A revolution in thought - Page 123

peacegirl · #**3051** 04-30-2011, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Editor

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is definite proof the earth is round, but there is no absolute proof that the brain is interpreting impulses and turning them into images, . . .

There is.

You just refuse to read what has been given to you. You are rather like the late-ungreat leader of the Flat Earth Society who refused to talk to NASA.

--Ed.

Look what happened to Gregor Mendel.

If you recall, in the 19th century Gregor Mendel made a discovery
in the field of heredity. He was unable to present his findings because
there was an established theory already being taught as true. The
professors he contacted had their own theories and they concluded
that it was impossible for him to have discovered anything new since
he was nothing in comparison to them. If these professors had taken
the time to scientifically investigate his claims they would have found
that he was correct and they were mistaken, but this would have made
them the laughingstock of the entire student world. In the end it was
Nageli, the leading authority of his time, whose pride refused to let
him investigate Mendel whom he judged a semi-amateur because he
regarded as impossible the very core of Mendel’s discovery. He was
wrong as history recorded and though Mendel received posthumous
recognition for the law he discovered, he is now considered the father
of modern genetics and Nageli, a footnote.

Unsurprisingly, that's not an accurate account of Mendel's discoveries, and how they came to be appreciated.

Mendel prepared one paper on his findings regarding the inheritance of characters in plants, Versuche über Pflanzenhybriden (Experiments on Plant Hybridization), which he read at two meetings of the Natural History Society of Brünn in Moravia, in 1865. It was received well, but he made little effort to do anything else with it, except to get it published in Verhandlungen des naturforschenden Vereins Brünn.

Part of the reason that the paper made so little impact (other than that it was published in an obscure journal, and that hardly anyone was aware of it at the time) was that not even Mendel was apparently aware of the significance of what he'd discovered. His paper was cited a few times in the scientific literature, but mostly forgotten. Why should anyone have paid any attention to a paper about hybridization in pea plants published in some obscure journal that hardly anyone reads, particularly given that even the author wasn't making much of an effort to suggest that there was anything revolutionary about it?

It's certainly true that the dominant theory of inheritance of the time (Blending Inheritance) contradicted Mendel's findings. But again, even Mendel didn't seem to truly realize this, and made no serious effort to bring his findings to the attention of the greater scientific community. It's a shame that he didn't, because if Darwin had ever read Mendel's paper, he'd almost-certainly have understood the significance of Mendel's findings, and the science of evolutionary biology would be 60 years or so more advanced than it is today.

It doesn't add up that Mendel wouldn't have made a bigger effort if he thought there was any significance to what he found. Afterall, he worked on his experiments for a long time and he had to be quite sure of himself in order to risk the censure and ridicule he was bound to receive if he was not right. I absolutely don't agree that he didn't realize how important his findings were, or that he didn't make enough of an effort. It could very well be that he tried and tried and tried to get his paper into the right hands (which I believe is a true account of what actually happened), but when he was turned down by Nageli (the leading authority of that time period), there was nowhere else for him to go. Nageli was the cream of the crop. As a last resort, he probably decided to put his paper in an obscure journal in the hope that someone would stumble upon it, because no one would take him seriously and he couldn't get it published anywhere else. He did the right thing but, unfortunately, did not enjoy the fruits of his labor by seeing his discovery recognized in his lifetime. Sounds very familiar. :yup:

davidm · #**3052** 04-30-2011, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Editor

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is definite proof the earth is round, but there is no absolute proof that the brain is interpreting impulses and turning them into images, . . .

There is.

You just refuse to read what has been given to you. You are rather like the late-ungreat leader of the Flat Earth Society who refused to talk to NASA.

--Ed.

Look what happened to Gregor Mendel.

If you recall, in the 19th century Gregor Mendel made a discovery
in the field of heredity. He was unable to present his findings because
there was an established theory already being taught as true. The
professors he contacted had their own theories and they concluded
that it was impossible for him to have discovered anything new since
he was nothing in comparison to them. If these professors had taken
the time to scientifically investigate his claims they would have found
that he was correct and they were mistaken, but this would have made
them the laughingstock of the entire student world. In the end it was
Nageli, the leading authority of his time, whose pride refused to let
him investigate Mendel whom he judged a semi-amateur because he
regarded as impossible the very core of Mendel’s discovery. He was
wrong as history recorded and though Mendel received posthumous
recognition for the law he discovered, he is now considered the father
of modern genetics and Nageli, a footnote.

Unsurprisingly, that's not an accurate account of Mendel's discoveries, and how they came to be appreciated.

Mendel prepared one paper on his findings regarding the inheritance of characters in plants, Versuche über Pflanzenhybriden (Experiments on Plant Hybridization), which he read at two meetings of the Natural History Society of Brünn in Moravia, in 1865. It was received well, but he made little effort to do anything else with it, except to get it published in Verhandlungen des naturforschenden Vereins Brünn.

Part of the reason that the paper made so little impact (other than that it was published in an obscure journal, and that hardly anyone was aware of it at the time) was that not even Mendel was apparently aware of the significance of what he'd discovered. His paper was cited a few times in the scientific literature, but mostly forgotten. Why should anyone have paid any attention to a paper about hybridization in pea plants published in some obscure journal that hardly anyone reads, particularly given that even the author wasn't making much of an effort to suggest that there was anything revolutionary about it?

It's certainly true that the dominant theory of inheritance of the time (Blending Inheritance) contradicted Mendel's findings. But again, even Mendel didn't seem to truly realize this, and made no serious effort to bring his findings to the attention of the greater scientific community. It's a shame that he didn't, because if Darwin had ever read Mendel's paper, he'd almost-certainly have understood the significance of Mendel's findings, and the science of evolutionary biology would be 60 years or so more advanced than it is today.

It doesn't add up that Mendel wouldn't have made a bigger effort, if he thought there was any significance to what he found. Afterall, he worked on his experiments for a long time and he had to be quite sure to contradict what was believed to be true at that time regarding heredity. I absolutely don't agree that he didn't realize how important his findings were, or that he didn't make enough of an effort. It seems to me, based on a different interpretaion, that he tried and tried and tried and to get his paper into the right hands, but when he was turned down by Nageli (the leading authority of that time period), there was nowhere else for him to go. Nageli was the cream of the crop. As a last resort, he probably decided to put his paper in an obscure journal in the hope that someone would stumble upon it, because no one would take him seriously and he couldn't get it published anywhere else. He did the right thing but, unfortunately, did not enjoy the fruits of his labor by seeing his discovery recognized. Sounds very familiar. :yup:

In addition to being wrong, your rewriting of history overlooks one key point. Mendel had evidence. Lessans has no evidence, and, as previously noted, no theory. He has nothing at all, except empty, unsupported assertions already known empirically to be wrong even as he was making them up. :yup:

thedoc · #**3053** 04-30-2011, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

, your rewriting of history

That is a bit of an understatement, include science and reality in that rewrite. She's been in a fantasy world since daddy indoctrinated her with his fiction years ago.

peacegirl · #**3054** 04-30-2011, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I still don't see how a dog can grasp what the test giver is trying to get him to do. I've never seen a dog able to follow instructions to hit a lever when he recognizes his handler, which involves higher order thinking skills that a dog just doesn't have (in my opinion).

Your failure to understand how the experiment was conducted is duly noted. Your failure to understand does not constitute evidence against the validity of the experiment. It is of anecdotal value only and, while it reveals a lot about you, it says nothing about the validity of the experiment.

I think that it is about time to point out that even if Lessans was correct about the inability of dogs to recognize their masters by their facial features alone (and he was not correct about that) that inability would tell us nothing about how human vision works. It is utterly irrelevant.

Angakuk, I don't even think you understand what he is trying to prove by what you just said. It would absolutely give support to Lessans' claims that nothing is traveling (by means of light waves) to the dog's optic nerve in order for the dog to be able to interpret the signals and convert them into an image of his owner. If the eyes were a sense organ, he should be able to do this without the use of his other senses.

peacegirl · #**3055** 04-30-2011, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Mendel prepared one paper on his findings regarding the inheritance of characters in plants, Versuche über Pflanzenhybriden (Experiments on Plant Hybridization), which he read at two meetings of the Natural History Society of Brünn in Moravia, in 1865. It was received well, but he made little effort to do anything else with it, except to get it published in Verhandlungen des naturforschenden Vereins Brünn.

Part of the reason that the paper made so little impact (other than that it was published in an obscure journal, and that hardly anyone was aware of it at the time) was that not even Mendel was apparently aware of the significance of what he'd discovered. His paper was cited a few times in the scientific literature, but mostly forgotten. Why should anyone have paid any attention to a paper about hybridization in pea plants published in some obscure journal that hardly anyone reads, particularly given that even the author wasn't making much of an effort to suggest that there was anything revolutionary about it?

It's certainly true that the dominant theory of inheritance of the time (Blending Inheritance) contradicted Mendel's findings. But again, even Mendel didn't seem to truly realize this, and made no serious effort to bring his findings to the attention of the greater scientific community. It's a shame that he didn't, because if Darwin had ever read Mendel's paper, he'd almost-certainly have understood the significance of Mendel's findings, and the science of evolutionary biology would be 60 years or so more advanced than it is today.

That account can't possibly be correct as it makes no mention of professional jealousy on the part of the scientific establishment.

LadyShea · #**3056** 04-30-2011, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

The author asks that you arrange 105 alphabetical blocks divided equally between A and O in groups of 3 and in 7 lines, so that no letter is ever twice with the same letter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Cannot be twice with any other letter in the groups of 3, or twice with any other letter on a line, or both?

Cannot be twice with any other letter in any of the 35 cominations, which means in any of the lines.

No, cannot be twice with any other letter in the 35 combinations does not mean cannot be twice in any of the lines.

There must be two separate rules, please verify this is the case
1. Each combination of 3 letters must be unique, meaning you cannot use ABC and ACO because the AC cannot be used together again

2. Each line of 5, 3-letter combinations must use the letters A-O only once each

For example using ABC and AMO on the same line does not violate rule 1, but would violate rule 2

Are the two rules above correct, and are there any other rules we are missing?

davidm · #**3057** 04-30-2011, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Mendel prepared one paper on his findings regarding the inheritance of characters in plants, Versuche über Pflanzenhybriden (Experiments on Plant Hybridization), which he read at two meetings of the Natural History Society of Brünn in Moravia, in 1865. It was received well, but he made little effort to do anything else with it, except to get it published in Verhandlungen des naturforschenden Vereins Brünn.

Part of the reason that the paper made so little impact (other than that it was published in an obscure journal, and that hardly anyone was aware of it at the time) was that not even Mendel was apparently aware of the significance of what he'd discovered. His paper was cited a few times in the scientific literature, but mostly forgotten. Why should anyone have paid any attention to a paper about hybridization in pea plants published in some obscure journal that hardly anyone reads, particularly given that even the author wasn't making much of an effort to suggest that there was anything revolutionary about it?

It's certainly true that the dominant theory of inheritance of the time (Blending Inheritance) contradicted Mendel's findings. But again, even Mendel didn't seem to truly realize this, and made no serious effort to bring his findings to the attention of the greater scientific community. It's a shame that he didn't, because if Darwin had ever read Mendel's paper, he'd almost-certainly have understood the significance of Mendel's findings, and the science of evolutionary biology would be 60 years or so more advanced than it is today.

That account can't possibly be correct as it makes no mention of professional jealousy on the part of the scientific establishment.

Add "irony" to the list of things you are unable to grasp.

peacegirl · #**3058** 04-30-2011, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Also, Mendel had hard evidence, actual plants and stuff. A whole garden full. Lessans isn't analogous to Mendel anymore than can be compared to Socrates.

And anyway, even superstar scientists can't get away with bullshit. Many of his colleagues criticized Hawking's theory that information was destroyed in black holes. It took him 30 years to admit he was wrong.

It's not like nobody questions "the establishment", many people do. And disproving an established theory is a surefire way to fame and fortune.

That wasn't the point I was making when I brought up Mendel. I was just showing the pride people have when they are positioned as being the best in their field. It's a very difficult thing for anybody, let alone someone unknown, to dispute something that has been accepted as fact for as long as the five senses. It could take many years, possibly centuries, for something that was wrong in the scientific literature, to be corrected, if ever.

peacegirl · #**3059** 04-30-2011, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kael

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And anyway, even superstar scientists can't get away with bullshit. Many of his colleagues criticized Hawking's theory that information was destroyed in black holes. It took him 30 years to admit he was wrong.

It's not like nobody questions "the establishment", many people do. And disproving an established theory is a surefire way to fame and fortune.

Precisely. Sir Richard Owen was a member of the establishment, he ran the British Museum, was a member of the Zoological Society and the Royal Society, eminent and prestigious by any standards. Yet this did not save him from being indicted for perjury when he continually lied about the anatomy of the brains of humans and other apes, nor from being removed from the councils of the Royal and Zoological Societies when it became apparent that he had essentially plagiarized the work of someone else.

There are far more examples of prominent scientists earning ridicule and shame for trying to hold up the status quo in the face of new knowledge than there are of the words and opinions of such people being viewed as infallible and unquestionable.

That's probably why you are so cynical about Lessans. You are obviously putting him in the latter category of someone who would plagiarize work and lie about the truth of what he found, probably for his own aggrandizement. This is not the case though, so please don't unfairly associate him with others who were nothing like him.

LadyShea · #**3060** 04-30-2011, 07:26 PM

Kael was pointing out that trying to hold on to the "established" view despite new evidence is much more likely to earn ridicule and shame than is questioning the established view- which was Lessan's repeated whine.

I am certain that had Lessans provided convincing scientific evidence that he was correct, rather than his mere individual observations and musings, then his ideas would have stood a chance of being reviewed. Alas, he didn't provide anything approaching scientifically convincing evidence.

He wasn't snubbed because he questioned established science, as he so vehemently claimed, he was snubbed because his ideas are completely unsupported by hard data.

peacegirl · #**3061** 04-30-2011, 07:32 PM

[quote=The Editor;940389]

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why does the brain have to relay impulses to the retina?

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Editor

He does not imply it does :pat:

He implies that there are no efferent fibers, therefore, there can be no efferent vision. But maybe the brain doesn't use efferent fibers for the brain to see through the eyes. Efferent fibers are associated with motor skills, so this would probably not be the means by which the brain sees objects in real time, if Lessans were to be correct.

peacegirl · #**3062** 04-30-2011, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

A coin is a nonliving piece of metal, a dog is a living animal with a brain, there is a difference. Can you understand that?

They were allowing 50% leeway due to the possible randomness of the dog's choices. This, in turn, gave the dog credit for 30% of his choices. This has to do with probabilities doc, and that's what coin tosses are all about.

peacegirl · #**3063** 04-30-2011, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Editor

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the Earth is billions of years old, it isn't at all surprising. . . .

Humans have not been around for "billions of years."

Quote:

. . . that trillions of babies could have been born since that time.

We will add "does not understand like really really big numbers" to your and Lessans' extraordinary caldron of willful ignorance.

Quote:

People had big families.

Thousands? Quite the litter. . . .

Your stupidity approaches that of Killick who could not master the concept of "north."

--Ed.

I already said that if he was wrong, he would have admitted it, and I'm not going to defend what I myself am not sure of. He was trying to make a point that did not require him to have an absolute figure, therefore he could have overestimated the number of people born since time immemorial. That doesn't take away his credibility, which is what you are trying to do.

Wow, hey, how about this: What if he was wrong, but did not know that he was wrong? Is that possible? If not, you are saying that he is not only right, but infallible, because he never admitted that he was wrong!

It is impossible for there to have been trillions and trillions of humans born on the earth! This is because we know the duration on earth of modern humans (NOT billions of years!) and we can make reliable population estimates from the numbers of people on earth now and by extrapolating backward to diminishing numbers in the past (you do know that there were many FEWER people on earth in the past then there are now, right? Probably not; chalk that up to more of your overweening ignorance.)

And, what point was he trying to make with this stupid and wrong observation about his "trillions and trillions" of people? You don't even know, do you?

I'll answer you because your time on ignore is up. But beware; if you go too far with your cynicism and vitriol, you'll be put back on ignore. I already said that he might have used this number to prove a point, even though the number was not exact. He did not have to be exact with the number. He could have replaced trillions of babies born with hundreds of thousands or a few billion, and it wouldn't have changed his knowledge regarding death and the fact that we're born again and again and again. He just wanted people to think about how unusual it is, when you really consider how long humans have been walking the earth, (and the billions of babies that have been born) that you are alive at this infinitesimal fraction of time. Do you actually believe I'm stupid enough to get into this chapter when we have made absolutely no progress on any of his other chapters? You probably do. :doh:

davidm · #**3064** 04-30-2011, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This has to do with probabilities doc, and that's what coin tosses are all about.

See that, Doc? :pat:

This scientific and philosophical illiterate, this gob-smacking idiot, is going to lecture you on what probabilities are all about. :yup:

davidm · #**3065** 04-30-2011, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...the brain sees objects in real time....

There is no "real time," you gob-smacking idiot, there is only proper time which is relativized to reference frames. If you knew anything about the theory of relativity (ironic that your idiot father invoked Einstein in his book) you would know this, but then, you already declared grandly that you don't need to know anything about the theory of relativity, just as you don't need to read The Lone Ranger's essay on how we see!

:wave:

rigorist · #**3066** 04-30-2011, 09:26 PM

YouTube - Otto and Miller Discuss Time...

thedoc · #**3067** 04-30-2011, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Mendel prepared one paper on his findings regarding the inheritance of characters in plants, Versuche über Pflanzenhybriden (Experiments on Plant Hybridization), which he read at two meetings of the Natural History Society of Brünn in Moravia, in 1865. It was received well, but he made little effort to do anything else with it, except to get it published in Verhandlungen des naturforschenden Vereins Brünn.

Part of the reason that the paper made so little impact (other than that it was published in an obscure journal, and that hardly anyone was aware of it at the time) was that not even Mendel was apparently aware of the significance of what he'd discovered. His paper was cited a few times in the scientific literature, but mostly forgotten. Why should anyone have paid any attention to a paper about hybridization in pea plants published in some obscure journal that hardly anyone reads, particularly given that even the author wasn't making much of an effort to suggest that there was anything revolutionary about it?

It's certainly true that the dominant theory of inheritance of the time (Blending Inheritance) contradicted Mendel's findings. But again, even Mendel didn't seem to truly realize this, and made no serious effort to bring his findings to the attention of the greater scientific community. It's a shame that he didn't, because if Darwin had ever read Mendel's paper, he'd almost-certainly have understood the significance of Mendel's findings, and the science of evolutionary biology would be 60 years or so more advanced than it is today.

That account can't possibly be correct as it makes no mention of professional jealousy on the part of the scientific establishment.

Add "irony" to the list of things you are unable to grasp.

Davidm & Augakuk, Didn't anyone ever tell you "Don't feed the troll"?

LadyShea · #**3068** 04-30-2011, 10:14 PM

Quote:

it wouldn't have changed his knowledge regarding death and the fact that we're born again and again and again

LOL, really? You are telling us the for-paying-customers-only chapter is about reincarnation?

I thought you said the book was a no woo zone?

thedoc · #**3069** 04-30-2011, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't add up that Mendel wouldn't have made a bigger effort,

OK a question for those on this thread, Is this 'Irony' or an 'Oxymoron' that peacegirl is trying to use something resembleing logic in her post? If neither of those, 'what is it'?

thedoc · #**3070** 04-30-2011, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This has to do with probabilities doc, and that's what coin tosses are all about.

See that, Doc? :pat:

This scientific and philosophical illiterate, this gob-smacking idiot, is going to lecture you on what probabilities are all about. :yup:

And I should be very grateful to her. L.O.L. :popcorn:

thedoc · #**3071** 04-30-2011, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rigorist

YouTube - Otto and Miller Discuss Time Travel

Now that really, if you think about it, (and please don't, you'll get a headache), makes more sense than lessans book, Have you read it yet? Otto (I assume the one with the stick) would certainly embrace this entheuastically.

thedoc · #**3072** 04-30-2011, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

it wouldn't have changed his knowledge regarding death and the fact that we're born again and again and again

LOL, really? You are telling us the for-paying-customers-only chapter is about reincarnation?

I thought you said the book was a no woo zone?

I think its reincarnation with a twist (of lemon?) but don't ask for particulars, I'm running out of asprin.

LadyShea · #**3073** 04-30-2011, 10:47 PM

Have you seen the chapter, thedoc? It's missing from the .pdf

peacegirl · #**3074** 04-30-2011, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Editor

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is definite proof the earth is round, but there is no absolute proof that the brain is interpreting impulses and turning them into images, . . .

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

There is.

There's a logical conclusion.

You just refuse to read what has been given to you. You are rather like the late-ungreat leader of the Flat Earth Society who refused to talk to NASA.

--Ed.

Look what happened to Gregor Mendel.

If you recall, in the 19th century Gregor Mendel made a discovery
in the field of heredity. He was unable to present his findings because
there was an established theory already being taught as true. The
professors he contacted had their own theories and they concluded
that it was impossible for him to have discovered anything new since
he was nothing in comparison to them. If these professors had taken
the time to scientifically investigate his claims they would have found
that he was correct and they were mistaken, but this would have made
them the laughingstock of the entire student world. In the end it was
Nageli, the leading authority of his time, whose pride refused to let
him investigate Mendel whom he judged a semi-amateur because he
regarded as impossible the very core of Mendel’s discovery. He was
wrong as history recorded and though Mendel received posthumous
recognition for the law he discovered, he is now considered the father
of modern genetics and Nageli, a footnote.

Unsurprisingly, that's not an accurate account of Mendel's discoveries, and how they came to be appreciated.

Mendel prepared one paper on his findings regarding the inheritance of characters in plants, Versuche über Pflanzenhybriden (Experiments on Plant Hybridization), which he read at two meetings of the Natural History Society of Brünn in Moravia, in 1865. It was received well, but he made little effort to do anything else with it, except to get it published in Verhandlungen des naturforschenden Vereins Brünn.

Part of the reason that the paper made so little impact (other than that it was published in an obscure journal, and that hardly anyone was aware of it at the time) was that not even Mendel was apparently aware of the significance of what he'd discovered. His paper was cited a few times in the scientific literature, but mostly forgotten. Why should anyone have paid any attention to a paper about hybridization in pea plants published in some obscure journal that hardly anyone reads, particularly given that even the author wasn't making much of an effort to suggest that there was anything revolutionary about it?

It's certainly true that the dominant theory of inheritance of the time (Blending Inheritance) contradicted Mendel's findings. But again, even Mendel didn't seem to truly realize this, and made no serious effort to bring his findings to the attention of the greater scientific community. It's a shame that he didn't, because if Darwin had ever read Mendel's paper, he'd almost-certainly have understood the significance of Mendel's findings, and the science of evolutionary biology would be 60 years or so more advanced than it is today.

It doesn't add up that Mendel wouldn't have made a bigger effort, if he thought there was any significance to what he found. Afterall, he worked on his experiments for a long time and he had to be quite sure to contradict what was believed to be true at that time regarding heredity. I absolutely don't agree that he didn't realize how important his findings were, or that he didn't make enough of an effort. It seems to me, based on a different interpretaion, that he tried and tried and tried and to get his paper into the right hands, but when he was turned down by Nageli (the leading authority of that time period), there was nowhere else for him to go. Nageli was the cream of the crop. As a last resort, he probably decided to put his paper in an obscure journal in the hope that someone would stumble upon it, because no one would take him seriously and he couldn't get it published anywhere else. He did the right thing but, unfortunately, did not enjoy the fruits of his labor by seeing his discovery recognized. Sounds very familiar. :yup:

In addition to being wrong, your rewriting of history overlooks one key point. Mendel had evidence. Lessans has no evidence, and, as previously noted, no theory. He has nothing at all, except empty, unsupported assertions already known empirically to be wrong even as he was making them up. :yup:

You're wrong David. First off, there is no rewriting history. Mendel was working on peas that lent themselves to being tested empirically. He did start out with a theory, and empirical testing proved him right. Lessans came upon this knowledge from astute observation (which involved many years of observation as to how conscience works, and how the eyes function), and sound reasoning. This can be proved empirically. It is just more difficult to control all the variables, but it can be done. It is falsifiable. When scientists used mathematical equations that got men to the moon, they knew their trajectory would do just that. When Lessans figured out a mathematical (undeniable) equation that would catapult man to a better world, he knew that his trajectory would do just that. Your refutation that Lessans was using a tautology shows me how confused you really are. The fact that his observations will be confirmed valid one day doesn't even seem to interest you. I believe you want him to be wrong because you would have to save face if he turned out to be right.

thedoc · #**3075** 04-30-2011, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Have you seen the chapter, thedoc? It's missing from the .pdf

I think that was from the book review, I thought I found a link to the chapter and scaned part of it but I can't find it now, maybe I didn't.