Posted: Aug 07, 2013 7:34 pm
by Paul Almond
This post, like all your other posts, is worthless nonsense.

Arthur Methoxy wrote:Despite its ever-burgeoning technical complexity

A ridiculous way of describing modern evolutionary theory. The basic idea is not complex. The complexity is in the interactions in real evolutionary systems. The idea that with a "better" evolutionary theory all that can go away is fanciful.

Arthur Methoxy wrote:Not so, for Empedocles: despite his idea of homologous functions (e.g. olive and egg) there are no innately successful adaptations in an environment. After all, we may note, a polar bears' foot would not be a successful adaptation for a bacterium growing on it despite the environment being the same.

You seem to be trying to say that evolution claims that certain features of an organism are "absolutely successful" - independently of the context provided by, amongst other things, the type of organism that has them. Evolution says no such thing. You are arguing against a ridiculous straw man.

Once again, you seem to be trying to take a comically literal - and, ironically, out of context - understanding of a few words in a theory as the basis for thinking that you are going to give the new world a new idea.

Why waste your time trying to persuade us about your idea? You must know, by now, that we are all hidebound reactionaries, part of a culture of scientific inertia that is scared of progress and tries to crush innovation. By laughing at all your posts. Instead, write up your idea in a paper and publish it. Name it after yourself: in your paper, refer to your idea as "the Methoxical evolutionary synthesis". Your Nobel prize will follow soon.

Also, remember not to give up. You will get revenge for the mockery one day. In the future, when your ideas have been accepted, you can hold show trials and have all your detractors punished for holding back human progress and preventing a cure for cancer. Or something.

Also, try and put something about Tesla in it.