pfrankinstein wrote: With your imagination you can ask the man himself his option. Charles Darwin directly about his theory of 'mechanism'

Darwin had little information as to the mechanism.
The mechanism is at the molecular scale ... genotypes. Darwin recognized a pattern at the phenotypical scale. Evolution (Darwin's) happens at the molecular scale ... as does snowflake formation. Do snowflakes replicate, ask the question of Darwin Paul. Do you think Darwin thinks snowflakes replicate?

Oh look, the lying liar has returned to form and is lying again.

It's frankly amazing that anyone can be thick enough to lie about what's been written in the same thread they're lying in.

Utterly idiotic, but also shows that the motivation isn't innocent, but purely bad faith. Bad faith lying and blagging for the best part of 2 decades - what kind of twisted fuckwittery does that entail?

romansh wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote: With your imagination you can ask the man himself his option. Charles Darwin directly about his theory of 'mechanism'

Darwin had little information as to the mechanism.
The mechanism is at the molecular scale ... genotypes. Darwin recognized a pattern at the phenotypical scale. Evolution (Darwin's) happens at the molecular scale ... as does snowflake formation. Do snowflakes replicate, ask the question of Darwin Paul. Do you think Darwin thinks snowflakes replicate?

Paul's entirely ignorant of Mendel. But if you spend long enough explaining about the mechanism of inheritance and how it was discovered, then Paul will be happy to lie and pretend he knew about it all along. If we're really lucky, Paul might even start telling us what Mendel thought, and how Mendel definitely would support Paul.

Spearthrower wrote:Oh look, the lying liar has returned to form and is lying again.

It's frankly amazing that anyone can be thick enough to lie about what's been written in the same thread they're lying in.

Utterly idiotic, but also shows that the motivation isn't innocent, but purely bad faith. Bad faith lying and blagging for the best part of 2 decades - what kind of twisted fuckwittery does that entail?

Noting the intellectual dishonesty is one thing, but speculatively pathologising it is another thing entirely. Pointing out the errors, fallacies, and misrepresentations as they occur is fair, but as frustrating as interacting with Paul is, we should probably let the other stuff blow away on the wind, eh(?) - lest we end up just trolling ourselves!

THWOTH wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:Oh look, the lying liar has returned to form and is lying again.

It's frankly amazing that anyone can be thick enough to lie about what's been written in the same thread they're lying in.

Utterly idiotic, but also shows that the motivation isn't innocent, but purely bad faith. Bad faith lying and blagging for the best part of 2 decades - what kind of twisted fuckwittery does that entail?

Noting the intellectual dishonesty is one thing, but speculatively pathologising it is another thing entirely. Pointing out the errors, fallacies, and misrepresentations as they occur is fair, but as frustrating as interacting with Paul is, we should probably let the other stuff blow away on the wind, eh(?) - lest we end up just trolling ourselves!

In the absence of moderation, I'm afraid I really don't care. The lying bullshit and trolling should have been shut down a long, long time ago for there to be any justifiable demand for discursive propriety.

Spearthrower wrote:

THWOTH wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:Oh look, the lying liar has returned to form and is lying again.

It's frankly amazing that anyone can be thick enough to lie about what's been written in the same thread they're lying in.

Utterly idiotic, but also shows that the motivation isn't innocent, but purely bad faith. Bad faith lying and blagging for the best part of 2 decades - what kind of twisted fuckwittery does that entail?

Noting the intellectual dishonesty is one thing, but speculatively pathologising it is another thing entirely. Pointing out the errors, fallacies, and misrepresentations as they occur is fair, but as frustrating as interacting with Paul is, we should probably let the other stuff blow away on the wind, eh(?) - lest we end up just trolling ourselves!

In the absence of moderation, I'm afraid I really don't care. The lying bullshit and trolling should have been shut down a long, long time ago for there to be any justifiable demand for discursive propriety.

How does the phrase ' Vulcan logic ' grab you sir?
Paul.

He's going all space cadet. I hear you.

Ask the inovater... ask thrower, ask the futuristic logical character.

Ah... Polls apart.

pfrankinstein wrote:How does the question ' Do snowflakes replicate? ' grab you sir?
Paul.

FIFY

The grand conclusion Paul is so very proud of and is sure marks his brilliance as that equal to intellectual greats such as Darwin: evolution (i.e. change over time) is a process (i.e. a series of changes over time).

His next brilliant insight that he will spend another 2 decades exposing to the drudging masses: water is wet.

Spearthrower wrote:His next brilliant insight that he will spend another 2 decades exposing to the drudging masses: water is wet.

No,no,no! Water is not just wet, being wet is a process with a mechanism. It's all part of the one process, since the big bang.

But I guess we will never find out whether replication is involved in being wet or not.

romansh wrote:
No,no,no! Water is not just wet, being wet is a process with a mechanism.

Spearthrower wrote:

romansh wrote:
No,no,no! Water is not just wet, being wet is a process with a mechanism.

What is the subject. The subject is 'evolution '. What is 'Evolution?

Darwin? Thrower? Spock? Past present future.

........

Do you realise your opinion was formulated by means of ' thrower' selection. Each of us our own.

pfrankinstein wrote: What is 'Evolution?

Asked and answered many times ... but one more time for your edification:
It is a process where entities:

replicate,
imperfectly,
and some preferentially according to the environment.

The mechanisms for each step may vary.

Do snowflakes replicate?

Paul's been asking this question for years, but despite dozens of different people educating him, he remains resolutely, adamantly, arrogantly ignorant of even the most superficial acknowledgment of reality.

Just in the above exchange alone, the pattern of Paul's stonewalling and trolling is perfectly clear. He repeats a question he's asked dozens of times, and that question's been answered - sometimes in great detail - dozens of times by dozens of people, but he keeps JAQing off on that single question as if he's performing something other than acting like an arsehole to people. On the other side, he's been asked a clear, direct, simple question dozens of times and refuses ever to answer, refuses even to acknowledge the question.

And moderation remains paralyzed in even considering addressing it. Seems simple enough to tell the chap to stop lying and bullshitting to me. This thread provides examples of the moderation doing exactly that with Paul's trolling from the outset, but today, you have to call someone a 'cunt' for anyone to notice, and then you can even get away with calling everyone cunts because of the 'group rule' or something. Meanwhile, current users online 2 with 400 bots. Maybe there's a connection there, but regardless, there's not even the excuse that this thread somehow offers educational value to anyone.

https://www.amazon.com/What-Evolution-S ... 0465044263

Learn stuff: stuff good.

You know what they say about people who ask the same question over and over expecting a different answer...