N.Wells
Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005
|
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 24 2016,06:56) | Judmarc could not provide a scientifically testable answer. They forfeited the game. I better give the others another 10 hours of thinking time.
Jeopardy theme song [10 hours] www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkdmOVejUlI |
This is just one more area where you are completely clueless. It's your effing proposal. Therefore you have to define what you mean, and YOU have to demonstrate that YOUR idea is worthy of further investigation.
You can ask for help in developing it, and if someone sees promise they are likely to offer to help (or to grab it and run with it independently - science is both collaborative and competitive). Everyone in science is always looking for something new and interesting, so your inability to attract any interest is a good indication that no one sees any promise in your stuff. In fact, every indication so far suggests that your idea is completely useless and totally wrong. Until you show otherwise, it is in the interest of scientific progress to ignore it.
Is science responsible for investigating my pixie dust proposal, given that I have now proposed it? Well, it's the same for your nonsense.
Quote | and their fathers will learn to not eat the food she gathers for them. If the babies are scared then they will call and she will be quick to come to their aid and let them ride on her head and body, as they learn what they need to know to succeed in life. | I notice in passing that you have "evolved" a new error in your comments about crocodilians. Specifically, as far as I've read in the literature, mother crocodilians do not feed their young, except incidentally as infants snap up any bits that may fall off her prey (in most cases, crocodilians swallow their prey whole, so they leave few left-overs). Fathers do not "learn" to forego this (non-existent) food source - a crocodilian mother simply drives off all males lest the males eat her babies. The state of knowledge is that crocodilian infants are left to find their own food. Also, your "and" in the second sentence still implies that the mother lets the young ride on her at times when she comes to their aid. This is wrong: she protects them by charging the threat and counterattacking it, driving it off. If you want to provide examples of parental care, why not provide good ones? However, even more importantly, what does showing examples of parental care do for your argument when there are so many creatures that have no parental care whatsoever? Using the definition of parental care that it starts after the young separate from the mother/parent, there is no parental care in prokaryotes, basically in all protists, fungi, and plants, most lower invertebrates (sponges, cnidarians, clams), many reptiles (think sea turtles as an example), and quite a lot of fish.
Edited to add: Over at Sandwalk, bwilson tells Gary, Quote | GG wrote, "I need to see what your "guided evolution" looks like." Guided evolution is not my hypothesis. It's not my job to say what predictions it makes. The people who think guided evolution happens should not only make the predictions, but also WANT to make them so that we advocates of unguided evolution don't make the wrong predictions. Of course, some people have made relevant predictions, as John Harshman points out. Tests have been made. And how did that turn out? Perhaps you have some newer, better predictions that can be tested? | So Gary, how many times have people explained the wrong-headedness of your demand that your opponents tell you what your own hypothesis should look like or how it should be tested? I've lost count, but it seems to be a weekly occurrence. Yet you persist in this nonsense. Your ignorance is exceeded only by your imperviosity. Normal religious faith pales in comparison.
|