N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 29 2014,19:45) | | Quote (N.Wells @ April 29 2014,09:31) | | Unlike you, I don't have anything to apologize for. I haven't been dishonest in my accusations, unlike you. |
In my honest opinion you were so making a mountain out of a molehill (that only needed one qualifier word to fix it) you were over the line that time.
In your opinion it's just more of the usual yanking my chain.
Legally, if either one of us brought this matter to court they would assume we have to be kidding then start laughing even harder after reading more of this thread.
There is not much of a case here, for either of us. It's best we settle out of court with arbitration where I don't have to apologize to you, if you don't want to apologize to me, then we're even. 
| Quote (N.Wells @ April 29 2014,09:31) | | Did you intend your conclusions to be relevant only to humans, or were they supposed to be more general? |
This Conclusion section follows the Speciation section that ends the theory reaching us, humans, with double period for a very long but not infinite time since then.
| Quote | | Therefore where "human" is operationally defined as a 46 chromosome primate, the result of chromosome fusion speciation, there is the genetic signature of a man and a woman progenitor couple expressing the new human design who deserve the colloquial name of Chromosomal Adam and Eve, whose descendants preferred to be with their own kind, through time, all the way from them to us.. |
The only way to keep the theory flowing properly is to top that, with a Conclusion that goes in the forward direction (future) into triple period infinite time, best conceptualized by the Everything Is Energy video. It thus ends with "forever through generations of time..."
This theory does not try to reinvent the wheel. It leaves what happened during the time in between to archaeology and paleontology, which already studies it. Where Darwinian theory is all you need to keep making progress then that's fine by me. In fact I expect that where what matters is knowing how to read the stratigraphy and talent finding fossils, not what was going on in the brains they once had in their now empty heads or how many systematic levels of intelligence they had, which is a question for intelligence theory with an Occam's Razor minimal code model. You need the right theory, to get the job done right.
The Conclusion section has to connect our systematics based fusion produced Chromosomal Adam and Eve marker for us humans to the next biggest questions that connect from there such as how our consciousness works, to better know where “love” comes from (as per FTK's standards).
You have to try seeing it as connecting scientific points together into a path to follow the evidence wherever it leads. The theory starts with behavior of matter on into self-assembly then origin of very first intelligent life from molecules then levels of intelligence to us where Chromosomal Adam and Eve only had to be able to think like us and likely to go running for clothes too especially when it gets cold. Exact skeletal morphology does not matter the only thing that does is that they for good left the 48 design that over time made all a zoo animal, not the zoo-keeper.
| Quote (N.Wells @ April 29 2014,09:31) | Why on earth do you prefer salmon as an example of parental care? They do prepare a redd (nest), but beyond that they exhibit rock-bottom nothingness on the spectrum of parental care, equivalent to corals, oak trees, and for that matter rocks. You did indeed link to a video of one salmon chasing another, but as I explained at the time you misinterpreted what was going on. They do that to monopolize choice nesting sites, in order to attract females prior to laying and fertilizing eggs, to herd a female, or to chase another male away from a female who is about to lay her eggs (they are very aggressive during courtship, but courtship is not parental care). They do not do that to protect redds with young: once they've finished spawning and finned some gravel over the fertilized eggs, the vast majority of salmon (all of them in most types of salmon) die very quickly. In the exceptional types of salmon that don't all die, the few that don't die leave immediately - none of them "remain upstream". (You are just tripling down on an idiocy here.) None of them show any further interest in their nests or their fertilized eggs after spawning. Salmon don't eat at this stage in their lives (some salmon go sixteen weeks without eating: their digestive tracts atrophy and their stomachs disintegrate once they enter fresh water, to make room for and provide nutrient for their gonads), so they don't pose a threat to the young, so why would the salmon be protecting them against other adult salmon?
However, step back for a second and look at the larger picture: you are pushing examples of parental care to indicate that that is fundamental biological behavior that your ideas explain. Parental care is not fundamental, and your ideas don't explain it. In contrast, theory related to natural selection explains it all very nicely. Epic fail, on your part. |
Like it or not the theory needs to know what is going on in the minds of salmon, and this is where teachers are already heading:
| Quote |
Sound Salmon Background Information for teachers
When salmon reach their spawning grounds males and females pair off. Females look for rippling waters and clean streambed gravel that can be swept aside with broad tail strokes. The scooped-out gravel forms a depression about the shape of the female's body but twice as long. Males compete to spawn with the female. Sometimes smaller males called jacks are also present. Jack salmon are small because they migrate after only a year in the ocean but can spawn nevertheless. The female deposits some of her eggs in the redd and the male fertilizes them with a milky cloud of sperm called milt. Eggs are laid in batches deposited within the redd. Spawners guard the nest to protect it from intruders. Most Pacific salmon die within one to two weeks after spawning. |
 |
Some lesser stuff first. You still haven't addressed the problem of your definition of humans including silky marmosets: that will indeed get you laughed at. Thank you for providing a quote that confirms your earlier errors about salmon. The males are aggressive toward each other during courtship/nesting, they spawn, and then they quickly die without ever defending their young, so you really should go with something other than salmon to exemplify parental devotion. As I said, they guard their nest site and access to spawning females prior to fertilization. They are very aggressive, because other males will attempt to take over the attention of a female, or horn in on prime nesting real estate, or will dash in and try to squirt out some sperm while the female is laying eggs: that's what all the "defending the nest" and "protecting the nest against intruders" is about. However, after spawning, they bugger off and (with some exceptions in a few species of salmon) die. They are dead and/or gone before they'd ever get to defend their young.
So you are using nonexistent parental care by salmon as a major argument for equally nonexistent molecular and cellular intelligence!!! ****Not even wrong.****
Now for the more serious stuff. No, I'm not making a mountain out of a molehill. You invented a charge of dishonesty in the form of quote-mining by claiming that your conclusions section supposedly only talks about humans, when it actually talks about the origins of cellular and molecular intelligence and discusses salmon, crocodiles, and sexual reproduction, and specifically talks about cellular intelligence being responsible for migration behavior, which is most specifically not a human trait. Moreover, this is the conclusion section to your whole document, which seems to cover just about everything under the sun.
Worse, you did this to avoid admitting that you made numerous mistakes about sexual reproduction.
None of that is fixable with a one-word qualifier.
Your statement about sexual reproduction made a number of "must" and "required" statements, which are about as close as you come anywhere to make some statements that offer the potential for falsifiability. Since they are wrong, your whole edifice can be said to collapse on these issues alone, so no, it's not making a mountain out of a molehill.
So, first, we are not even, and second, for the legal record, are you refusing to apologize for accusing me of quote-mining?
|
