10 Commandments if somebody would ask him
to do it.
This was extremely strange to me, since the whole logic should
lay upon 10 Commandments. Instead of that he was talking about two
things every time:
1) The first Catholics, those in Roman Empire, were living in
communes. This is the original Communism, a system we should strive to have. 2) "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle then
for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!", explaining how in the
past those "rich men" were Pharisees, while today they are those ugly
fat American capitalists.
In other words, he was saying how communism is a system we should
strive to achieve, and how capitalism is bad.
He was talking about it and explaining it widely every single time, in
fact this was the only thing he was doing. Of course, he was young. I
don't know what relationship he had with some of the girls of my age,
but they were all in love with him, and close with him.
Regarding official education, Yugoslavia wasn't so rigid, in fact Tito
had very warm relationships with the West, so there wasn't anti-catholic education at all in our school. I remember only once, our elementary
school teacher was asking who believes in God. There were some people
from my class that also went to Sunday School, but only I replied that I believe in God. In fact, I didn't believe in God at that time (nor
ever), I just tried to protect my mother's views, who is she (that
teacher) to ridicule the believes of my mother.
And this was the only
occasion when anybody said anything against Catholic religion.
I was never raised to be against communism also, but it was obvious,
from a faces she made, that my mother doesn't like it at all. Of course
I had strong feeling for justice since I was a kid, and I noticed how
bad communism is, very early. I didn't like it at all, in fact, when everybody was accepted in Communist Youth (I believe it is by the age of
12 or 13), I was contemplating not to do it. At the last moment I
decided to do it, otherwise I would be the only pupil in the whole
school not to do it (maybe even in the whole town, :) ), and this would affect my life very badly, so I decided to do it.
When I started to hate Catholicism? My country went through some transitions, the moral standards of Croats were extremely low, and I realized that Catholic church is the main responsible for it.
I followed
politics, and what's going on around me, saw what is happening, and
realized that Catholic church is extremely bad institution. Didn't you notice that Pope condemns the West for Ukrainian war, and justifies
Putin?
Vatican hates UK and USA for the reason that those two countries
are the sources of democracy, Vatican thinks that people should be
Vatican's sheep.
People take this lightly, but what really is going on
is that Vatican sees it in the most ugly way, they really do think, and behave towards humans, like humans are their stupid sheep.
I even went to Catholic kindergarten, and as a really small kid I
noticed how soulless those nuns are. They were behaving towards children
as they are things, like they are not something worthy.
Anyway, I didn't learn anything in Sunday School, I didn't like that I
had to use my free Sundays for it (at that time normal school was from Monday to Saturday), so as soon as I got first Communion I stopped to go there (my sisters continued with it).
On 22.8.2023. 6:29, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 22.8.2023. 6:10, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 22.8.2023. 4:42, Peter Nyikos wrote:
You seem to have a bee in your bonnet [are you familiar with this
colloquialism?]
about the Catholic Church, Mario.
Your being 61 correlates to your being about 2 years old when
Brezhnev took
power in 1964, and so your formative years were spent until he died
in 1982,
when you would have been an adult. You were in Yugoslavia the whole
time;
and I suspect your education was steeped in anti-Catholic propaganda
much of the time. Catholicism was especially opposed of the Christian >>> denominations,
because of its unified character, making it a more formidable enemy
of Communism
than perhaps all the Protestant denominations put together.
We were once given an abominable anti-Christian book for elementary
school children,
written in Hungarian and published in Hungary in the 1960's. It
opened with a fiction
loosely based on the book of Genesis, making God look like a
bumbling idiot whose behavior
was nothing like what Genesis depicts. Yet it was written "with a
straight face" as though
it were an accurate portrayal of what Christians believe.
I say all this because what you write below reads like it was permeated >>> with anti-Catholic propaganda that you may have accepted uncritically. >>> I've kept it intact at first, then picked it apart because it contains >>> such concentrated mistakes.
Mendel was a liar
He simplified some data to make it look like inheritance of traits was >>> more perfectly describable in multiples of 1/4 or 1/8 or whatever
negative power of 2 was appropriate to the situation. But as
a general approximation to the truth it was good enough for practical >>> purposes.
If this is the only lie that Mendel was guilty of, then he was less
of a
liar than two of the participants in this thread, and many other
participants
in talk.origins.
(just like all Catholic priests are,
Is that what you were taught through much of your education?
plus a lot of them are pedophiles,
About 5% engaged in sexually inappropriate behavior with underage minors during the
height of sex abuse, only about one-fifth of which were children below puberty,
the only young people to whom the word "pedophile" applies. You find
similar figures in lots of places, including the public schools.
plus, the ones who aren't, those protect
pedophiles),
You have been reading a lot of anti-Catholic propaganda that
ultimately has Marxist roots. It's late, otherwise I'd go into the
whole story. Maybe tomorrow I'll have the time.
and Catholic church used psychological trick to sneak in
Mendel's work.
I can't imagine a source for this except Stalinist propagandists
steeped in Lysenkoism.
And the Big Bang Theory also originated in Vatican.
The Vatican had no role in it, and besides, why do you
think it is incorrect at all?
In fact, Christmas was a holiday in Yugoslavia, and Midnight
Mass was big celebration, the whole town celebrated. It wasn't quiet, it wasn't "Silent Night", because this was a night when Croats were celebrating their Christianity publicly, so this was huge celebration,
and everybody went to Zagreb Cathedral at that night. You may picture
how big celebration it is when even the nonbelievers (including me) attended. Especially if you take into account that Orthodox Serbs celebrate it using Gregorian calendar, so 15 days after Catholics.
So at Christmas it was a time for celebration for Croats. But it was so huge
celebration that even young Serbs would come to Zagreb Cathedral and
have fun. So, nothing like you think was happening in Yugoslavia, Christianity was tolerated, especially if you know that Vatican actually works for communists.
Oh yes, it was big celebration, loud, with firecrackers. Actually, it
was the only occasion when you could hit firecracker behind a policeman (police was very austere back then), and he wouldn't do anything about
it, :) .
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 12:33:45 AM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 22.8.2023. 6:29, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 22.8.2023. 6:10, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 22.8.2023. 4:42, Peter Nyikos wrote:
You seem to have a bee in your bonnet [are you familiar with this
colloquialism?]
about the Catholic Church, Mario.
Your being 61 correlates to your being about 2 years old when
Brezhnev took
power in 1964, and so your formative years were spent until he died
in 1982,
when you would have been an adult. You were in Yugoslavia the whole
time;
and I suspect your education was steeped in anti-Catholic propaganda >>>>> much of the time. Catholicism was especially opposed of the Christian >>>>> denominations,
because of its unified character, making it a more formidable enemy
of Communism
than perhaps all the Protestant denominations put together.
We were once given an abominable anti-Christian book for elementary
school children,
written in Hungarian and published in Hungary in the 1960's. It
opened with a fiction
loosely based on the book of Genesis, making God look like a
bumbling idiot whose behavior
was nothing like what Genesis depicts. Yet it was written "with a
straight face" as though
it were an accurate portrayal of what Christians believe.
I say all this because what you write below reads like it was permeated >>>>> with anti-Catholic propaganda that you may have accepted uncritically. >>>>> I've kept it intact at first, then picked it apart because it contains >>>>> such concentrated mistakes.
I had originally intended to include two versions, one with your amazing paragraph intact, then picked apart. But then I got absent-minded.
Here is your amazing paragraph:
"Mendel was a liar (just like all Catholic priests are, plus a lot of
them are pedophiles, plus, the ones who aren't, those protect
pedophiles), and Catholic church used psychological trick to sneak in Mendel's work. And the Big Bang Theory also originated in Vatican. More
than enough said."
And here is how I picked it apart:
Mendel was a liar
He simplified some data to make it look like inheritance of traits was >>>>> more perfectly describable in multiples of 1/4 or 1/8 or whatever
negative power of 2 was appropriate to the situation. But as
a general approximation to the truth it was good enough for practical >>>>> purposes.
If this is the only lie that Mendel was guilty of, then he was less >>>>> of a
liar than two of the participants in this thread, and many other
participants
in talk.origins.
(just like all Catholic priests are,
Is that what you were taught through much of your education?
plus a lot of them are pedophiles,
About 5% engaged in sexually inappropriate behavior with underage minors during the
height of sex abuse, only about one-fifth of which were children below puberty,
the only young people to whom the word "pedophile" applies. You find >>>>> similar figures in lots of places, including the public schools.
plus, the ones who aren't, those protect
pedophiles),
You have been reading a lot of anti-Catholic propaganda that
ultimately has Marxist roots. It's late, otherwise I'd go into the
whole story. Maybe tomorrow I'll have the time.
and Catholic church used psychological trick to sneak in
Mendel's work.
I can't imagine a source for this except Stalinist propagandists
steeped in Lysenkoism.
And the Big Bang Theory also originated in Vatican.
The Vatican had no role in it, and besides, why do you
think it is incorrect at all?
<snip to get to your new words>
In fact, Christmas was a holiday in Yugoslavia, and Midnight
Mass was big celebration, the whole town celebrated. It wasn't quiet, it >>> wasn't "Silent Night", because this was a night when Croats were
celebrating their Christianity publicly, so this was huge celebration,
and everybody went to Zagreb Cathedral at that night. You may picture
how big celebration it is when even the nonbelievers (including me)
attended. Especially if you take into account that Orthodox Serbs
celebrate it using Gregorian calendar, so 15 days after Catholics.
Don't you mean the Julian calendar? if so, 15 days before.
Easy way to remember: the Glorious October Bolshevik Revolution
actually took place in November by the Gregorian calendar.
But my impression is that the Orthodox calendar has a different
basis than the dates for the Catholic calendar. They celebrate Easter
later than we do.
Anyway, Zagreb is in Croatia, so you would have celebrated it on the 24-25th of December.
So at Christmas it was a time for celebration for Croats. But it was so huge
celebration that even young Serbs would come to Zagreb Cathedral and
have fun. So, nothing like you think was happening in Yugoslavia,
Christianity was tolerated, especially if you know that Vatican actually >>> works for communists.
I cannot know something that is not so. When you were almost an adult,
the Catholic world was astounded by the new Pope being a Pole--
the first non-Italian elected Pope in four centuries.
Then it got a shock when an assassination attempt was made on
John Paul II. It later was determined that the would-be assassin
was the agent of Soviets. So where was the Vatican working
for communists, eh?
Oh yes, it was big celebration, loud, with firecrackers. Actually, it
was the only occasion when you could hit firecracker behind a policeman
(police was very austere back then), and he wouldn't do anything about
it, :) .
What, no firecrackers on New Year's Eve?
Just northeast of you, in Hungary, what we call Christmas
was called "little Christmas" [kis Karácsony] while New Year's day
was "great Christmas" [nagy Karácsony]. That was the day
when Father Winter [Télapó] went around distributing gifts to the good children.
[Trivia: Alexander the Great is called "Nagy Sándor" in Hungarian.
It sounds to my ears like an ordinary everyday Magyar name,
like the names of the people you meet on the street every day.
My youngest brother is named Nyíkos Sándor -- surname first, as in oriental languages.]
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 12:10:29 AM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 22.8.2023. 4:42, Peter Nyikos wrote:
Note how all the following were on the same PM, once you account
for the time zone difference. You should really consider slowing down
your responses. Harshman cannot be expected to do that. He is just
as quick to reply to me as he is to you. It is I who am responsible
for a much slower overall pace between us.
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 11:01:52 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 4:50, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 7:33 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 3:21, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/19/23 5:10 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 20.8.2023. 1:46, John Harshman wrote:
But what you describe is not recognizable as anything in actual >>>>>>>>> evolutionary biology. Nor does Mendel have anything at all to do >>>>>>>>> with mutations. If paleoanthropologists said that, which I strongly >>>>>>>>> doubt, they were wrong.Hm, on papers 10 and more years old you can read that
You may not be insane, but what you're saying is nonsensical. >>>>>>>>
Genetic Mutation Theory is by Mendel: "Genetic algorithm (GA) is an >>>>>>>> optimization searching algorithm based on the theory of evolution >>>>>>>> and the genetic mutation theory of Mendel (Atmar, 1994, Chaudhry et >>>>>>>> al., 2000, Fogel, 1994, Srinivas and Patnaik, 1994)." These days, >>>>>>>> though, everybody says that it is De Vries's. Now, what and why? >>>>>>>> And, frankly, I am really puzzled how suddenly you don't know
anything about it.
What are you quoting there? What are the cited references? If it's >>>>>>> about genetic algorithms is would seem very peripheral to
evolutionary biology, and I wouldn't be confident that it's right in >>>>>>> its attributions.
It's true that De Vries had a theory of mutation, though Mendel did not.
<snip for focus>
Organisms do correct mutations; that's called proofreading and >>>>>>>>> repair. But repair doesn't fix all mutations and it actually causes >>>>>>>>> some of them. Observed mutation rates take repair into account. Not >>>>>>>>> sure what "it didn't stop to evolve" is about. Mutations do happen, >>>>>>>>> some of them affect phenotype, and some of them are beneficial. >>>>>>>>> That's how adaptive evolution works.
I am giving up.
If only that were true.
<snip for focus>
From the fact that the Genetic Mutation Theory was accepted
after it was rediscovered by three independent scientists in a >>>>>>>> matter of two months, in a time when there wasn't even a radio. If >>>>>>>> you would use your brain you would figure out the trick, but I don't >>>>>>>> expect this from you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Rediscovery_of_Mendel's_work
Notice that nowhere in that article is there any mention of mutation. >>>>>>> And if you actually read it you will find that the rediscovery of >>>>>>> Mendel is all about the fact that inheritance is particulate, not >>>>>>> blending. That's Mendel's work and that's Mendel's theory.
First, this Catholic priest was a liar, then "somebody"
used trick to sell his theory to the world.
Nobody is saying any of that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Mendelian_paradox
That has nothing to do with any of your claims.
Here is where I came in.
You seem to have a bee in your bonnet [are you familiar with this colloquialism?]
about the Catholic Church, Mario.
Your being 61 correlates to your being about 2 years old when Brezhnev took >>> power in 1964, and so your formative years were spent until he died in 1982,
when you would have been an adult. You were in Yugoslavia the whole time; >>> and I suspect your education was steeped in anti-Catholic propaganda
much of the time. Catholicism was especially opposed of the Christian denominations,
because of its unified character, making it a more formidable enemy of Communism
than perhaps all the Protestant denominations put together.
We were once given an abominable anti-Christian book for elementary school children,
written in Hungarian and published in Hungary in the 1960's. It opened with a fiction
loosely based on the book of Genesis, making God look like a bumbling idiot whose behavior
was nothing like what Genesis depicts. Yet it was written "with a straight face" as though
it were an accurate portrayal of what Christians believe.
I say all this because what you write below reads like it was permeated
with anti-Catholic propaganda that you may have accepted uncritically.
I've kept it intact at first, then picked it apart because it contains
such concentrated mistakes.
Mendel was a liar
He simplified some data to make it look like inheritance of traits was
more perfectly describable in multiples of 1/4 or 1/8 or whatever
negative power of 2 was appropriate to the situation. But as
a general approximation to the truth it was good enough for practical purposes.
If this is the only lie that Mendel was guilty of, then he was less of a >>> liar than two of the participants in this thread, and many other participants
in talk.origins.
(just like all Catholic priests are,
Is that what you were taught through much of your education?
plus a lot of them are pedophiles,
About 5% engaged in sexually inappropriate behavior with underage minors during the
height of sex abuse, only about one-fifth of which were children below puberty,
the only young people to whom the word "pedophile" applies. You find similar
figures in lots of places, including the public schools.
plus, the ones who aren't, those protect
pedophiles),
You have been reading a lot of anti-Catholic propaganda that
ultimately has Marxist roots. It's late, otherwise I'd go into the
whole story. Maybe tomorrow I'll have the time.
and Catholic church used psychological trick to sneak in
Mendel's work.
I can't imagine a source for this except Stalinist propagandists
steeped in Lysenkoism.
And the Big Bang Theory also originated in Vatican.
The Vatican had no role in it, and besides, why do you
think it is incorrect at all?
More
than enough said.
It would probably have been best to have it all unsaid.
But at least this way I think we might be able to
clear up some of these misconceptions.
First Peter, thanks for taking care about it.
I'm glad you are willing to discuss this so openly.
Before we go further, I think I know why you are of the impression
that the Big Bang Theory is a false product of the Vatican.
It's because the Soviet Union was committed to the universe
having always been here, and never ending. What you write below
is very much in line with that.
Ok, lets start with clearing misconceptions about my uprising,
regarding Catholicism. My mother was strong believer. She had some
problems with communists in her life, so she never raised us in
Catholicism and nationalism, so, she, although being strong Catholic,
kept it for herself.
And rightly so: there was danger for her if your "Sunday school teacher"
[see what you wrote below] had asked you for details about what she
had told you about her faith.
We (me and my two twin sisters) went to Catholic
Sunday School. Here children go by the age of 8. I didn't go at that age
because my mother wanted me to go along with my sisters (for obvious
reasons, you say that there 5 % pedophiles,
No, only about 1%: note what I said about the word "pedophile."
But this was about Catholic priests. You didn't have one in the schools,
so what was your mother afraid of? bullies? Your sisters were safe
from the male ones, by the codes of behavior in those days,
and could have been witnesses to any bullying you may have suffered
on the way to school. Or even attacked a bully themselves if they
attacked you -- being beaten by girls would have been too much
humiliation for them, no?
this are just the proven ones),
Ever since the scandal broke in 2002, all charges are thoroughly investigated, with the burden of proof on the accused rather
than the accuser, as in the case of Cardinal Pell.
There is plenty of money to be had in lawsuits, plenty of incentive
to make false accusations. So I see no reason to think that the
number was higher than that.
>so I started to go by the age of 10 (when my sisters were 8). At
that age I was old enough to understand things, and smart enough to pick
up the logic of it. I was eager to find out what it is all about. I
presumed that the basis of it are 10 commandments. We had Sunday School
in one of the more known church in Zagreb, St.Peter's Church, in Vlaska
street, very close to the center of the town. But the teacher wasn't a
priest, ti was a layman. So, I was eager to pick up the logic behind it,
and I was shocked when the guy said, "We will not talk about 10
Commandments, you have it in catechism (small white booklet), you can do
it at home by yourself.". Frankly, I got the impression that the guy
wouldn't be able to name all 10 Commandments if somebody would ask him
to do it.
I think you are right. Was there any reason to think he was a
Catholic at all?
This was extremely strange to me, since the whole logic should
lay upon 10 Commandments. Instead of that he was talking about two
things every time:
He was probably a communist put in your school to make sure
you got the official party line.
1) The first Catholics, those in Roman Empire, were living in
communes. This is the original Communism, a system we should strive to have. >> 2) "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle then
for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!", explaining how in the
past those "rich men" were Pharisees, while today they are those ugly
fat American capitalists.
In other words, he was saying how communism is a system we should
strive to achieve, and how capitalism is bad.
He was talking about it and explaining it widely every single time, in
fact this was the only thing he was doing. Of course, he was young. I
don't know what relationship he had with some of the girls of my age,
but they were all in love with him, and close with him.
Regarding official education, Yugoslavia wasn't so rigid, in fact Tito
had very warm relationships with the West, so there wasn't anti-catholic
education at all in our school. I remember only once, our elementary
school teacher was asking who believes in God. There were some people
from my class that also went to Sunday School, but only I replied that I
believe in God. In fact, I didn't believe in God at that time (nor
ever), I just tried to protect my mother's views, who is she (that
teacher) to ridicule the believes of my mother.
Sounds like she was anti-Catholic after all.
> And this was the only
occasion when anybody said anything against Catholic religion.
What did she say about your belief in God?
I was never raised to be against communism also, but it was obvious,
from a faces she made, that my mother doesn't like it at all. Of course
I had strong feeling for justice since I was a kid, and I noticed how
bad communism is, very early. I didn't like it at all, in fact, when
everybody was accepted in Communist Youth (I believe it is by the age of
12 or 13), I was contemplating not to do it. At the last moment I
decided to do it, otherwise I would be the only pupil in the whole
school not to do it (maybe even in the whole town, :) ), and this would
affect my life very badly, so I decided to do it.
I suspect that was the main reason the vast majority joined.
My wife's father left Hungary in 1956, with six (!) children, of whom
my wife was the youngest, because he had been repeatedly
asked to join the Communist party and felt that he could no
longer hold out without suffering severe repercussions.
When I started to hate Catholicism? My country went through some
transitions, the moral standards of Croats were extremely low, and I
realized that Catholic church is the main responsible for it.
The communism-suppressed Catholic Church. Where could you
have been taught the 10 commandments in a more mature form
than what you had in your little catechism?
I followed
politics, and what's going on around me, saw what is happening, and
realized that Catholic church is extremely bad institution. Didn't you
notice that Pope condemns the West for Ukrainian war, and justifies
Putin?
I never noticed any such thing. It is the Russian Orthodox Patriarch
who does what you describe. He is of all the Orthodox by far the
most subservient to the civil authorities, and the most at odds with the Pope.
Vatican hates UK and USA for the reason that those two countries
are the sources of democracy, Vatican thinks that people should be
Vatican's sheep.
This has been largely obsolete since the Vatican II general council.
Now it is the traditional Catholics who like the pre-Vatican II Church
who are the target of the Vatican. They were recently commanded
to refrain from performing the old Latin Mass except under the most
severe restrictions. The pre-1989 Communist countries could hardly
have been more draconian about that.
What animosity the Vatican has against the US and UK is
that these are the most influential sources of secularization.
Now they have the financial pressure on third world countries to promote abortion under the Biden and Obama administrations to add to that.
Also the promotion of LGBTQ+ to add to that.
This may partly account for whatever lack of condemnation of Putin
by the Pope there may be. But even Viktor Orban, Hungarian prime minister, condemned the
February 24 "military action" and stood for the freedom and independence of Ukraine.
Do you really think the Pope feels any different?
People take this lightly, but what really is going on
is that Vatican sees it in the most ugly way, they really do think, and
behave towards humans, like humans are their stupid sheep.
I even went to Catholic kindergarten, and as a really small kid I
noticed how soulless those nuns are. They were behaving towards children
as they are things, like they are not something worthy.
That was before the end of the Vatican II council, and I too had
that influence back then. We didn't even know what the word
"atheist" meant until secondary school! The word was never spoken or written.
However , the religious Sisters who taught us were a very mixed bunch.
Two of them treated us as good individuals. Two others were tyrants and sadists,
and they were our first and second grade teachers! The second grade
teacher was not as bad as the first in that respect, but she taught
us insane stories about children (totally unlike us) who were "saintly."
Anyway, I didn't learn anything in Sunday School, I didn't like that I
had to use my free Sundays for it (at that time normal school was from
Monday to Saturday), so as soon as I got first Communion I stopped to go
there (my sisters continued with it).
I'm curious to know how you got influenced the way I suspected.
Was it the daily media?
On 8/18/23 6:50 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
Harshman, you are getting to be as flagrant at trolling as JTEM.
Your characterization of everything here is grossly erroneous. But I see there's no point in talking to you.
Mario, take note: you were right about Harshman, and if you've needed
any more proof for warning others about him, you have it below.
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 8:53:49 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/18/23 5:25 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 6:50:34 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>> On 8/18/23 1:40 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 8:06:40 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 16.8.2023. 0:56, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/15/23 2:08 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 2:55:14 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
It's not the beak that lets woodpeckers dig into bark.
So all that hammering on trees is just for attracting attention???
Notice that while all birds have beaks, it's only the woodpeckers that
do the hammering. So it can't be the possession of a beak that matters
for this adaptation. Woodpeckers have a number of special anatomical >>>>>>> adaptations that should be detectable in a theropod skeleton if the >>>>>>> comparison were apt.
And in fact a high proportion of that hammering *is* just for attracting
attention. It's called "drumming".
I really have hard time to understand how somebody can make such >>>>>> faulty conclusions?
It would be a lot harder, if not impossible, if you had not deleted >>>>> a really stupid comment by Harshman, which I have restored.
Notice how he completely changed the subject and then
said something that indirectly revealed that what he had claimed earlier
was indeed an abysmally stupid comment.
All birds have beaks, and all birds do various niches, eat various >>>>>> food, and have various behavior. How you came to conclusions that birds
in the beginning did various niches, ate various food, and had various
behavior, is behind my ability to comprehend.
Instead of nailing Harshman on his stupidity and his attempt to wiggle out of it,
you say something that doesn't fit anything he had said earlier.
Maybe you wouldn't make such mistakes if you slowed down to about >>>>> half as many posts per day as you do now, and spread out over
more than one thread. Next week I'll be starting a thread on pterosaurs,
so if you are interested in them, you can talk about them on the same days
you talk about birds.
Of course the first bird
occupied only one niche, ate only one kind of food, and had only one >>>>>> type of behavior. Now, the question is, which one?
Woodpeckers evolved over time special anatomical adaptations, in the >>>>>> beginning they were very similar to other similar dinosaurs. I mean, >>>>>> bears emerged from bear-dogs, and didn't occupy all the niches that >>>>>> today's bears occupy, and probably even didn't eat honey, or fish, and
didn't have today's bear adaptations, thye looked more like dogs. I >>>>>> mean, you are writing in the paleontology forum for god's sake, you got
to have some basic understandings of those things. At least.
So, woodpeckers are that way because they are drumming. Or are they >>>>>> drumming because they are that way? Jesus Christ, the older you get, the
crazier you are.
If you had not hurried so much through this paragraph, you might
have realized that you aren't referring to anything Harshman explicitly wrote.
Just think of how you could have been even more critical
of what he actually did write!
I get tired of posts where you say I'm saying something stupid but don't
manage to explain just what's stupid about it.
You will get them all the time if you continue to say abysmally
stupid things and then lie about what you said, like you do below.
You are indulging in the moral equivalent of a frivolous lawsuit.
Am I? But you don't say how. Again, you say I've done something bad
without managing to explain what's bad about it.
You are just adding to your frivolous lawsuit equivalent. Read on.
I'm not even sure what
comment you're talking about.
As if it weren't obvious:
"It's not the beak that lets woodpeckers dig into bark."
So tell me, turkey, what DOES let them dig into bark,
now that you have eliminated their beaks?
You misunderstand the comment, though perhaps I wasn't sufficiently
clear.
There is no other way to read the comment, liar.
(And why the gratuitous "turkey"?)
Poor baby. You once gaslighted me with an accusation of megalomania,
a clinical form of insanity, when I was only a wee bit melodramatic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
[I wrote "Poor baby" instead of "Hypocrite" because you are used to having that word go like water off a duck's back.]
As I said,
You are just filibustering below and making no attempt to clarify the abysmally stupid thing you wrote.
all birds have
beaks but only woodpeckers hammer trees with them. Therefore, having
beaks is not sufficient for hammering trees, and we can't claim that
early birds did so just because they had beaks. Further, since early
birds lacked the skeletal adaptations that enable woodpeckers to hammer >> trees, the evidence suggests that they did not. And beaks therefore did >> not evolve for the purpose of hammering trees.
(It occurs to me, however, that advanced alvarezsaurs like Mononykus
might conceivably have done some tree-hammering, though not with their
noses.)
So how much of that was stupid, and if so, why?
Writing a bunch of interesting facts does not cancel out the fact that
you said something abysmally stupid, then lied when confronted by what you had done.
Peter Nyikos
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 10:15:14 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/18/23 6:50 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
Harshman, you are getting to be as flagrant at trolling as JTEM.
Your characterization of everything here is grossly erroneous. But I see
there's no point in talking to you.
Stop grandstanding, liar. You could easily have extricated yourself at the beginning
by saying something like:
"Correction: I meant to say that the beak is not the *only*
thing involved in woodpeckers digging into bark.
But you just kept on digging yourself in deeper, as I show below.
Mario, take note: you were right about Harshman, and if you've needed
any more proof for warning others about him, you have it below.
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 8:53:49 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/18/23 5:25 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 6:50:34 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>> On 8/18/23 1:40 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 8:06:40 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 16.8.2023. 0:56, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/15/23 2:08 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 2:55:14 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
It's not the beak that lets woodpeckers dig into bark.
So all that hammering on trees is just for attracting attention???
This would have been a perfect time to say what I suggested above just now. And it would not have caused you any loss of face, only a trifling bit of embarrassment.
But your hubris wouldn't let you do it.
Your curt two-line response to everything in this post is typical of another destructive aspect to your overall behavior.
You are like a one-ton shark at the end of a five-pound-test line. If I pull too hard,
as I apparently did at the end, the line breaks and you swim away, free to be equally perverse another day.
But if I pull too gently lest the line break, you try to lord it over me like you did with
your first response, and in the majority of replies you do to me.
You just ran out of ideas to get the upper hand this third time around.
PS I left in the whole documentation below, so that anyone who thinks I
am being unfair to you can check for themselves how the whole thing unfolded.
Notice that while all birds have beaks, it's only the woodpeckers that
do the hammering. So it can't be the possession of a beak that matters
for this adaptation. Woodpeckers have a number of special anatomical >>>>>>>>> adaptations that should be detectable in a theropod skeleton if the >>>>>>>>> comparison were apt.
And in fact a high proportion of that hammering *is* just for attracting
attention. It's called "drumming".
I really have hard time to understand how somebody can make such >>>>>>>> faulty conclusions?
It would be a lot harder, if not impossible, if you had not deleted >>>>>>> a really stupid comment by Harshman, which I have restored.
Notice how he completely changed the subject and then
said something that indirectly revealed that what he had claimed earlier
was indeed an abysmally stupid comment.
All birds have beaks, and all birds do various niches, eat various >>>>>>>> food, and have various behavior. How you came to conclusions that birds
in the beginning did various niches, ate various food, and had various >>>>>>>> behavior, is behind my ability to comprehend.
Instead of nailing Harshman on his stupidity and his attempt to wiggle out of it,
you say something that doesn't fit anything he had said earlier. >>>>>>>
Maybe you wouldn't make such mistakes if you slowed down to about >>>>>>> half as many posts per day as you do now, and spread out over
more than one thread. Next week I'll be starting a thread on pterosaurs,
so if you are interested in them, you can talk about them on the same days
you talk about birds.
Of course the first bird
occupied only one niche, ate only one kind of food, and had only one >>>>>>>> type of behavior. Now, the question is, which one?
Woodpeckers evolved over time special anatomical adaptations, in the >>>>>>>> beginning they were very similar to other similar dinosaurs. I mean, >>>>>>>> bears emerged from bear-dogs, and didn't occupy all the niches that >>>>>>>> today's bears occupy, and probably even didn't eat honey, or fish, and >>>>>>>> didn't have today's bear adaptations, thye looked more like dogs. I >>>>>>>> mean, you are writing in the paleontology forum for god's sake, you got
to have some basic understandings of those things. At least.
So, woodpeckers are that way because they are drumming. Or are they >>>>>>>> drumming because they are that way? Jesus Christ, the older you get, the
crazier you are.
If you had not hurried so much through this paragraph, you might >>>>>>> have realized that you aren't referring to anything Harshman explicitly wrote.
Just think of how you could have been even more critical
of what he actually did write!
I get tired of posts where you say I'm saying something stupid but don't >>>>>> manage to explain just what's stupid about it.
You will get them all the time if you continue to say abysmally
stupid things and then lie about what you said, like you do below.
You are indulging in the moral equivalent of a frivolous lawsuit.
Am I? But you don't say how. Again, you say I've done something bad
without managing to explain what's bad about it.
You are just adding to your frivolous lawsuit equivalent. Read on.
I'm not even sure what
comment you're talking about.
As if it weren't obvious:
"It's not the beak that lets woodpeckers dig into bark."
So tell me, turkey, what DOES let them dig into bark,
now that you have eliminated their beaks?
You misunderstand the comment, though perhaps I wasn't sufficiently
clear.
There is no other way to read the comment, liar.
(And why the gratuitous "turkey"?)
Poor baby. You once gaslighted me with an accusation of megalomania,
a clinical form of insanity, when I was only a wee bit melodramatic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
[I wrote "Poor baby" instead of "Hypocrite" because you are used to having >>> that word go like water off a duck's back.]
As I said,
You are just filibustering below and making no attempt to clarify the abysmally stupid thing you wrote.
all birds have
beaks but only woodpeckers hammer trees with them. Therefore, having
beaks is not sufficient for hammering trees, and we can't claim that
early birds did so just because they had beaks. Further, since early
birds lacked the skeletal adaptations that enable woodpeckers to hammer >>>> trees, the evidence suggests that they did not. And beaks therefore did >>>> not evolve for the purpose of hammering trees.
(It occurs to me, however, that advanced alvarezsaurs like Mononykus
might conceivably have done some tree-hammering, though not with their >>>> noses.)
So how much of that was stupid, and if so, why?
Writing a bunch of interesting facts does not cancel out the fact that
you said something abysmally stupid, then lied when confronted by what you had done.
Peter Nyikos
On 8/15/23 2:08 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 2:55:14 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/15/23 8:32 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
It's great to see you posting here again, Mario. Don't be discouraged >>> by my corrections. That's a good way to learn, and Harshman might
have made the same points you did, because he subscribes to the
hypotheses that have been popularized about feather development.
The popularizers refer to all kinds of things as "feathers":
hairlike growths, several such growths from the same root, hairlike growths
that are frayed like the ends of some of the longer hairs
of one of my daughters. . . . These are found on some dinosaur fossils-- >>> only a tiny percentage even now, because these things do not fossilize easily.
But I do not know of any genuine feathers on fossils that cannot
be hypothesized as secondarily flightless birds. So I call all these things
"protofeathers" and some of them just "dinofuzz."
Can't any fossil be hypothesized as secondarily flightless?
Not unless you call wild stabs in the dark (including highly counterintuitive ones) "hypotheses."
So you would need some kind of evidence in order to reasonably suppose
that a dinosaur was secondarily flightless. What evidence are you
thinking of here?
So how is
that a test? What's the scientific distinction between "genuine
feathers" and "protofeathers"?
Since you are the ornithologist here, you should be giving the
scientific distinction, if there is one. I doubt that there is one.
That's right, there is none. So why are you making this distinction?
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 2:00:19 AM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
Dinosaurs had feathers before that (probably because feathers are good >>>> for water, unlike fur).
And unlike down. A mother ostrich always shelters her babies in the midst
of a downpour, to protect them from hypothermia.
Then again, downy ducklings do just find in the water. There must be
some way to make down work in an aquatic bird.
It's called "oils," isn't it?
I'm reminded of a delightful children's book by Vladimir Suteyev [Cyrillic: CYTEEB]
in which the first story shows a chick imitating a duckling digging, catching a worm,...
until it jumps in the water after the duckling and starts to drown. Heeding its cries for help,
the duckling pulls the chick out of the water. The last picture shows the chick out on solid ground
with water pouring off it and the duckling telling the chick that he is returning to the water,
with the chick responding, "But not I!"
Don't know that one, but it sounds reasonable (the drowning, not the
rest of it). And presumably this has something to do with differences in grooming habits and use of the preen gland secretions.
Down would be an advanced kind of protofeather, as would the feathers of kiwis,
which lack barbules and hooks, IF they or down had ever been found
as Mesozoic fossils predating birds with genuine feathers.
But I don't know of any examples.
Some small dinosaurs ate insects. At that time
there was more oxygen in the air,
This is controversial, according to the book,
_The Princeton Field Guide to Pterosaurs_.
I now have my own copy, and I'll be starting a new thread for an in-depth review this week.
insects were bigger. So, some
dinosaurs were trying to reach insects that were living in tree barks, >>>> so they hardened their muzzles into beaks, like woodpeckers.
Very plausible. Did you read this somewhere, or did you figure
it out for yourself?
It's not the beak that lets woodpeckers dig into bark.
So all that hammering on trees is just for attracting attention???
Notice that while all birds have beaks, it's only the woodpeckers that
do the hammering. So it can't be the possession of a beak that matters
for this adaptation. Woodpeckers have a number of special anatomical adaptations that should be detectable in a theropod skeleton if the comparison were apt.
And in fact a high proportion of that hammering *is* just for attracting attention. It's called "drumming".
You really ought to consider your audience when you give
comments that are likely to induce double-takes.
It's hard to be sure how much the audience knows.
On 8/15/23 2:08 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 2:55:14 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
And the average
maniraptoran doesn't have a beak. Nor is there any evidence I'm aware of >> that insects were in general bigger in the Mesozoic.
Nor I.
The real biggies were during the Paleozoic. Also, at one point
there were millipedes two meters long and the better part of a meter wide. I saw a model of one in a museum about a decade ago.
So did I, and the fossil it was based on. Always thought it would have
made a good bench.
On 8/15/23 8:32 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 2:00:19 AM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
Since they
were eating from tree bark, they had to climb tree (like squirrels). >>>> Weight is deteriorating force for climbing, so those animals became >>>> lightweight. And, at the end, they stopped to go down to the ground to >>>> reach the other tree, but started to behave like flying squirrels.
So far, so good.
Simple as that. Everything logical, everything gradual, and for
everything we have examples in nature (maybe only not for beaks, but for
flying sure we do have).
But NOT for feathers. Have you ever studied the intricate structure of >>> a contour feather, a flight feather [they are very asymmetrical -- do you know why?]
or a tail feather? Can you figure out a gradual evolution for them?
You obviously have some strange ideas for what the word "gradual" meant
to Darwin; that's the default meaning of the word in these contexts, isn't it?
See Prum & Brush 2001. I presume you have read that already.
Yes, but all it shows are a few isolated stages. Since they don't believe in hopeful monsters,
they are leaving out dozens if not hundreds of finely graded steps between hairlike growths and feathers that are complete with calamus, central shaft, barbs, barbules and hooks.
Hundreds are probably not necessary. A few incipient structures that can then be refined by selection, more likely.
PS On the whole, I prefer JTEM's post to yours. But there is a very recent exception
to what he says, and I'll tell him about it.
On the whole, I think you have quite bad judgment on matters like that, possibly due to personal bias.
Simple as that. Everything logical, everything gradual, and for
everything we have examples in nature (maybe only not for beaks, but for >>>>>> flying sure we do have).
But NOT for feathers. Have you ever studied the intricate structure of >>>>> a contour feather, a flight feather [they are very asymmetrical -- do you know why?]
or a tail feather? Can you figure out a gradual evolution for them?
IIRC Mario never addressed this question.
Harshman, you've painted yourself tightly into a corner where a stupid comment
you made about woodpeckers has been the issue. I told you that your hubris has kept you from using the lifeline I've tossed you. Now I will demonstrate, going back to the original exchange between us, why I use the word "hubris."
But don't go away already: I have some interesting comments that
may not offend you before I get into the corner into which you've painted yourself.
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 6:56:30 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/15/23 2:08 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 2:55:14 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>> On 8/15/23 8:32 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
It's great to see you posting here again, Mario. Don't be discouraged >>>>> by my corrections. That's a good way to learn, and Harshman might
have made the same points you did, because he subscribes to the
hypotheses that have been popularized about feather development.
The popularizers refer to all kinds of things as "feathers":
hairlike growths, several such growths from the same root, hairlike growths
that are frayed like the ends of some of the longer hairs
of one of my daughters. . . . These are found on some dinosaur fossils-- >>>>> only a tiny percentage even now, because these things do not fossilize easily.
But I do not know of any genuine feathers on fossils that cannot
be hypothesized as secondarily flightless birds. So I call all these things
"protofeathers" and some of them just "dinofuzz."
Can't any fossil be hypothesized as secondarily flightless?
Not unless you call wild stabs in the dark (including highly
counterintuitive ones) "hypotheses."
So you would need some kind of evidence in order to reasonably suppose
that a dinosaur was secondarily flightless. What evidence are you
thinking of here?
You will find a lot in a book you've pronounced "mostly useless" with initials
RotFD [1] on page 173. Plenty of evidence there that *Caudipteryx* was
a secondarily flightless bird, with plumaceous feathers, and evidence
of being descended from birds with flight remiges. Where is your evidence
to the contrary?
[1] No, it isn't "Rolling on the Floor Dying [of laughter]." The last two words are "Feathered Dragons".
So how is
that a test? What's the scientific distinction between "genuine
feathers" and "protofeathers"?
Since you are the ornithologist here, you should be giving the
scientific distinction, if there is one. I doubt that there is one.
That's right, there is none. So why are you making this distinction?
It took me a long time to remember, but there is such a word,
one undoubtedly familiar to you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennaceous_feather
good old Thomas Holtz, a frequent participant in s.b.p. in the 1990's, is featured in a link to
a webpage where he plays a prominent role:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maniraptoriformes
A nice detailed phylogenetic tree of this clade is included, along with an old fashioned
character-based definition of an almost identical group by Gregory S. Paul, the author of two Princeton Field Guides [one to dinosaurs, one to pterosaurs] that
I've been talking about here in s.b.p.
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 2:00:19 AM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
Dinosaurs had feathers before that (probably because feathers are good >>>>>> for water, unlike fur).
And unlike down. A mother ostrich always shelters her babies in the midst >>>>> of a downpour, to protect them from hypothermia.
Then again, downy ducklings do just find in the water. There must be
some way to make down work in an aquatic bird.
It's called "oils," isn't it?
I'm reminded of a delightful children's book by Vladimir Suteyev [Cyrillic: CYTEEB]
in which the first story shows a chick imitating a duckling digging, catching a worm,...
until it jumps in the water after the duckling and starts to drown. Heeding its cries for help,
the duckling pulls the chick out of the water. The last picture shows the chick out on solid ground
with water pouring off it and the duckling telling the chick that he is returning to the water,
with the chick responding, "But not I!"
Don't know that one, but it sounds reasonable (the drowning, not the
rest of it). And presumably this has something to do with differences in
grooming habits and use of the preen gland secretions.
Like I said, "oils."
Down would be an advanced kind of protofeather, as would the feathers of kiwis,
which lack barbules and hooks, IF they or down had ever been found
as Mesozoic fossils predating birds with genuine feathers.
But I don't know of any examples.
Don't you know either, John? I mean, of fossils of down, or of "feathers" like the ones
of kwis, predating the first birds with pennaceous feathers.
Some small dinosaurs ate insects. At that time
there was more oxygen in the air,
This is controversial, according to the book,
_The Princeton Field Guide to Pterosaurs_.
I now have my own copy, and I'll be starting a new thread for an in-depth review this week.
insects were bigger. So, some
dinosaurs were trying to reach insects that were living in tree barks, >>>>>> so they hardened their muzzles into beaks, like woodpeckers.
Very plausible. Did you read this somewhere, or did you figure
it out for yourself?
OK, here comes the corner:
It's not the beak that lets woodpeckers dig into bark.
So all that hammering on trees is just for attracting attention???
Note the word "just". You ignored it in your answer, yet it is the logical outgrowth of the way your stupid sentence is worded.
Notice that while all birds have beaks, it's only the woodpeckers that
do the hammering. So it can't be the possession of a beak that matters
for this adaptation. Woodpeckers have a number of special anatomical
adaptations that should be detectable in a theropod skeleton if the
comparison were apt.
And in fact a high proportion of that hammering *is* just for attracting
attention. It's called "drumming".
If my use of "just" didn't register, a red flag should have gone up in your mind
after reading this:
You really ought to consider your audience when you give
comments that are likely to induce double-takes.
But all you wrote was:
It's hard to be sure how much the audience knows.
This is either stupefying cluelessness or *hubris* at work.
Believe it or not, I am such an astute audience member
that I thought you *might* have some arcane distinction in mind.
For instance, that you distinguish between the beak,
which you define as the bony part of the bill, and the horny sheath that covers it,
and that you think it is the latter that really lets woodpeckers dig into the bark.
That's why I put three question marks into my immediate response,
and why I made that remark about "double-takes." But your bland
response made me strongly suspect that you had no
arcane distinction in mind, and I was right: you didn't.
The rest is history that is still unfolding between us.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 43:39:19 |
| Calls: | 10,392 |
| Files: | 14,066 |
| Messages: | 6,417,237 |
