That's No Leaf — It's A Spider!

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Greggers

Once again, you're showing your lack of basic comprehension of english sentences.

Wrong. I make a large percentage of my income as a writer and editor. I may not be perfect (not that the standard for ATS is perfection), but I'm proficient enough to earn a living.

You however continue to be unnecessarily argumentative.

P.S.

Countries, nationalities, and languages are always capitalized as they are proper nouns.

www.grammarly.com...

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

Uh, no, get your head out of your own bubble.

Better to have my head in a bubble than where you've put yours.

What I said above is accurate -- my initial post did bear some resemblance to science. You claimed it did not. I'm quite sure we could have found common ground under other circumstances. Perhaps after your next mutation.

a reply to: Greggers

"Wrong"?

You said:

originally posted by: Greggers
Natural selection refers to the fact that creatures which are better suited to their environment will experience enhanced survival and will pass their genes on more often. In this sense, the natural environment "selects" which traits enhance survival and which do not.

emphasis mine

I was specifically addressing your usage of the "will" to imply a definitive action, not some teleological intent.

The real fact is that creatures which are better suited to their environment may on average experience enhanced survival which may on average enhance fitness. This is what I meant by there is no 'definitive will' in the meaning of natural selection. Semantics shemantics, technicalities are crucial when it comes to science. What you implied is a misconception.

But of course, you're free to believe whatever you wish, and write about it.

"Wrong"?

Yep.

I was specifically addressing your usage of the "will" to imply a definitive action, not some teleological intent.

Already acknowledged. If you think you're telling me something I don't know, you're wrong. Feel free to post more about it, though.

originally posted by: Greggers
Better to have my head in a bubble than where you've put yours.

Good for you, I laid it up and you slammed it down.

originally posted by: Greggers
What I said above is accurate -- my initial post did bear some resemblance to science. You claimed it did not. I'm quite sure we could have found common ground under other circumstances. Perhaps after your next mutation.

My initial critique and reference to lack of scientific clout was in reference to the scientific method. No way for you to know that really. You came right out and told a nice story about natural selection, accidental mutations, and this spider. I wanted to be sure people knew, that without any sort of verifiable evidence or knowledge about this thing, that what you told was a story.

originally posted by: Greggers
Already acknowledged. If you think you're telling me something I don't know, you're wrong. Feel free to post more about it, though.

But... you don't know.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: Greggers
Better to have my head in a bubble than where you've put yours.

Good for you, I laid it up and you slammed it down.

originally posted by: Greggers
What I said above is accurate -- my initial post did bear some resemblance to science. You claimed it did not. I'm quite sure we could have found common ground under other circumstances. Perhaps after your next mutation.

My initial critique and reference to lack of scientific clout was in reference to the scientific method. No way for you to know that really. You came right out and told a nice story about natural selection, accidental mutations, and this spider. I wanted to be sure people knew, that without any sort of verifiable evidence or knowledge about this thing, that what you told was a story.

Oh, we've been over that plenty already.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: Greggers
Already acknowledged. If you think you're telling me something I don't know, you're wrong. Feel free to post more about it, though.

But... you don't know.

Yes, I do. From the very beginning of this thread, you've assumed you know things others don't. And at least in my case, you've been wrong every single time.

I even acknowledged that my initial post was a story -- as in, it was a description of natural selection meant to describe how this particular mutation COULD HAVE happened sans any SUPERNATURAL intervention, which was the supposition of the original post I was responding to.

I've also pointed out numerous times now that natural selection has no will.

I've even said it's possible that this particular mutation happened in a LEAP rather than many small steps.

So, it seems to me, you and I differ on very little, other than tone.

a reply to: Greggers

Or you can just post the evidence to support your empty assertions.

Or not.

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: Greggers
Already acknowledged. If you think you're telling me something I don't know, you're wrong. Feel free to post more about it, though.

But... you don't know.

Yes, I do.

Sorry, that remains to be seen. Ive been around ATS long enough to know one when I see one

(Not sure if that's a good thing really)

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Greggers

Or you can just post the evidence to support your empty assertions.

Or not.

What empty assertion? What are you even talking about?

originally posted by: PhotonEffect


Sorry, that remains to be seen.

If it "remains to be seen," you shouldn't have said otherwise. I find yours to be a strange claim, however, since the issue we were debating was whether I understand that natural selection has no will, and you had no issue with anything I said on that point except to debate the correctness of my selected wording, which I subsequently acknowledged, despite feeling it was a needlessly pedantic nitpick and quite unfortunate given that I'd attempted to avoid exactly that misunderstanding.

So it's hard to know what, precisely, you'd have me prove.

double.

a reply to: Greggers

originally posted by: Greggers
From the very beginning of this thread, you've assumed you know things others don't. And at least in my case, you've been wrong every single time.

But it was you who started with the story, assuming you knew things that people don't about how this spider evolved.

Most people probably accepted it too, without a lick of actual supporting evidence - only the photo.

originally posted by: Greggers
I even acknowledged that my initial post was a story -- as in, it was a description of natural selection meant to describe how this particular mutation COULD HAVE happened sans any SUPERNATURAL intervention, which was the supposition of the original post I was responding to.

But you didn't use any such language like 'could have', or 'might have' or 'here's one possible way'... And I'm not sure there was any direct mention of supernatural intervention by the poster you were responding to

originally posted by: Greggers
I've also pointed out numerous times now that natural selection has no will.

I agree, and I'm still scratching my head on this one because neither you nor I ever suggested such a thing. I think it was Seinfeld-esque misunderstanding of the usage of "will". I'm fine to move on if you are

originally posted by: Greggers
I've even said it's possible that this particular mutation happened in a LEAP rather than many small steps.

You were being incredulous, let's be honest.

a reply to: Greggers

originally posted by: Greggers
What empty assertion? What are you even talking about?

That whole thing about many many individual accidental mutations, natural selection over millions of years etc etc..

Empty in the sense of zero evidence.

a reply to: Greggers

originally posted by: Greggers
If it "remains to be seen," you shouldn't have said otherwise. I find yours to be a strange claim, however, since the issue we were debating was whether I understand that natural selection has no will, and you had no issue with anything I said on that point except to debate the correctness of my selected wording, which I subsequently acknowledged, despite feeling it was a needlessly pedantic nitpick and quite unfortunate given that I'd attempted to avoid exactly that misunderstanding.

So it's hard to know what, precisely, you'd have me prove.

Right, so just as a last ditch effort to try and settle this one - I admit there can be a nitpicking pedantic nature to my posts, which has everything to do with the technicalities of Science, especially when it comes to the language and definitions of things. Without these technicalities rockets wouldn't make it the moon, or antibiotics wouldn't kill harmful bacteria, or artificial lemon flavor would taste like lime flavor.

So when you state to a poster that natural selection will lead to enhanced survival, on the surface it seems correct because you've heard it so many times that it's basically become law. But that's not what NS says, because thanks to the MES guys, it was defined as a statistical variable, a probability distribution. So the technical way to define it is that NS on average may enhance survival and reproductive success. Because it's not 100% certain that an organism which has survived to reproductive stage will actually reproduce and pass on its genes. So there needs to be a probability to represent the chances that an organism will do that. It's to be able to model the effects of selection on reproductive success, I guess. How accurate the models represent actual ecological dynamics is up for debate. But I'm confident you already know this stuff

So anyway, that's what that was.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

But it was you who started with the story, assuming you knew things that people don't about how this spider evolved.

Nope. I was answering someone who was looking for an explanation for how these things could work without supernatural influence.


Look, I realize it's probably frustrating for you to put such devotion into long posts that no one reads. Don't feel bad. It happens.

Sayyydeee
That's what I say .
a reply to: theantediluvian

originally posted by: Greggers
Look, I realize it's probably frustrating for you to put such devotion into long posts that no one reads. Don't feel bad. It happens.

Hey, I'm sure you do realize it. Projection is good for the soul.

Anyway, thanks for the pep talk, I'll see ya out there.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: Greggers
Look, I realize it's probably frustrating for you to put such devotion into long posts that no one reads. Don't feel bad. It happens.

Hey, I'm sure you do realize it. Projection is good for the soul.

Anyway, thanks for the pep talk, I'll see ya out there.