Everything appeared in the Eocene

[Tindalos]

Originally Posted by Socrates

I referred to Deepak Chopra because the poster I was talking to had brought him up. The ideas I am presenting are not heavily influenced by Deepak Chopra.

Pretty much everything you have said is a mischaracterization.

First, I never said your were heavily influenced by Chopra. Let's see what he says:

From here:

It is disturbing to see that the current debate over evolution has become Us-versus-Them. To say that Nature displays intelligence doesn't make you a Christian fundamentalist.

1. How does nature take creative leaps? In the fossil record there are repeated gaps that no "missing link" can fill.

2. If mutations are random, why does the fossil record demonstrate so many positive mutations--those that lead to new species--and so few negative ones? Random chance should produce useless mutations thousands of times more often than positive ones.

8. How can whole systems appear all at once? The leap from reptile to bird is proven by the fossil record. Yet this apparent step in evolution has many simultaneous parts. It would seem that Nature, to our embarrassment, simply struck upon a good idea, not a simple mutation.

And then, from here, we find these nuggets:

(Note - the post this first quote is referring to is the quote here)

Reviewing the negative reactions to yesterday's post, I was struck that both "secular humanists" and fundamentalist become extremely emotional when the debate on evolution is brought up.

However, new ideas are attacked with emotional vehemence some times and then turn out to be right.

If you are opposing my comments with passionate vehemence, I'd suggest that you are not friendly to the open discussion of evolution, no matter which camp you belong to.

Sound familiar?

A new evolutionary theory, should it arise, would have to begin with quantum physics.

Here are some leading principles that I personally support:

1. Intelligence doesn't "appear" at a late stage of evolution. It seems to be inherent in nature.

2. Before there is intelligence in action, there is the potential for intelligence. This must precede the Big Bang and still exists at a subtle level of Nature.

3. The primary evidence for intelligence in the universe isn't design but consciousness. In some mysterious way Nature knows what it is doing.

4. Chaos and orderliness coexist, one being necessary for the other.

5. Evolution manipulates chaos the way an artist manipulates paint, to turn basic ingredients into complex forms.

I'll let everyone decide for themselves.

[Tindalos]

Originally Posted by Socrates

Likewise with the Great Chain of Being. The person who I was talking to brought up that idea.


Pretty much everything you have said is a mischaracterization.

Well, I'll grant you this. You were referring to what another poster had said, but iirc you were very impressed by it. So, to be fair, I'll withdraw this.

[Tindalos]

Originally Posted by Socrates

I have not quotemined nor misrepresented either Shapiro or Gould. I have been very precise about the aspects of their work that I am incorporating into the ideas I am presenting.

BS. What you have done is to take a phrase that they wrote (ie. Gould talking about the "sudden appearance"), disregard what they were talking about and then twist the phrase to suit your own ends.

Originally Posted by Socrates

I am impressed with McCarthy because he has ideas that in some ways are similar to mine about the origin of species. (What I have called "parallel lines")
But as I have already pointed out he is an evolutionist.
Since he does not incorporate templates and intelligence into the picture, he is not quite on the right track.

And that is what I said, that you were now taken with Eugene McCarthy. We know you will cherry pick the bits of his whacky ideas and then morph them into your own.

Originally Posted by Socrates

Pretty much everything you have said is a mischaracterization.

Sorry - pretty much everything I've said is right on the money.

Apologies accepted in advance.
__________________

[Socrates]

Originally Posted by Tindalos

First, I never said your were heavily influenced by Chopra. Let's see what he says:

From here:

And then, from here, we find these nuggets:

(Note - the post this first quote is referring to is the quote here)





Sound familiar?

I'll let everyone decide for themselves.

Tindalos:
First, I never said your were heavily influenced by Chopra.

Do you think your previous posts disappear?
Here is what you said in your post on the previous page (post #1567).
That I seem "to be heaviliy influenced by Deepak Chopra".

[Socrates]

Originally Posted by Tindalos

BS. What you have done is to take a phrase that they wrote (ie. Gould talking about the "sudden appearance"), disregard what they were talking about and then twist the phrase to suit your own ends.

And that is what I said, that you were now taken with Eugene McCarthy. We know you will cherry pick the bits of his whacky ideas and then morph them into your own.

Sorry - pretty much everything I've said is right on the money.

Apologies accepted in advance.
__________________

What you have done is to take a phrase that they wrote (ie. Gould talking about the "sudden appearance"), disregard what they were talking about and then twist the phrase to suit your own ends.

Monad has already contradicted you on this point.

[Monad]

Originally Posted by Tindalos

Also, Soccy seems to be heaviliy influenced by Deepak Chopra,

Originally Posted by Tindalos

First, I never said your were heavily influenced by Chopra.

Tindalos I would recommend you to highlight the words you are using like this so Socrates knows what to concentrate on when he practices his reading skills.

[Monad]

Originally Posted by Socrates

Monad has already contradicted you on this point.

No I didn't

[Tindalos]

Originally Posted by Socrates

Monad has already contradicted you on this point.

Umm, you srsly need to go re-read Monad's post.

Originally Posted by Monad

Yes you have (we have gone over this before)

Meaning - yes you have QM'd Gould & Shapiro

[Socrates]

Originally Posted by Monad

Tindalos I would recommend you to highlight the words you are using like this so Socrates knows what to concentrate on when he practices his reading skills.

My goodness. Could you and Tindalos focus on anything smaller?
How about spelling mistakes?
If you really have nothing to contribute to this discussion, why do you use up the precious time of your life with these gotcha games?

[Tindalos]

Originally Posted by Monad

Tindalos I would recommend you to highlight the words you are using like this so Socrates knows what to concentrate on when he practices his reading skills.

ACH! You're right. To think I might have driven him even further into some sort of fugue state.

Dear Doug

I apologize if that confused you. After re-reading all that Chopra woo, I got a little dizzy. So, yes, you were influenced by him but I will let our readers decide if it was heavily or not.


Monad, thanks for the catch, I wouldn't want to be cause of any more confusion on his part, he does a good enough job already, all by his lonesome

[TestyCalibrate]

Originally Posted by Socrates

Monad has already contradicted you on this point.

That Monad. She's a real hoot sometimes. She is so crazy when she does that! I think the best strategy is to simply be nice to her.

[Socrates]

Originally Posted by Tindalos

Umm, you srsly need to go re-read Monad's post.

Meaning - yes you have QM'd Gould & Shapiro

Oh I see.
He meant that I have quotemined and misrepresented.
I thought he was agreeing with me when I said that I had been very precise about the aspects of their work that I am incorporating into the ideas I am presenting. (Which of course is true).

I take back the credit for honesty that I had given him.
We are back to two instances now.
But I am not wasting any more time on your gotcha games.

[TestyCalibrate]

Originally Posted by SteveF

I don't want this to get lost.

I see. I don't want him to leave though.

[Monad]

Originally Posted by Socrates

My goodness. Could you and Tindalos focus on anything smaller?
How about spelling mistakes?
If you really have nothing to contribute to this discussion, why do you use up the precious time of your life with these gotcha games?

Well if you're going to make an issue out of Tindalos supposedly contradicting himself at least ensure you understand that this is what he did first. It's not a game (although you seem to treat it as such). If you make an accusation against someone make sure you can back it up. Otherwise stop wasting our time.

[Socrates]

Originally Posted by Tindalos

First, I never said your were heavily influenced by Chopra. Let's see what he says:

From here:

And then, from here, we find these nuggets:

(Note - the post this first quote is referring to is the quote here)





Sound familiar?

I'll let everyone decide for themselves.

Looking over these quotes I am very impressed with them. I have not really read anything of his myself but I see that he is very level headed and objective. Obviously Chopra and I are not the only ones in the world who hold these kinds of ideas. Many many people do. Perhaps it is just that you are not acquainted with these sorts of ideas.

Concerning:
"Chaos and orderliness coexist, one being necessary for the other."
I have not really thought about this.

[Socrates]

Originally Posted by Monad

Well if you're going to make an issue out of Tindalos supposedly contradicting himself at least ensure you understand that this is what he did first. It's not a game (although you seem to treat it as such). If you make an accusation against someone make sure you can back it up. Otherwise stop wasting our time.

If you feel this is a waste of your time, you do not need to use up your time on it. Find something else to do or other threads that you feel will be more valuable to you.
I am not twisting anybody's arm.
Please note that I am not telling anybody to leave or not post here. I know if I do not make this clear someone will mischaracterize it.

[DaveGodfrey]

Originally Posted by Socrates

You have used the word "undiagnostic".
You probably meant the word "undiagnosed".
And if you say they have not yet been diagnosed by evolutionists, then I will not disagree with you.
As long as there is a recognition that the Paleocene pre-modern mammal lines were already established in more primitive form as proto-mammal lines in the Cretaceous, then I am content.
Those "parallel lines" continued into the Paleocene and radiated out into variations on the templates.

No Socrates. I used the word I meant to use. The remains are undiagnostic because they are of parts of the body that contain no (or only very general) diagnostic characters. For example, sauropod vertebrae are extremely good for identifying and classifying animals- many species and genera have been named based on a few vertebrae- they have lots of sheets of bone and holes and contain lots of useful characters. Sauropod limb bones by contrast, are not very diagnostic. They are all very similar within a particular group, and are not much use for classifying remains. The same is true of pretty much any "wastebasket taxon", regardless of how large it is, from species up to family. It doesn't help that many of these species are discovered, described and then forgotten about until the next worker comes maybe a generation or more later.

[DaveGodfrey]

Also, I don't view "proto-mammals" as living in the Cretaceous. Its not a term I like at all, but if you wanted me to talk about "proto-mammals" I would be discussing the cynodonts, and things like Thrinaxodon, or possibly even Megazostrodon. Not things that are clearly closer to crown-group placentals than they are to marsupials, or things like multituberculates. If you want to go back further than your vision of "proto" or "pre-modern" mammals then we can keep going back to the Permian and beyond for things like Dimetrodon, Gorgonops, and their ancestors and descendants.

Unfortunately you won't find whales joining the mosasaurs. Nor birds with pterosaurs I still want to see you explain why whales have hair, live birth with amammalian placenta, three inner ear bones, a zygomatic arch, a single lower jaw bone, characters they all share with the other mammals. Equally why do bird and pterosaur hands look so different? Why are pterosaurs so obviously quadrupedal, whereas no birds are? Why the similarity with all the maniraptoran dinosaurs? Why the utterly, utterly different wing structures?

You've explained none of this. It is not more parsimonious to go with your idea which really does boil down to "if it looks similar its the same type and therefore descended with the help of beings from the quantum plenum", or however it is that you prefer to describe your ideas.

[damitall]

Originally Posted by Socrates

My goodness. Could you and Tindalos focus on anything smaller?
How about spelling mistakes?
If you really have nothing to contribute to this discussion, why do you use up the precious time of your life with these gotcha games?

That's OK, Soccy - I'll keep an eye out for your spelling mistakes, if you want. You've made a few in the past, but we'll start with a clean slate.

[Jet Black]

can everyone post in the other thread, not this one.

http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=20578&page=95

It is pointless having two threads on exactly the same thing. I will leave this thread open for a few minutes before locking it, in case anyone is writing a post.

JB