On Tue, 13 Dec 2022 19:12:08 -0800 (PST), JTEM is my hero
<jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

So the communist world REJECTED evolution, and in
it's stead they put a knock off of Lamarckism

Bruce Lipton, one of the pioneers in stem cell research, supports
Lamarck (whose theory basically is about intelligent environmental
adaptation per design):

"Jean-Baptiste Lamarck had it right fifty years before Darwin. In
1809, Lamarck wrote the problems that will beset humanity will come
from separating ourselves from nature, and that will lead to the
dissolution of society. His understanding of evolution was that an
organism and its environment create a cooperative interaction. If you
want to understand the fate of an organism, you have to understand its relationship to the environment. He recognized that separating
ourselves from our environment cuts us off from our source. He was
right.

And when you understand the nature of epigenetics, you see his theory
is now substantiated. With no mechanism to make sense of his theory
before, and especially since we bought the concept of neo-Darwinian
biologists who said the human body was subject to genetic control,
Lamarck looked stupid. But guess what? New leading-edge science
reveals he was right, after all."

Lipton has experimentally demonstrated that this "Lamarckian"
adaptation mechanism is highly intelligent (not based on random
mutations), which is why it can be very fast. There are actually
examples of dynamic adaptation to the environment that are thousands
of time faster than what you'd expect from textbook evolution, but evolutionists of course just interprets that as evolution being much
faster than previously assumed, without explaining why and how.
Here's one:


LIZARDS RAPIDLY EVOLVE AFTER INTRODUCTION TO ISLAND

Kimberly Johnson
for National Geographic News
April 21, 2008

(The findings were published in March in the journal Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences. )

Italian wall lizards introduced to a tiny island off the coast of
Croatia are evolving in ways that would normally take millions of
years to play out, new research shows.

In just a few decades the 5-inch-long (13-centimeter-long) lizards
have developed a completely new gut structure, larger heads, and a
harder bite, researchers say.

In 1971, scientists transplanted five adult pairs of the reptiles from
their original island home in Pod Kopiste to the tiny neighboring
island of Pod Mrcaru, both in the south Adriatic Sea.

Genetic testing on the Pod Mrcaru lizards confirmed that the modern
population of more than 5,000 Italian wall lizards are all descendants
of the original ten lizards left behind in the 1970s.

LIZARD SWARM

While the experiment was more than 30 years in the making, it was not
by design, according to Duncan Irschick, a study author and biology
professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

After scientists transplanted the reptiles, the Croatian War of
Independence erupted, ending in the mid-1990s. The researchers
couldn't get back to island because of the war, Irschick said.

In 2004, however, tourism began to open back up, allowing researchers
access to the island laboratory.

"We didn't know if we would find a lizard there. We had no idea if the
original introductions were successful," Irschick said.

What they found, however, was shocking.

"The island was swarming with lizards," he said.

FAST-TRACK EVOLUTION

The new habitat once had its own healthy population of lizards, which
were less aggressive than the new implants, Irschick said.

The new species wiped out the indigenous lizard populations, although
how it happened is unknown, he said.

The transplanted lizards adapted to their new environment in ways that expedited their evolution physically, Irschick explained.

Pod Mrcaru, for example, had an abundance of plants for the primarily insect-eating lizards to munch on. Physically, however, the lizards
were not built to digest a vegetarian diet.

Researchers found that the lizards developed cecal valves�muscles
between the large and small intestine�that slowed down food digestion
in fermenting chambers, which allowed their bodies to process the
vegetation's cellulose into volatile fatty acids.

"They evolved an expanded gut to allow them to process these leaves,"
Irschick said, adding it was something that had not been documented
before. "This was a brand-new structure."

Along with the ability to digest plants came the ability to bite
harder, powered by a head that had grown longer and wider.

The rapid physical evolution also sparked changes in the lizard's
social and behavioral structure, he said. For one, the plentiful food
sources allowed for easier reproduction and a denser population.

The lizard also dropped some of its territorial defenses, the authors concluded.

Such physical transformation in just 30 lizard generations takes
evolution to a whole new level, Irschick said.

It would be akin to humans evolving and growing a new appendix in
several hundred years, he said.

"That's unparalleled. What's most important is how fast this is," he
said.

While researchers do know the invader's impact on its reptile
brethren, they do not know how the species impacts local vegetation or
insects, a subject of future study, Irschick said.

DRAMATIC CHANGES

The study demonstrates that a lot of change happens in island
environments, said Andrew Hendry, a biology professor at Montreal's
McGill University.

What could be debated, however, is how those changes are
interpreted�whether or not they had a genetic basis and not a "plastic
response to the environment," said Hendry, who was not associated with
the study.

There's no dispute that major changes to the lizards' digestive tract
occurred. "That kind of change is really dramatic," he added.

"All of this might be evolution," Hendry said. "The logical next step
would be to confirm the genetic basis for these changes."

(looks like you have to subscribe now to access the articles): http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution_2.html Related: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/11/061116-lizard-evolution.html


Experiments have also shown that dogs who were put on a starchy diet
started to produce ptyaline (the enzyme in saliva which breaks down
starch) in a couple of weeks.

And an interesting, related claim from 1986, which supports Lipton's discoveries:

"The body is equipped to perform far better, in a variety of ways,
than you give it credit for however - but the fact remains that the
genetic structure focuses volition. The genetic apparatus and the
chromosomal messages actually contain far more information than is
ever used. That genetic information can, for example, be put together
in an infinite number of ways. The species care for itself in the
event of any possible circumstance, so that the genetic messages also
carries an endless number of triggers that will change genetic
combinations if necessary.

Beyond that however, genetic messages are coded in such a way that
there is a constant give-and-take between those messages and the
present experience of any given individual. That is, no genetic event
is inevitable. "
- Jane Roberts "Dreams, 'Evolution', and Value Fulfillment - Vol.1",
1986

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2023-01-17 18:12:09 +0000, IDentity said:

On Tue, 13 Dec 2022 19:12:08 -0800 (PST), JTEM is my hero
<jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

So the communist world REJECTED evolution, and in
it's stead they put a knock off of Lamarckism

I don't read JTEM's posts unless someone quotes them, so I suppose he
wrote something moronic before this sentence, but anyway, it's as much
nonsense as one would expect (is he confusing Darwin with Mendel? Hard
to believe, but JTEM is probably stupid and ignorant enough not to know
the difference).

As it happens I went to the same school as Charles Darwin (not at the
same time!) and was there in 1959, 100 years after The Origin of
Species, and 150 years after Darwin's birth. These anniversaries passed
almost unnoticed at the school (amazing, but true), but not unnoticed
by the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, which sent a commemorative
medal. The school authorities didn't know what to do with it, and they
passed it to the teacher of the Russian class that I was taking (in
1959 Russian was the language we were all going to need in the future),
who passed it around for us to look at.

Anyway, it's perfectly clear that the USSR did not reject evolution or Darwin.


--
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

IDentity wrote:

Bruce Lipton, one of the pioneers in stem cell research, supports
Lamarck (whose theory basically is about intelligent environmental
adaptation per design):

Not exactly the million dollar endorsement you appear to think.

But just pause here and realize WHO you are comparing Darwin to.

(You're not contradicting me)



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/706670990038548480

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

I don't read JTEM's posts

Though I do not doubt that you are just as over-the-topic narcissistic
as you portray yourself here, I also don't believe you about not reading
my post. You may read them with a different symptom of your D.I.D.
but you read them.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/706670990038548480

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 17/01/2023 19:26, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

On 2023-01-17 18:12:09 +0000, IDentity said:

On Tue, 13 Dec 2022 19:12:08 -0800 (PST), JTEM is my hero
<jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

So the communist world REJECTED evolution, and in
it's stead they put a knock off of Lamarckism

I don't read JTEM's posts unless someone quotes them, so I suppose he
wrote something moronic before this sentence, but anyway, it's as much nonsense as one would expect (is he confusing Darwin with Mendel? Hard
to believe, but JTEM is probably stupid and ignorant enough not to know
the difference).

As it happens I went to the same school as Charles Darwin (not at the
same time!) and was there in 1959, 100 years after The Origin of
Species, and 150 years after Darwin's birth. These anniversaries passed almost unnoticed at the school (amazing, but true), but not unnoticed by
the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, which sent a commemorative medal.
The school authorities didn't know what to do with it, and they passed
it to the teacher of the Russian class that I was taking (in 1959
Russian was the language we were all going to need in the future), who
passed it around for us to look at.

Anyway, it's perfectly clear that the USSR did not reject evolution or Darwin.

JTEM is presumably referring to Lysenkoism, which wasn't finally
abandoned until the 1960s. Wikipedia tells me that Lysenkoism is
undergoing a minor revival in contemporary Russia.

--
alias Ernest Major

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Ernest Major wrote:

JTEM is presumably referring to Lysenkoism, which wasn't finally
abandoned until the 1960s. Wikipedia tells me that Lysenkoism is
undergoing a minor revival in contemporary Russia.

Lysenkoism, like Darwin's Pangenesis, was plagiarized from
Lamarckism. What none of these were was evolution.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/706729227436900353

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 18:39:16 -0800 (PST), JTEM wrote:

Ernest Major wrote:

JTEM is presumably referring to Lysenkoism, which wasn't finally
abandoned until the 1960s. Wikipedia tells me that Lysenkoism is
undergoing a minor revival in contemporary Russia.

Lysenkoism, like Darwin's Pangenesis, was plagiarized from
Lamarckism. What none of these were was evolution.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangenesis> *************************************
Pangenesis was Charles Darwin's hypothetical mechanism for heredity,
in which he proposed that each part of the body continually emitted
its own type of small organic particles called gemmules that
aggregated in the gonads, contributing heritable information to the
gametes.
**************************************

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism> **************************************
Lamarckism is the notion that an organism can pass on to its offspring
physical characteristics that the parent organism acquired through use
or disuse during its lifetime.
****************************************

Given the lack of knowledge of genes and genetics at the time, both
Lamarckism and Pangenesis are plausible hypotheses for heritable
change over time aka evolution.

They describe two different causal mechanisms. IOW the two have as
much to do with each other as Simultaneity has to do with Multiverse
aka nothing at all.


--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2023-01-17 21:09:32 +0000, Ernest Major said:

On 17/01/2023 19:26, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

On 2023-01-17 18:12:09 +0000, IDentity said:

On Tue, 13 Dec 2022 19:12:08 -0800 (PST), JTEM is my hero
<jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

So the communist world REJECTED evolution, and in
it's stead they put a knock off of Lamarckism

I don't read JTEM's posts unless someone quotes them, so I suppose he
wrote something moronic before this sentence, but anyway, it's as much
nonsense as one would expect (is he confusing Darwin with Mendel? Hard
to believe, but JTEM is probably stupid and ignorant enough not to know
the difference).

As it happens I went to the same school as Charles Darwin (not at the
same time!) and was there in 1959, 100 years after The Origin of
Species, and 150 years after Darwin's birth. These anniversaries passed
almost unnoticed at the school (amazing, but true), but not unnoticed
by the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, which sent a commemorative
medal. The school authorities didn't know what to do with it, and they
passed it to the teacher of the Russian class that I was taking (in
1959 Russian was the language we were all going to need in the future),
who passed it around for us to look at.

Anyway, it's perfectly clear that the USSR did not reject evolution or Darwin.

JTEM is presumably referring to Lysenkoism,

That's what I thought when I suggested that he didn't know the
difference between Mendel and Darwin.

which wasn't finally abandoned until the 1960s. Wikipedia tells me
that Lysenkoism is undergoing a minor revival in contemporary Russia.

--
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Press, 2016

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

I don't read JTEM's posts unless someone quotes them

It’s hard to believe someone could be more obnoxious than Matt Beasley, but JTEM runs circles around him for that acquired characteristic. Something
got errantly methylated multiple times over.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 20:32:11 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

I don't read JTEM's posts unless someone quotes them

It’s hard to believe someone could be more obnoxious than Matt Beasley, but >JTEM runs circles around him for that acquired characteristic. Something
got errantly methylated multiple times over.

"Errantly methylated" would be a good name for a grunge band.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

jillery wrote:

Pangenesis was Charles Darwin's hypothetical mechanism for heredity

It was his one and only theory, and he came out with it AFTER Mendel,
AFTER he was exposed to Mendel.

They describe two different causal mechanisms.

No they don't. You're just an idiot who doesn't do "Subtlety." They
are so close together that YOU couldn't even find a difference. Instead,
you quote third parties claiming there was a difference.

...that's how far away you are from anything "Scientific," you fraud!

Is it any wonder you cower behind sock puppets... Sheesh!



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/706729227436900353

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

That's what I thought when I suggested that he didn't know the
difference between Mendel and Darwin.

Mendel: Got inheritance right.

Darwin: Read Mendel AND THEN got inheritance wrong. This was
also is one and only "Theory," Common Descent being quite old,
he got it from his grandfather, most of "His" ideas were stolen from
Wallace anyways...

Yet, you worship Darwin. Darwin agreed with the people who REJECTED
evolution. Darwin thought the same thing the people who REJECTED
evolution thought, when he used the word "Evolution."

Why are you defending him? If you gave a shit about science and/or
the truth, the easiest thing in the world would be to say "Fuck, Darwin!"



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/706729227436900353

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

*Hemidactylus* wrote:

It’s hard to believe

You know, if anyone that's real, someone who isn't just another alter of
your D.I.D. shows up here, they're going to think that you're nine shades
of fucked up.

Everything I said is not only true but easily verified.

...assuming they've got internet access, which I do assume.






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/706729227436900353

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

JTEM is my hero <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

That's what I thought when I suggested that he didn't know the
difference between Mendel and Darwin.

Mendel: Got inheritance right.

Darwin: Read Mendel AND THEN got inheritance wrong.

Evidence Darwin actually read Mendel???

This was
also is one and only "Theory," Common Descent being quite old,
he got it from his grandfather, most of "His" ideas were stolen from
Wallace anyways...

Yet, you worship Darwin. Darwin agreed with the people who REJECTED evolution. Darwin thought the same thing the people who REJECTED
evolution thought, when he used the word "Evolution."

Why are you defending him? If you gave a shit about science and/or
the truth, the easiest thing in the world would be to say "Fuck, Darwin!"

I went into this post assuming you were a crank. You now leave no doubt.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 13:36:44 -0800 (PST), JTEM trolled:

jillery wrote:

<relevant citations restored>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangenesis> >>*************************************
Pangenesis was Charles Darwin's hypothetical mechanism for heredity,
in which he proposed that each part of the body continually emitted
its own type of small organic particles called gemmules that
aggregated in the gonads, contributing heritable information to the >>gametes.
**************************************

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism> >>**************************************
Lamarckism is the notion that an organism can pass on to its offspring >>physical characteristics that the parent organism acquired through use
or disuse during its lifetime.
****************************************

It was his one and only theory, and he came out with it AFTER Mendel,
AFTER he was exposed to Mendel.

Mendel has nothing to do with Lamarkism, Pangenesis, or Lysenkoism.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 13:36:44 -0800 (PST), JTEM trolled:

jillery wrote:

<relevant citations restored>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangenesis>
*************************************
Pangenesis was Charles Darwin's hypothetical mechanism for heredity,
in which he proposed that each part of the body continually emitted
its own type of small organic particles called gemmules that
aggregated in the gonads, contributing heritable information to the
gametes.
**************************************

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism>
**************************************
Lamarckism is the notion that an organism can pass on to its offspring
physical characteristics that the parent organism acquired through use
or disuse during its lifetime.
****************************************

It was his one and only theory, and he came out with it AFTER Mendel,
AFTER he was exposed to Mendel.

Mendel has nothing to do with Lamarkism, Pangenesis, or Lysenkoism.

I think JTEM was trying to Whiggishly self-aggrandize by portraying Darwin
as a laughingly ignorant person for developing the pangenesis notion after Darwin had allegedly read Mendel’s work and should have been enlightened as to how a rudimentary viewpoint of genetics worked. But Darwin does not seem
to have read Mendel as far as I know. And by comparison Haeckel had
developed a parallel notion of perigenesis which in his rendering operated
by some weird vibrational mode. So JTEM is allegedly smarter than Haeckel
also. JTEM has grandiose visions of his own self-importance that are easily laughed away.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

*Hemidactylus* wrote:

Evidence Darwin actually read Mendel???

That's it? That's your "Life Line" and you're going to cling to it with
your dying breath?

Wow. You're a pussy.

I mean, you're so fragile, so weak you can't even admit that Darwin
is a fraud... not without taking your mind down with him.

You're a religious twat. That's all. I'd say that I admire your faith in
your god but I don't.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/706729227436900353

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

jillery wrote:

Mendel has nothing to do with Lamarkism, Pangenesis, or Lysenkoism.

Your "Darwin" god came out with Pangenesis AFTER Mendel, AFTER he
was handed the secret to inheritance. Darwin got the answer FIRST and
then came out with his pseudo scientific idiocy.

Darwin was a fraud, like you. He did eventually use the word "Evolution"
but when he did he didn't mean evolution. He meant the exact same
thing that people who would later REJECT evolution were talking about.

You're a fraud who worships a fraud...




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/706729227436900353

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

*Hemidactylus* wrote:

as far as I know.

So as far as a mentally unhinged sock puppet knows...

Wow. That's quite the sell.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/706729227436900353

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 06:11:40 -0800 (PST), JTEM is my hero
<jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

jillery wrote:

Mendel has nothing to do with Lamarkism, Pangenesis, or Lysenkoism.

Your "Darwin" god came out with Pangenesis AFTER Mendel, AFTER he
was handed the secret to inheritance.

Your comment above makes a positive claim. Back it up. Cite evidence
Darwin actually read Mendel.


--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, 19 January 2023 at 18:50:54 UTC+2, jillery wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 06:11:40 -0800 (PST), JTEM is my hero
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

jillery wrote:

Mendel has nothing to do with Lamarkism, Pangenesis, or Lysenkoism.

Your "Darwin" god came out with Pangenesis AFTER Mendel, AFTER he
was handed the secret to inheritance.

Your comment above makes a positive claim. Back it up. Cite evidence
Darwin actually read Mendel.

Screaming caps how one contemporary is suddenly oh so AFTER other.
That topic has been researched and none such evidence has been found. <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41437-019-0289-9>

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

jillery wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 06:11:40 -0800 (PST), JTEM is my hero
<jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

jillery wrote:

Mendel has nothing to do with Lamarkism, Pangenesis, or Lysenkoism.

Your "Darwin" god came out with Pangenesis AFTER Mendel, AFTER he
was handed the secret to inheritance.

Your comment above makes a positive claim. Back it up. Cite evidence
Darwin actually read Mendel.

Difficult to say... It would have been plausible for Mendel to send
Darwin one of the 40 prints he had, but he recorded only 11 of these (I
think) and the destination of the other 29 is unknown. No copy was found
in the estate, but then again it could easily have been lost.

If he received a copy, he may or may not have read it - his German was
slow, and he famously hated mathematics (Mathematics in biology was like
a scalpel in a carpenter's shop – there was no use for it) and there is
a lot of it in the paper, with the bold conjectures for inhertance only
at the very end. Throw in that at the time Tom Dick and Harry wrote on hybridization, and it would have been unlikely that Darwin read it with
any particular attention, if he had it at all.

He did have a copy of Hermann Hoffmann's Untersuchungen zur Bestimmung
des Werthes von Species und Varietät which is an attempted refutation of Darwin that also had a short summary of Mendel's work. Darwin annotated
parts of it, but not the Mendel section, so may have skipped it.

In any case, it would have been quite reasonable for him to wait until
others replicated the result (and Mendel's paper is as you might know controversial -I would not go as far as Fisher who accused Mendel of
fixing the result, but there may have been quite a bit of selection bias
going on)

Darwin had done quite a bit of experiments with pea varieties himself by
the way, One of them used hybridization, common snapdragon and the
rarer snapdragon, and came to a ratio similar to Mendel's (and a few
years before him), but with a very different research question, so did
not find the ratio interesting or relevant.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

oot...@hot.ee wrote:

Screaming caps how one contemporary is suddenly oh so AFTER other.

Actually, Darwin had a book in which an excerpt from Mendel's work was reproduced, Darwin having left hand written notes in the pages both
before and after. It's also accepted by everyone who seriously looked at
this that Mendel didn't just hear of Darwin but contacted him, as he did
pretty much all the prominent naturalists. The fact that this "Vanished" -- along with some correspondences with Wallace, which likely would have
proven embarrassing, is of no surprise to anyone.

Darwin was a fraud. He didn't experiment. He wasn't a scientist. He took
ideas that already existed and misunderstood them.

...and the fact that you even believe "Well he hadn't heard of Mendel" is an acceptable excuse for pseudo scientific RUBBISH speaks volumes
of you and all your alters.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/79820453598

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

jillery wrote:

Your

Again, FIRST came Mendel and his cracking of the inheritance mystery,
THEN came Darwin's pseudo scientific rubbish of Panspermia.

It couldn't pass for legitimate science even in his own day! And it wasn't "Evolution." Darwin thought the same things, agreed with the ideas of
those who would later REJECT evolution.

There's nothing more pathetic than a religious cuck who can't question
the Gospels of Darwin but thinks they're somehow grounded in science...

Go on; take the plunge! Accept reality. Put facts ahead of your precious dogma.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/79820453598

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 19/01/2023 18:34, Burkhard wrote:

jillery wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 06:11:40 -0800 (PST), JTEM is my hero
<jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

jillery wrote:

Mendel has nothing to do with Lamarkism, Pangenesis, or Lysenkoism.

Your "Darwin" god came out with Pangenesis AFTER Mendel, AFTER he
was handed the secret to inheritance.

Your comment above makes a positive claim.  Back it up.  Cite evidence
Darwin actually read Mendel.

Difficult to say... It would have been plausible for Mendel to send
Darwin one of the 40 prints he had, but he recorded only 11 of these (I think) and the destination of the other 29 is unknown. No copy was found
in the estate, but then again it could easily have been lost.

If he received a copy, he may or may not have read it - his German was
slow, and he famously hated mathematics (Mathematics in biology was like
a scalpel in a carpenter's shop – there was no use for it) and there is
a lot of it in the paper, with the bold conjectures for inhertance only
at the very end. Throw in that at the time Tom Dick and Harry wrote on hybridization, and it would have been unlikely that Darwin read it with
any particular attention, if he had it at all.

He did have a copy of Hermann Hoffmann's Untersuchungen zur Bestimmung
des Werthes von Species und Varietät which is an attempted refutation of Darwin that also had a short summary of Mendel's work. Darwin annotated
parts of it, but not the Mendel section, so may have skipped it.

In any case, it would have been quite reasonable for him to wait until
others replicated the result (and Mendel's paper is as you might know controversial -I would not go as far as Fisher who accused Mendel of
fixing the result, but there may have been quite a bit of selection bias going on)

Darwin had done quite a bit of experiments with pea varieties himself by
the way, One of them used hybridization, common snapdragon and  the
rarer snapdragon, and came to a ratio similar to Mendel's (and  a few
years before him), but with a very different research question, so did
not find the ratio interesting or relevant.

I went looking to refresh my memory on the topic, and found this

"Is there any evidence that Darwin read Mendel’s paper, or read about
him? This question has been debated for more than 50 years (Vorzimmer
1968), and the short answer is a qualified “no”. Mendel obtained forty offprints of his paper; the fate of only a few is known (Orel 1976,
1996). A rumour purports that an uncut offprint of Mendel’s paper was discovered in Darwin’s collection after his death (for examples see
Hennig 2000; Leonard 2005; Fishman 2018), with no credible evidence to
support it. It probably arose from the fact that Focke’s (1881) book,
Die Pflanzen-Mischlinge (The Plant Hybrids) was in Darwin’s library,
with summaries of Mendel’s experiments, yet the pages of these summaries remain uncut. The fact that Darwin owned this book probably morphed into
the rumour that he had an uncut offprint of Mendel’s paper, when in
reality he had an uncut reference to it, acquired little more than a
year before his death (Fairbanks and Rytting 2001)."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41437-019-0289-9

This paper also asserts that Unger was advocating universal common
descent a few years before Darwin went public.

--
alias Ernest Major

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

JTEM is my hero <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

*Hemidactylus* wrote:

Evidence Darwin actually read Mendel???

That's it? That's your "Life Line" and you're going to cling to it with
your dying breath?

So much for integrity on your part. It wasn’t like I expected you to do the honest good faith thing. Your trashy reputation precedes you like bad cheap cologne.

Wow. You're a pussy.

I mean, you're so fragile, so weak you can't even admit that Darwin
is a fraud... not without taking your mind down with him.

You're a religious twat. That's all. I'd say that I admire your faith in
your god but I don't.

So instead of actually providing evidence that Darwin actually read Mendel
you provided even more evidence you are an abusive narcissistic crank.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/706729227436900353

Another tumblr luser. That’s like lowest brow social media.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 21:37:11 +0000, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 19/01/2023 18:34, Burkhard wrote:

jillery wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 06:11:40 -0800 (PST), JTEM is my hero
<jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

jillery wrote:

Mendel has nothing to do with Lamarkism, Pangenesis, or Lysenkoism.

Your "Darwin" god came out with Pangenesis AFTER Mendel, AFTER he
was handed the secret to inheritance.

Your comment above makes a positive claim.  Back it up.  Cite evidence >>> Darwin actually read Mendel.

Difficult to say... It would have been plausible for Mendel to send
Darwin one of the 40 prints he had, but he recorded only 11 of these (I
think) and the destination of the other 29 is unknown. No copy was found
in the estate, but then again it could easily have been lost.

If he received a copy, he may or may not have read it - his German was
slow, and he famously hated mathematics (Mathematics in biology was like
a scalpel in a carpenter's shop – there was no use for it) and there is >> a lot of it in the paper, with the bold conjectures for inhertance only
at the very end. Throw in that at the time Tom Dick and Harry wrote on
hybridization, and it would have been unlikely that Darwin read it with
any particular attention, if he had it at all.

He did have a copy of Hermann Hoffmann's Untersuchungen zur Bestimmung
des Werthes von Species und Varietät which is an attempted refutation of >> Darwin that also had a short summary of Mendel's work. Darwin annotated
parts of it, but not the Mendel section, so may have skipped it.

In any case, it would have been quite reasonable for him to wait until
others replicated the result (and Mendel's paper is as you might know
controversial -I would not go as far as Fisher who accused Mendel of
fixing the result, but there may have been quite a bit of selection bias
going on)

Darwin had done quite a bit of experiments with pea varieties himself by
the way, One of them used hybridization, common snapdragon and  the
rarer snapdragon, and came to a ratio similar to Mendel's (and  a few
years before him), but with a very different research question, so did
not find the ratio interesting or relevant.

I went looking to refresh my memory on the topic, and found this

"Is there any evidence that Darwin read Mendel’s paper, or read about
him? This question has been debated for more than 50 years (Vorzimmer
1968), and the short answer is a qualified “no”. Mendel obtained forty >offprints of his paper; the fate of only a few is known (Orel 1976,
1996). A rumour purports that an uncut offprint of Mendel’s paper was >discovered in Darwin’s collection after his death (for examples see
Hennig 2000; Leonard 2005; Fishman 2018), with no credible evidence to >support it. It probably arose from the fact that Focke’s (1881) book,
Die Pflanzen-Mischlinge (The Plant Hybrids) was in Darwin’s library,
with summaries of Mendel’s experiments, yet the pages of these summaries >remain uncut. The fact that Darwin owned this book probably morphed into
the rumour that he had an uncut offprint of Mendel’s paper, when in >reality he had an uncut reference to it, acquired little more than a
year before his death (Fairbanks and Rytting 2001)."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41437-019-0289-9

This paper also asserts that Unger was advocating universal common
descent a few years before Darwin went public.

According to Wikipedia, Mendel published his paper in 1866. Darwin
first mention pangenesis in his first edition of "The Variation of
Animals and Plants Under Domestication" in 1868. So yes, it's
possible Darwin heard about Mendel, or even directly communicated with
him, before Darwin published his hypothesis.

Either way, the issue raised by JTEM remains; whether the hypotheses
of Mendel and Lamarck inform Darwin's hypothesis. My understanding is
they don't. More to the point, JTEM makes no effort to explain how he
thinks they do, and it's almost certain he never will.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

*Hemidactylus* wrote:

So much for integrity on your part. It wasn’t

You're defending a fraud. You're defending someone whose single
"Greatest" contribution to the world was the denial of actual
scientific knowledge for 20 years.

Darwin was a worthless, racist, classist douche bag if had he been
born to a more humble family would have died a miserable failure,
a complete embarrassment.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/707031415595925504

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Burkhard wrote:

Difficult to say... It would have been plausible for Mendel to send
Darwin one of the 40 prints he had, but he recorded only 11 of these (I think) and the destination of the other 29 is unknown. No copy was found
in the estate, but then again it could easily have been lost.

Nobody outside of the religious faithful -- The Church of Darwin -- believes that Darwin wasn't a recipient, and Darwin is known for "Disappearing" communications that might be embarrassing... it is known that letters from Wallace were miraculously lost as well. Not all of them, mind you.

If he received a copy, he may or may not have read it - his German was
slow, and he famously hated mathematics (Mathematics in biology was like
a scalpel in a carpenter's shop – there was no use for it) and there is
a lot of it in the paper, with the bold conjectures for inhertance only
at the very end. Throw in that at the time Tom Dick and Harry wrote on hybridization, and it would have been unlikely that Darwin read it with
any particular attention, if he had it at all.

He was a fucking idiot. And as I pointed out, he owned a book with a
lengthy excerpt printed in it, and Darwin not only read the book but left
notes in the margin both before and after the Mendel bits. He simply had
no use for reality.

He did have a copy of Hermann Hoffmann's Untersuchungen zur Bestimmung
des Werthes von Species und Varietät which is an attempted refutation of Darwin that also had a short summary of Mendel's work. Darwin annotated parts of it, but not the Mendel section, so may have skipped it.

Lol! "No! He wasn't an idiot! He avoided serious work on inheritance in order to promote pseudo scientific TRASH that he stole from Lamarck."

In any case, it would have been quite reasonable for him to wait until others replicated the result

You're saying this about a fraud who didn't wait but instead "Invented" a rebranded Lamarckism with his fantasy "Gemmules."

(and Mendel's paper is as you might know
controversial -I would not go as far as Fisher who accused Mendel of
fixing the result, but there may have been quite a bit of selection bias going on)

The Mendelian Laws of Inheritance are quite controversial, you say?

Darwin cost the English speaking world TWO DECADES of scientific
advancement because he was a fraud.

Darwin had done quite a bit of experiments with pea varieties himself by
the way

Oh yeah, Pangenesis was based on experimentation... right... sure.

Why this investment? Yes, the British aristocracy is extremely protective
of it's own, but Darwin is a lost cause. He discovered nothing. He
plagiarized nearly everything -- ether from his grandfather and then
Wallace -- and quite literally his greatest contribution was in HOLDING
BACK science for an entire generation, by dismissing Mendel.

Darwin EARNED our contempt. He earned it. He deserves far WORSE.

Accept it. End the revisionism. Move on. Leave Darwin in the cesspool
of history where he belongs.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/707031415595925504

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, 21 January 2023 at 09:25:56 UTC+2, JTEM provided more evidence:

*Hemidactylus* wrote:

So instead of actually providing evidence that Darwin actually read
Mendel you provided even more evidence you are an abusive
narcissistic crank.

You're defending a fraud. You're defending someone whose single
"Greatest" contribution to the world was the denial of actual
scientific knowledge for 20 years.

Darwin was a worthless, racist, classist douche bag if had he been
born to a more humble family would have died a miserable failure,
a complete embarrassment.

Q.E.D. Mirroring your properties to Darwin who most likely lacked
those. Also there are still chance for you to not die like you describe.
It is all still in your own hands, takes just a bit of self-discipline.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

, oot...@hot.ee wrote:

Q.E.D. Mirroring

What mental disorder is this? Why are you simultaneously pretending to
give a shit about science while defending the worst fraud of all time?

Darwin, by becoming the face of naturalism and discarding Mendel, was
far more damaging to science than Piltdown Man!

AND, Darwin literally did not believe in evolution! Sure, he eventually used the term but we're all familiar with morons misunderstanding & misusing
terms. What Darwin MEANT, regardless of the word he used, was the very
same thing that those who actively REJECTED evolution believed in!

How many shades of FUCKED IN THE HEAD do you have to be to worship
THAT imaginary god?

Wake up. Take your meds. Accept the realty that you've been taken for a
fool your whole life. Get made at the aristocracy that did this to you and
NOT the people who exposed them... exposed your stupid error.

Have a nice day.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/707302974280581120

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

JTEM is a zero <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

How many shades of FUCKED IN THE HEAD do you have to be

You’ve demonstrated such batshit to an extreme every post. Why did you ask? For an imaginary friend residing in your head who can stand you?

Wake up. Take your meds. Accept the realty

Realty is an illusion.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 10:59:22 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid>:

jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 13:36:44 -0800 (PST), JTEM trolled:

jillery wrote:

<relevant citations restored>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangenesis>
*************************************
Pangenesis was Charles Darwin's hypothetical mechanism for heredity,
in which he proposed that each part of the body continually emitted
its own type of small organic particles called gemmules that
aggregated in the gonads, contributing heritable information to the
gametes.
**************************************

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism>
**************************************
Lamarckism is the notion that an organism can pass on to its offspring >>>> physical characteristics that the parent organism acquired through use >>>> or disuse during its lifetime.
****************************************

It was his one and only theory, and he came out with it AFTER Mendel,
AFTER he was exposed to Mendel.

Mendel has nothing to do with Lamarkism, Pangenesis, or Lysenkoism.

I think JTEM was trying to Whiggishly self-aggrandize by portraying Darwin
as a laughingly ignorant person for developing the pangenesis notion after >Darwin had allegedly read Mendel�s work and should have been enlightened as >to how a rudimentary viewpoint of genetics worked. But Darwin does not seem >to have read Mendel as far as I know. And by comparison Haeckel had
developed a parallel notion of perigenesis which in his rendering operated
by some weird vibrational mode. So JTEM is allegedly smarter than Haeckel >also. JTEM has grandiose visions of his own self-importance that are easily >laughed away.

...or ignored, especially if one doesn't see them.

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 10:59:22 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid>:

jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 13:36:44 -0800 (PST), JTEM trolled:

jillery wrote:

<relevant citations restored>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangenesis>
*************************************
Pangenesis was Charles Darwin's hypothetical mechanism for heredity,
in which he proposed that each part of the body continually emitted
its own type of small organic particles called gemmules that
aggregated in the gonads, contributing heritable information to the
gametes.
**************************************

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism>
**************************************
Lamarckism is the notion that an organism can pass on to its offspring >>>> physical characteristics that the parent organism acquired through use >>>> or disuse during its lifetime.
****************************************

It was his one and only theory, and he came out with it AFTER Mendel,
AFTER he was exposed to Mendel.

Mendel has nothing to do with Lamarkism, Pangenesis, or Lysenkoism.

I think JTEM was trying to Whiggishly self-aggrandize by portraying Darwin
as a laughingly ignorant person for developing the pangenesis notion after >Darwin had allegedly read Mendel�s work and should have been enlightened as >to how a rudimentary viewpoint of genetics worked. But Darwin does not seem >to have read Mendel as far as I know. And by comparison Haeckel had
developed a parallel notion of perigenesis which in his rendering operated
by some weird vibrational mode. So JTEM is allegedly smarter than Haeckel >also. JTEM has grandiose visions of his own self-importance that are easily >laughed away.

...or ignored, especially if one doesn't see them.

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Bob Casanova wrote:

...or ignored, especially if

Ah, the narcissism is in full bloom!

You never have to deal with anything. Not you. You're too "Special"
and we know this by your incessant need to proclaim it, as you are
doing now.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/707620975420850176

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

*Hemidactylus* wrote:

You’ve demonstrated

Wow. You make everything about me... Darwin? The fact that he never
believed in evolution but instead believed in the same rubbish that
those who REJECTED evolution believed in? That's all on me, apparently.

...Google "cognitive dissonance," sugar lips.

I'm laughing at you.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/707620975420850176

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Bob Casanova wrote:

...or

They say all psychopaths are narcissist, just like you. So are you
a psychopath or are we pretending that you're not?




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/707620975420850176

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, January 18, 2023 at 3:35:54 PM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

I don't read JTEM's posts unless someone quotes them

It’s hard to believe someone could be more obnoxious than Matt Beasley, but
JTEM runs circles around him for that acquired characteristic. Something
got errantly methylated multiple times over.

Every time I see a post from jtem I think we were better off with glen.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 29 Jan 2023 08:03:15 -0800 (PST), Zen Cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, January 18, 2023 at 3:35:54 PM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

I don't read JTEM's posts unless someone quotes them

It’s hard to believe someone could be more obnoxious than Matt Beasley, but
JTEM runs circles around him for that acquired characteristic. Something
got errantly methylated multiple times over.

Every time I see a post from jtem I think we were better off with glen.

Unfortunately, it's not a case of either/or. We are stuck with both,
and others.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 12:35:08 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jan 2023 08:03:15 -0800 (PST), Zen Cycle
<funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, January 18, 2023 at 3:35:54 PM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote: >> Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

I don't read JTEM's posts unless someone quotes them

It’s hard to believe someone could be more obnoxious than Matt Beasley, but
JTEM runs circles around him for that acquired characteristic. Something >> got errantly methylated multiple times over.

Every time I see a post from jtem I think we were better off with glen.

Unfortunately, it's not a case of either/or. We are stuck with both,
and others.
--

Maybe I've missed something but is seems to me we haven't heard from glen in over a month

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 29 Jan 2023 10:36:10 -0800 (PST), Zen Cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 12:35:08 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jan 2023 08:03:15 -0800 (PST), Zen Cycle
<funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, January 18, 2023 at 3:35:54 PM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote: >> >> Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

I don't read JTEM's posts unless someone quotes them

It’s hard to believe someone could be more obnoxious than Matt Beasley, but
JTEM runs circles around him for that acquired characteristic. Something >> >> got errantly methylated multiple times over.

Every time I see a post from jtem I think we were better off with glen.

Unfortunately, it's not a case of either/or. We are stuck with both,
and others.
--

Maybe I've missed something but is seems to me we haven't heard from glen in over a month

IIRC Glenn stopped posting about the time PeeWee Peter did, leading
someone (not me!) to speculate they might be sock puppets. Perhaps
Glenn just took a break. Perhaps he felt outnumbered without his
strange bedfellow around to flatter him.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)