20 years ago situation was like this, Genetic Mutation Theory was all
over the place. Then I noticed that authors of both, the Big Bang Theory
and the Genetic Mutation Theory are Catholic priests, and I started to
write about this, I wrote about it here a few times.
Now:
- BEFORE that I newer heard *anybody* even mention this
- DURING the time I was writing about it I didn't hear anybody even
mention this
- AFTER that time, even to this days, I never heard *anybody* even
mention this
Ok. Before I started to write about it you can clearly find "Genetic
Mutation Theory" in Wikipedia. Of course, right in the preamble of the
article you will clearly see who is the author, written in bold letters,
so that everybody can see it clearly, right at the first sight. This
also goes for the Big Bang Theory, you will clearly see in the preamble
who is the author of it, in bold letters.
These days you even cannot find the Genetic Mutation Theory in
Wikipedia. You can find Big Bang Theory in Wikipedia, but if you manage
to find in this article who is the actually author of it within 20
minutes, I'll buy you a beer.
Now, science behaves like it never had anything to do with Mendel and
his theory, and Harshman even calls me insane. Of course, Hrshman
behaves also like science never had anything to do with the Genetic
Mutation Theory, he behaves like he never heard of it, and whoever
claims that science had something to do with it, he calls him insane.
This post talks about human intelligence, talks about learning from
books, and talks about science.

On 8/19/23 2:17 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>         20 years ago situation was like this, Genetic Mutation Theory
> was all over the place.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I suspect you don't either.

> Then I noticed that authors of both, the Big
> Bang Theory and the Genetic Mutation Theory are Catholic priests, and I
> started to write about this, I wrote about it here a few times.

You're right about the Big Bang, but Mendel had zero to do with mutations.

>         Now:
> - BEFORE that I newer heard *anybody* even mention this
> - DURING the time I was writing about it I didn't hear anybody even
> mention this
> - AFTER that time, even to this days, I never heard *anybody* even
> mention this
>         Ok. Before I started to write about it you can clearly find
> "Genetic Mutation Theory" in Wikipedia. Of course, right in the preamble
> of the article you will clearly see who is the author, written in bold
> letters, so that everybody can see it clearly, right at the first sight.
> This also goes for the Big Bang Theory, you will clearly see in the
> preamble who is the author of it, in bold letters.

I don't believe you. I don't believe that "Genetic Mutation Theory" was
ever a Wikipedia article. I certainly don't know what such an article
would contain.

>         These days you even cannot find the Genetic Mutation Theory in
> Wikipedia. You can find Big Bang Theory in Wikipedia, but if you manage
> to find in this article who is the actually author of it within 20
> minutes, I'll buy you a beer.

First sentence of the second paragraph of the Big Bang Theory article:
"Crucially, these models are compatible with the Hubble–Lemaître law—the
observation that the farther away a galaxy is, the faster it is moving
away from Earth." Under "Development": "Independently deriving
Friedmann's equations in 1927, Georges Lemaître, a Belgian physicist and
Roman Catholic priest, proposed that the recession of the nebulae was
due to the expansion of the universe."

Not sure how you will get my beer to me.

>         Now, science behaves like it never had anything to do with
> Mendel and his theory, and Harshman even calls me insane.

No, science has much to do with Mendel's theory, but you don't
understand what Mendel's theory is.

> Of course,
> Hrshman behaves also like science never had anything to do with the
> Genetic Mutation Theory,

No idea what the Genetic Mutation Theory is, but it can't have anything
to do with Mendel.

> he behaves like he never heard of it,

Yes. That's because I never heard of it, or at least I don't know what
you mean by it.

> and
> whoever claims that science had something to do with it, he calls him
> insane.
>         This post talks about human intelligence, talks about learning
> from books, and talks about science.

This post seems to talk about none of those things.

On 20.8.2023. 1:56, John Harshman wrote:
> On 8/19/23 2:17 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>          20 years ago situation was like this, Genetic Mutation Theory
>> was all over the place.
>
> I have no idea what you're talking about. I suspect you don't either.
>
>> Then I noticed that authors of both, the Big Bang Theory and the
>> Genetic Mutation Theory are Catholic priests, and I started to write
>> about this, I wrote about it here a few times.
>
> You're right about the Big Bang, but Mendel had zero to do with mutations.

Of course, that's why his theory is called Genetic Mutation Theory.

>>          Now:
>> - BEFORE that I newer heard *anybody* even mention this
>> - DURING the time I was writing about it I didn't hear anybody even
>> mention this
>> - AFTER that time, even to this days, I never heard *anybody* even
>> mention this
>>          Ok. Before I started to write about it you can clearly find
>> "Genetic Mutation Theory" in Wikipedia. Of course, right in the
>> preamble of the article you will clearly see who is the author,
>> written in bold letters, so that everybody can see it clearly, right
>> at the first sight. This also goes for the Big Bang Theory, you will
>> clearly see in the preamble who is the author of it, in bold letters.
>
> I don't believe you. I don't believe that "Genetic Mutation Theory" was
> ever a Wikipedia article. I certainly don't know what such an article
> would contain.

In the previous post I provided a citation, with a whole bunch of
references.

>>          These days you even cannot find the Genetic Mutation Theory
>> in Wikipedia. You can find Big Bang Theory in Wikipedia, but if you
>> manage to find in this article who is the actually author of it within
>> 20 minutes, I'll buy you a beer.
>
> First sentence of the second paragraph of the Big Bang Theory article:
> "Crucially, these models are compatible with the Hubble–Lemaître law—the
> observation that the farther away a galaxy is, the faster it is moving
> away from Earth." Under "Development": "Independently deriving
> Friedmann's equations in 1927, Georges Lemaître, a Belgian physicist and
> Roman Catholic priest, proposed that the recession of the nebulae was
> due to the expansion of the universe."
>
> Not sure how you will get my beer to me.

Oh really? No, it is Lemaitre's theory, it isn't by somebody else, or
a bunch of people but based on Hubble-Lemaitre something, how they are
twisting it today, it is full blown solely Lemaitre's theory. And it
isn't Hubble-Lemaitre's law, now it is called Hubble's law, but actually
it was published by Lemaitre, without Hubble. Now they are twisting this
all around these days, trying to somehow disconnect this theory from
Lemaitre, and desperately connect it to something else. Oh yes, I am
insane, lol.

>>          Now, science behaves like it never had anything to do with
>> Mendel and his theory, and Harshman even calls me insane.
>
> No, science has much to do with Mendel's theory, but you don't
> understand what Mendel's theory is.
>
>> Of course, Hrshman behaves also like science never had anything to do
>> with the Genetic Mutation Theory,
>
> No idea what the Genetic Mutation Theory is, but it can't have anything
> to do with Mendel.
>
>> he behaves like he never heard of it,
>
> Yes. That's because I never heard of it, or at least I don't know what
> you mean by it.
>
>> and whoever claims that science had something to do with it, he calls
>> him insane.
>>          This post talks about human intelligence, talks about
>> learning from books, and talks about science.
>
> This post seems to talk about none of those things.

On 20.8.2023. 1:56, John Harshman wrote:
> On 8/19/23 2:17 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> You can find Big Bang Theory in Wikipedia, but if you
>> manage to find in this article who is the actually author of it within
>> 20 minutes, I'll buy you a beer.
>
> First sentence of the second paragraph of the Big Bang Theory article:
> "Crucially, these models are compatible with the Hubble–Lemaître law—the
> observation that the farther away a galaxy is, the faster it is moving
> away from Earth." Under "Development": "Independently deriving
> Friedmann's equations in 1927, Georges Lemaître, a Belgian physicist and
> Roman Catholic priest, proposed that the recession of the nebulae was
> due to the expansion of the universe."
>
> Not sure how you will get my beer to me.

Ok, you don't get a beer, this is the right answer. They say that it
is compatible with the Hubble-Lemaitre law (which, as I showed, is
actually Lemaitre's law, but today they call it Hubble's law, hm). But
who is the originator, who is the author of the whole theory, not only
the law it is based on. Well, it is dug deeply into the article:
"In the 1920s and 1930s, almost every major cosmologist preferred an
eternal steady-state universe, and several complained that the beginning
of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into
physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the
steady-state theory. This perception was enhanced by the fact that the
originator of the Big Bang concept, Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic priest."
So, this fact isn't in preamble written with bold letter, like it
should have been, it was just said by the way, talking about something
else. I mean, you cannot conceal this fact better than this.

On 20.8.2023. 2:45, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 20.8.2023. 1:56, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 8/19/23 2:17 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>> You can find Big Bang Theory in Wikipedia, but if you manage to find
>>> in this article who is the actually author of it within 20 minutes,
>>> I'll buy you a beer.
>>
>> First sentence of the second paragraph of the Big Bang Theory article:
>> "Crucially, these models are compatible with the Hubble–Lemaître
>> law—the observation that the farther away a galaxy is, the faster it
>> is moving away from Earth." Under "Development": "Independently
>> deriving Friedmann's equations in 1927, Georges Lemaître, a Belgian
>> physicist and Roman Catholic priest, proposed that the recession of
>> the nebulae was due to the expansion of the universe."
>>
>> Not sure how you will get my beer to me.
>
>         Ok, you don't get a beer, this is the right answer. They say
> that it is compatible with the Hubble-Lemaitre law (which, as I showed,
> is actually Lemaitre's law, but today they call it Hubble's law, hm).
> But who is the originator, who is the author of the whole theory, not
> only the law it is based on. Well, it is dug deeply into the article:
>         "In the 1920s and 1930s, almost every major cosmologist
> preferred an eternal steady-state universe, and several complained that
> the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious
> concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters
> of the steady-state theory. This perception was enhanced by the fact
> that the originator of the Big Bang concept, Lemaître, was a Roman
> Catholic priest."
>         So, this fact isn't in preamble written with bold letter, like
> it should have been, it was just said by the way, talking about
> something else. I mean, you cannot conceal this fact better than this.

I mean, 10 years ago it was written clearly, in preamble, the author
of this theory is Catholic priest Georges Lemaitre. Not Hubble this,
Hubble that, but in bold letters in preamble, Catholic priest Georges
Lemaitre. And nowhere was written about skepticism regarding religious
concepts, it was full blow scientific view, and the author was clearly
Catholic priest Georges Lemaitre. And then I started to write on forums
how all the *prevailing* scientific theories about Genesis ( *including*
the Genetic Mutation Theory by Catholic priest Gregor Mendel) were made
by Catholic priests, sneaking them into science using psychological
tricks, and then, suddenly, things started to change, suddenly no one
remembers anything about Genetic Mutation Theory, the father of
genetics, Gregor Mendel suddenly doesn't have anything to do with
mutations, Big Bang theory suddenly was from who knows who, based on
"Hubble-Lemaitre" something, not even "Lemaitre-Hubble", and slowly
turning only into "Hubble", although it is actually completely "Lemaitre".
So yes, this says ton about science, but also this says ton about John
Harshman, who, suddenly completely forgets everything. I mean, I didn't
write all this based on absolutely nothing. Do you think that I dreamed
all this? Well, it is a lot of things to dream about, especially if you
take into account that I don't know much about all this. I mean, if I
knew all this, this only means that everybody knew this, not only me.
Unless, of course, if I dreamed all this, then really I have to be
insane. My god.

On 8/19/23 5:22 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 20.8.2023. 1:56, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 8/19/23 2:17 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>          20 years ago situation was like this, Genetic Mutation
>>> Theory was all over the place.
>>
>> I have no idea what you're talking about. I suspect you don't either.
>>
>>> Then I noticed that authors of both, the Big Bang Theory and the
>>> Genetic Mutation Theory are Catholic priests, and I started to write
>>> about this, I wrote about it here a few times.
>>
>> You're right about the Big Bang, but Mendel had zero to do with
>> mutations.
>
>         Of course, that's why his theory is called Genetic Mutation
> Theory.

Nobody calls it that.

>>>          Now:
>>> - BEFORE that I newer heard *anybody* even mention this
>>> - DURING the time I was writing about it I didn't hear anybody even
>>> mention this
>>> - AFTER that time, even to this days, I never heard *anybody* even
>>> mention this
>>>          Ok. Before I started to write about it you can clearly find
>>> "Genetic Mutation Theory" in Wikipedia. Of course, right in the
>>> preamble of the article you will clearly see who is the author,
>>> written in bold letters, so that everybody can see it clearly, right
>>> at the first sight. This also goes for the Big Bang Theory, you will
>>> clearly see in the preamble who is the author of it, in bold letters.
>>
>> I don't believe you. I don't believe that "Genetic Mutation Theory"
>> was ever a Wikipedia article. I certainly don't know what such an
>> article would contain.
>
>         In the previous post I provided a citation, with a whole bunch
> of references.
>
>>>          These days you even cannot find the Genetic Mutation Theory
>>> in Wikipedia. You can find Big Bang Theory in Wikipedia, but if you
>>> manage to find in this article who is the actually author of it
>>> within 20 minutes, I'll buy you a beer.
>>
>> First sentence of the second paragraph of the Big Bang Theory article:
>> "Crucially, these models are compatible with the Hubble–Lemaître
>> law—the observation that the farther away a galaxy is, the faster it
>> is moving away from Earth." Under "Development": "Independently
>> deriving Friedmann's equations in 1927, Georges Lemaître, a Belgian
>> physicist and Roman Catholic priest, proposed that the recession of
>> the nebulae was due to the expansion of the universe."
>>
>> Not sure how you will get my beer to me.
>
>         Oh really? No, it is Lemaitre's theory, it isn't by somebody
> else, or a bunch of people but based on Hubble-Lemaitre something, how
> they are twisting it today, it is full blown solely Lemaitre's theory.
> And it isn't Hubble-Lemaitre's law, now it is called Hubble's law, but
> actually it was published by Lemaitre, without Hubble. Now they are
> twisting this all around these days, trying to somehow disconnect this
> theory from Lemaitre, and desperately connect it to something else. Oh
> yes, I am insane, lol.

I'm beginning to think you are in fact insane. But I guess I won't get
my beer. That's always a problem when the judge of the challenge is the
one who presented it.

>>>          Now, science behaves like it never had anything to do with
>>> Mendel and his theory, and Harshman even calls me insane.
>>
>> No, science has much to do with Mendel's theory, but you don't
>> understand what Mendel's theory is.
>>
>>> Of course, Hrshman behaves also like science never had anything to do
>>> with the Genetic Mutation Theory,
>>
>> No idea what the Genetic Mutation Theory is, but it can't have
>> anything to do with Mendel.
>>
>>> he behaves like he never heard of it,
>>
>> Yes. That's because I never heard of it, or at least I don't know what
>> you mean by it.
>>
>>> and whoever claims that science had something to do with it, he calls
>>> him insane.
>>>          This post talks about human intelligence, talks about
>>> learning from books, and talks about science.
>>
>> This post seems to talk about none of those things.
>

On 20.8.2023. 3:06, John Harshman wrote:
> On 8/19/23 5:22 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 20.8.2023. 1:56, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 8/19/23 2:17 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>          20 years ago situation was like this, Genetic Mutation
>>>> Theory was all over the place.
>>>
>>> I have no idea what you're talking about. I suspect you don't either.
>>>
>>>> Then I noticed that authors of both, the Big Bang Theory and the
>>>> Genetic Mutation Theory are Catholic priests, and I started to write
>>>> about this, I wrote about it here a few times.
>>>
>>> You're right about the Big Bang, but Mendel had zero to do with
>>> mutations.
>>
>>          Of course, that's why his theory is called Genetic Mutation
>> Theory.
>
> Nobody calls it that.

Ok, I figured this out. Definitely 20 years ago it is known that
Genetic Mutation Theory was Mendel's (at least, this is how this came to
me), but maybe somebody misunderstood it, because it is based on
Mendel's work.

>>>>          Now:
>>>> - BEFORE that I newer heard *anybody* even mention this
>>>> - DURING the time I was writing about it I didn't hear anybody even
>>>> mention this
>>>> - AFTER that time, even to this days, I never heard *anybody* even
>>>> mention this
>>>>          Ok. Before I started to write about it you can clearly find
>>>> "Genetic Mutation Theory" in Wikipedia. Of course, right in the
>>>> preamble of the article you will clearly see who is the author,
>>>> written in bold letters, so that everybody can see it clearly, right
>>>> at the first sight. This also goes for the Big Bang Theory, you will
>>>> clearly see in the preamble who is the author of it, in bold letters.
>>>
>>> I don't believe you. I don't believe that "Genetic Mutation Theory"
>>> was ever a Wikipedia article. I certainly don't know what such an
>>> article would contain.
>>
>>          In the previous post I provided a citation, with a whole
>> bunch of references.
>>
>>>>          These days you even cannot find the Genetic Mutation Theory
>>>> in Wikipedia. You can find Big Bang Theory in Wikipedia, but if you
>>>> manage to find in this article who is the actually author of it
>>>> within 20 minutes, I'll buy you a beer.
>>>
>>> First sentence of the second paragraph of the Big Bang Theory
>>> article: "Crucially, these models are compatible with the
>>> Hubble–Lemaître law—the observation that the farther away a galaxy
>>> is, the faster it is moving away from Earth." Under "Development":
>>> "Independently deriving Friedmann's equations in 1927, Georges
>>> Lemaître, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic priest, proposed
>>> that the recession of the nebulae was due to the expansion of the
>>> universe."
>>>
>>> Not sure how you will get my beer to me.
>>
>>          Oh really? No, it is Lemaitre's theory, it isn't by somebody
>> else, or a bunch of people but based on Hubble-Lemaitre something, how
>> they are twisting it today, it is full blown solely Lemaitre's theory.
>> And it isn't Hubble-Lemaitre's law, now it is called Hubble's law, but
>> actually it was published by Lemaitre, without Hubble. Now they are
>> twisting this all around these days, trying to somehow disconnect this
>> theory from Lemaitre, and desperately connect it to something else. Oh
>> yes, I am insane, lol.
>
> I'm beginning to think you are in fact insane. But I guess I won't get
> my beer. That's always a problem when the judge of the challenge is the
> one who presented it.
>
>>>>          Now, science behaves like it never had anything to do with
>>>> Mendel and his theory, and Harshman even calls me insane.
>>>
>>> No, science has much to do with Mendel's theory, but you don't
>>> understand what Mendel's theory is.
>>>
>>>> Of course, Hrshman behaves also like science never had anything to
>>>> do with the Genetic Mutation Theory,
>>>
>>> No idea what the Genetic Mutation Theory is, but it can't have
>>> anything to do with Mendel.
>>>
>>>> he behaves like he never heard of it,
>>>
>>> Yes. That's because I never heard of it, or at least I don't know
>>> what you mean by it.
>>>
>>>> and whoever claims that science had something to do with it, he
>>>> calls him insane.
>>>>          This post talks about human intelligence, talks about
>>>> learning from books, and talks about science.
>>>
>>> This post seems to talk about none of those things.
>>
>

On 20.8.2023. 4:28, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 20.8.2023. 3:06, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 8/19/23 5:22 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>          Of course, that's why his theory is called Genetic Mutation
>>> Theory.
>>
>> Nobody calls it that.
>
>         Ok, I figured this out. Definitely 20 years ago it is known
> that Genetic Mutation Theory was Mendel's (at least, this is how this
> came to me), but maybe somebody misunderstood it, because it is based on
> Mendel's work.

Actually, who knows, maybe somebody talked about Genetic Mutation
Theory, I knew about Gregor Mendel, I knew that he is the father of
genetics, so voila, this is from where confusion arose. Anyway, we had
Mutation Theory and Big Bang theory, both originated by Catholic
priests. And, I don't know about Big Bang, but Mendel's work, clearly,
was sneaked into the world by psychological trick, there is no doubt
about it. Definitely by Catholic church, they know those things very
well, they are experts in those.

On 8/19/23 7:28 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 20.8.2023. 3:06, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 8/19/23 5:22 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>> On 20.8.2023. 1:56, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 8/19/23 2:17 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>          20 years ago situation was like this, Genetic Mutation
>>>>> Theory was all over the place.
>>>>
>>>> I have no idea what you're talking about. I suspect you don't either.
>>>>
>>>>> Then I noticed that authors of both, the Big Bang Theory and the
>>>>> Genetic Mutation Theory are Catholic priests, and I started to
>>>>> write about this, I wrote about it here a few times.
>>>>
>>>> You're right about the Big Bang, but Mendel had zero to do with
>>>> mutations.
>>>
>>>          Of course, that's why his theory is called Genetic Mutation
>>> Theory.
>>
>> Nobody calls it that.
>
>         Ok, I figured this out. Definitely 20 years ago it is known
> that Genetic Mutation Theory was Mendel's (at least, this is how this
> came to me), but maybe somebody misunderstood it, because it is based on
> Mendel's work.

Conceivably there is some kind of translation problem here. But no, you
are wrong. Mendel's theory has nothing to do with mutation. You admit at
times that you're ignorant of evolutionary biology and genetics. In
this, if in nothing else, you are correct.

>>>>>          Now:
>>>>> - BEFORE that I newer heard *anybody* even mention this
>>>>> - DURING the time I was writing about it I didn't hear anybody even
>>>>> mention this
>>>>> - AFTER that time, even to this days, I never heard *anybody* even
>>>>> mention this
>>>>>          Ok. Before I started to write about it you can clearly
>>>>> find "Genetic Mutation Theory" in Wikipedia. Of course, right in
>>>>> the preamble of the article you will clearly see who is the author,
>>>>> written in bold letters, so that everybody can see it clearly,
>>>>> right at the first sight. This also goes for the Big Bang Theory,
>>>>> you will clearly see in the preamble who is the author of it, in
>>>>> bold letters.
>>>>
>>>> I don't believe you. I don't believe that "Genetic Mutation Theory"
>>>> was ever a Wikipedia article. I certainly don't know what such an
>>>> article would contain.
>>>
>>>          In the previous post I provided a citation, with a whole
>>> bunch of references.
>>>
>>>>>          These days you even cannot find the Genetic Mutation
>>>>> Theory in Wikipedia. You can find Big Bang Theory in Wikipedia, but
>>>>> if you manage to find in this article who is the actually author of
>>>>> it within 20 minutes, I'll buy you a beer.
>>>>
>>>> First sentence of the second paragraph of the Big Bang Theory
>>>> article: "Crucially, these models are compatible with the
>>>> Hubble–Lemaître law—the observation that the farther away a galaxy
>>>> is, the faster it is moving away from Earth." Under "Development":
>>>> "Independently deriving Friedmann's equations in 1927, Georges
>>>> Lemaître, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic priest, proposed
>>>> that the recession of the nebulae was due to the expansion of the
>>>> universe."
>>>>
>>>> Not sure how you will get my beer to me.
>>>
>>>          Oh really? No, it is Lemaitre's theory, it isn't by somebody
>>> else, or a bunch of people but based on Hubble-Lemaitre something,
>>> how they are twisting it today, it is full blown solely Lemaitre's
>>> theory. And it isn't Hubble-Lemaitre's law, now it is called Hubble's
>>> law, but actually it was published by Lemaitre, without Hubble. Now
>>> they are twisting this all around these days, trying to somehow
>>> disconnect this theory from Lemaitre, and desperately connect it to
>>> something else. Oh yes, I am insane, lol.
>>
>> I'm beginning to think you are in fact insane. But I guess I won't get
>> my beer. That's always a problem when the judge of the challenge is
>> the one who presented it.
>>
>>>>>          Now, science behaves like it never had anything to do with
>>>>> Mendel and his theory, and Harshman even calls me insane.
>>>>
>>>> No, science has much to do with Mendel's theory, but you don't
>>>> understand what Mendel's theory is.
>>>>
>>>>> Of course, Hrshman behaves also like science never had anything to
>>>>> do with the Genetic Mutation Theory,
>>>>
>>>> No idea what the Genetic Mutation Theory is, but it can't have
>>>> anything to do with Mendel.
>>>>
>>>>> he behaves like he never heard of it,
>>>>
>>>> Yes. That's because I never heard of it, or at least I don't know
>>>> what you mean by it.
>>>>
>>>>> and whoever claims that science had something to do with it, he
>>>>> calls him insane.
>>>>>          This post talks about human intelligence, talks about
>>>>> learning from books, and talks about science.
>>>>
>>>> This post seems to talk about none of those things.
>>>
>>
>

On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 7:49:29 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> On 8/19/23 7:28 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> > On 20.8.2023. 3:06, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 8/19/23 5:22 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >>> On 20.8.2023. 1:56, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 8/19/23 2:17 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >>>>> 20 years ago situation was like this, Genetic Mutation
> >>>>> Theory was all over the place.
> >>>>
> >>>> I have no idea what you're talking about. I suspect you don't either..
> >>>>
> >>>>> Then I noticed that authors of both, the Big Bang Theory and the
> >>>>> Genetic Mutation Theory are Catholic priests, and I started to
> >>>>> write about this, I wrote about it here a few times.
> >>>>
> >>>> You're right about the Big Bang, but Mendel had zero to do with
> >>>> mutations.
> >>>
> >>> Of course, that's why his theory is called Genetic Mutation
> >>> Theory.
> >>
> >> Nobody calls it that.
> >
> > Ok, I figured this out. Definitely 20 years ago it is known
> > that Genetic Mutation Theory was Mendel's (at least, this is how this
> > came to me), but maybe somebody misunderstood it, because it is based on
> > Mendel's work.

> Conceivably there is some kind of translation problem here. But no, you
> are wrong. Mendel's theory has nothing to do with mutation. You admit at
> times that you're ignorant of evolutionary biology and genetics. In
> this, if in nothing else, you are correct.

Ayala:
"The rediscovery in 1900 of Mendel's theory of heredity by the Dutch botanist and geneticist Hugo de Vries and others led to an emphasis on the role of heredity in evolution. De Vries proposed a new theory of evolution known as mutationism, which essentially did away with natural selection as a major evolutionary process."

"The controversy between mutationists (also referred to at the time as Mendelians) and biometricians approached a resolution in the 1920s and 1930s through the theoretical work of geneticists."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/mutationism

Mario appears more accurate about history than you.

> >>>>> Now:
> >>>>> - BEFORE that I newer heard *anybody* even mention this
> >>>>> - DURING the time I was writing about it I didn't hear anybody even
> >>>>> mention this
> >>>>> - AFTER that time, even to this days, I never heard *anybody* even
> >>>>> mention this
> >>>>> Ok. Before I started to write about it you can clearly
> >>>>> find "Genetic Mutation Theory" in Wikipedia. Of course, right in
> >>>>> the preamble of the article you will clearly see who is the author,
> >>>>> written in bold letters, so that everybody can see it clearly,
> >>>>> right at the first sight. This also goes for the Big Bang Theory,
> >>>>> you will clearly see in the preamble who is the author of it, in
> >>>>> bold letters.
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't believe you. I don't believe that "Genetic Mutation Theory"
> >>>> was ever a Wikipedia article. I certainly don't know what such an
> >>>> article would contain.
> >>>
> >>> In the previous post I provided a citation, with a whole
> >>> bunch of references.
> >>>
> >>>>> These days you even cannot find the Genetic Mutation
> >>>>> Theory in Wikipedia. You can find Big Bang Theory in Wikipedia, but
> >>>>> if you manage to find in this article who is the actually author of
> >>>>> it within 20 minutes, I'll buy you a beer.
> >>>>
> >>>> First sentence of the second paragraph of the Big Bang Theory
> >>>> article: "Crucially, these models are compatible with the
> >>>> Hubble–Lemaître law—the observation that the farther away a galaxy
> >>>> is, the faster it is moving away from Earth." Under "Development":
> >>>> "Independently deriving Friedmann's equations in 1927, Georges
> >>>> Lemaître, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic priest, proposed
> >>>> that the recession of the nebulae was due to the expansion of the
> >>>> universe."
> >>>>
> >>>> Not sure how you will get my beer to me.
> >>>
> >>> Oh really? No, it is Lemaitre's theory, it isn't by somebody
> >>> else, or a bunch of people but based on Hubble-Lemaitre something,
> >>> how they are twisting it today, it is full blown solely Lemaitre's
> >>> theory. And it isn't Hubble-Lemaitre's law, now it is called Hubble's
> >>> law, but actually it was published by Lemaitre, without Hubble. Now
> >>> they are twisting this all around these days, trying to somehow
> >>> disconnect this theory from Lemaitre, and desperately connect it to
> >>> something else. Oh yes, I am insane, lol.
> >>
> >> I'm beginning to think you are in fact insane. But I guess I won't get
> >> my beer. That's always a problem when the judge of the challenge is
> >> the one who presented it.
> >>
> >>>>> Now, science behaves like it never had anything to do with
> >>>>> Mendel and his theory, and Harshman even calls me insane.
> >>>>
> >>>> No, science has much to do with Mendel's theory, but you don't
> >>>> understand what Mendel's theory is.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Of course, Hrshman behaves also like science never had anything to
> >>>>> do with the Genetic Mutation Theory,
> >>>>
> >>>> No idea what the Genetic Mutation Theory is, but it can't have
> >>>> anything to do with Mendel.
> >>>>
> >>>>> he behaves like he never heard of it,
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes. That's because I never heard of it, or at least I don't know
> >>>> what you mean by it.
> >>>>
> >>>>> and whoever claims that science had something to do with it, he
> >>>>> calls him insane.
> >>>>> This post talks about human intelligence, talks about
> >>>>> learning from books, and talks about science.
> >>>>
> >>>> This post seems to talk about none of those things.
> >>>
> >>
> >

On 8/23/23 6:45 PM, Glenn wrote:
> On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 7:49:29 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 8/19/23 7:28 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>> On 20.8.2023. 3:06, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 8/19/23 5:22 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>> On 20.8.2023. 1:56, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/19/23 2:17 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>> 20 years ago situation was like this, Genetic Mutation
>>>>>>> Theory was all over the place.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have no idea what you're talking about. I suspect you don't either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then I noticed that authors of both, the Big Bang Theory and the
>>>>>>> Genetic Mutation Theory are Catholic priests, and I started to
>>>>>>> write about this, I wrote about it here a few times.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're right about the Big Bang, but Mendel had zero to do with
>>>>>> mutations.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, that's why his theory is called Genetic Mutation
>>>>> Theory.
>>>>
>>>> Nobody calls it that.
>>>
>>> Ok, I figured this out. Definitely 20 years ago it is known
>>> that Genetic Mutation Theory was Mendel's (at least, this is how this
>>> came to me), but maybe somebody misunderstood it, because it is based on
>>> Mendel's work.
>
>> Conceivably there is some kind of translation problem here. But no, you
>> are wrong. Mendel's theory has nothing to do with mutation. You admit at
>> times that you're ignorant of evolutionary biology and genetics. In
>> this, if in nothing else, you are correct.
>
>
> Ayala:
> "The rediscovery in 1900 of Mendel's theory of heredity by the Dutch botanist and geneticist Hugo de Vries and others led to an emphasis on the role of heredity in evolution. De Vries proposed a new theory of evolution known as mutationism, which essentially did away with natural selection as a major evolutionary process."
>
> "The controversy between mutationists (also referred to at the time as Mendelians) and biometricians approached a resolution in the 1920s and 1930s through the theoretical work of geneticists."
>
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/mutationism
>
> Mario appears more accurate about history than you.

Mario is no better at reading than you are, which is not very good,
apparently. Mendel wasn't the mutationist, DeVries was. The mutationists
were indeed Mendelians, and the biometricians were not. But that doesn't
mean that Mendel had anything personally to do with mutationism. He
didn't. Your quotes make my case, not Mario's. So thanks.

>>>>>>> Now:
>>>>>>> - BEFORE that I newer heard *anybody* even mention this
>>>>>>> - DURING the time I was writing about it I didn't hear anybody even
>>>>>>> mention this
>>>>>>> - AFTER that time, even to this days, I never heard *anybody* even
>>>>>>> mention this
>>>>>>> Ok. Before I started to write about it you can clearly
>>>>>>> find "Genetic Mutation Theory" in Wikipedia. Of course, right in
>>>>>>> the preamble of the article you will clearly see who is the author,
>>>>>>> written in bold letters, so that everybody can see it clearly,
>>>>>>> right at the first sight. This also goes for the Big Bang Theory,
>>>>>>> you will clearly see in the preamble who is the author of it, in
>>>>>>> bold letters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't believe you. I don't believe that "Genetic Mutation Theory"
>>>>>> was ever a Wikipedia article. I certainly don't know what such an
>>>>>> article would contain.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the previous post I provided a citation, with a whole
>>>>> bunch of references.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> These days you even cannot find the Genetic Mutation
>>>>>>> Theory in Wikipedia. You can find Big Bang Theory in Wikipedia, but
>>>>>>> if you manage to find in this article who is the actually author of
>>>>>>> it within 20 minutes, I'll buy you a beer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First sentence of the second paragraph of the Big Bang Theory
>>>>>> article: "Crucially, these models are compatible with the
>>>>>> Hubble–Lemaître law—the observation that the farther away a galaxy
>>>>>> is, the faster it is moving away from Earth." Under "Development":
>>>>>> "Independently deriving Friedmann's equations in 1927, Georges
>>>>>> Lemaître, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic priest, proposed
>>>>>> that the recession of the nebulae was due to the expansion of the
>>>>>> universe."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not sure how you will get my beer to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh really? No, it is Lemaitre's theory, it isn't by somebody
>>>>> else, or a bunch of people but based on Hubble-Lemaitre something,
>>>>> how they are twisting it today, it is full blown solely Lemaitre's
>>>>> theory. And it isn't Hubble-Lemaitre's law, now it is called Hubble's
>>>>> law, but actually it was published by Lemaitre, without Hubble. Now
>>>>> they are twisting this all around these days, trying to somehow
>>>>> disconnect this theory from Lemaitre, and desperately connect it to
>>>>> something else. Oh yes, I am insane, lol.
>>>>
>>>> I'm beginning to think you are in fact insane. But I guess I won't get
>>>> my beer. That's always a problem when the judge of the challenge is
>>>> the one who presented it.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Now, science behaves like it never had anything to do with
>>>>>>> Mendel and his theory, and Harshman even calls me insane.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, science has much to do with Mendel's theory, but you don't
>>>>>> understand what Mendel's theory is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course, Hrshman behaves also like science never had anything to
>>>>>>> do with the Genetic Mutation Theory,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No idea what the Genetic Mutation Theory is, but it can't have
>>>>>> anything to do with Mendel.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> he behaves like he never heard of it,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. That's because I never heard of it, or at least I don't know
>>>>>> what you mean by it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and whoever claims that science had something to do with it, he
>>>>>>> calls him insane.
>>>>>>> This post talks about human intelligence, talks about
>>>>>>> learning from books, and talks about science.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This post seems to talk about none of those things.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>

On 24.8.2023. 3:45, Glenn wrote:
> On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 7:49:29 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 8/19/23 7:28 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>> Ok, I figured this out. Definitely 20 years ago it is known
>>> that Genetic Mutation Theory was Mendel's (at least, this is how this
>>> came to me), but maybe somebody misunderstood it, because it is based on
>>> Mendel's work.
>
>> Conceivably there is some kind of translation problem here. But no, you
>> are wrong. Mendel's theory has nothing to do with mutation. You admit at
>> times that you're ignorant of evolutionary biology and genetics. In
>> this, if in nothing else, you are correct.
>
>
> Ayala:
> "The rediscovery in 1900 of Mendel's theory of heredity by the Dutch botanist and geneticist Hugo de Vries and others led to an emphasis on the role of heredity in evolution. De Vries proposed a new theory of evolution known as mutationism, which essentially did away with natural selection as a major evolutionary process."
>
> "The controversy between mutationists (also referred to at the time as Mendelians) and biometricians approached a resolution in the 1920s and 1930s through the theoretical work of geneticists."
>
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/mutationism
>
> Mario appears more accurate about history than you.

Thanks very much. I know that at the time I was seeking info about it,
it was called Genetic Mutation Theory in Wikipedia (I believe), and they
wrote that all this originates from Mendel, and later this was
"re-discovered" by three independent guys, in a matter of two months.
Well, I also searched info about those three guys. At that time only one
of those had something in his biography (he had only one thing in his
biography, besides being involved in this, it was probably de Vries),
and the other two had absolutely nothing in their biographies, except
that they rediscovered Mendel (I am using exclusively English version of
Wikipedia). So, by that I figured out that they were just filling the
number, because for something to be accepted the number has to be three.
Now I am looking at this in Wikipedia, and somehow, like somebody
wants deliberately to nullify what I figured out, suddenly they
emphasize only two of those three, although clearly they, themselves,
mention that there were three "re-discoverers" in a matter ow two months.
Those two are:
1) Hugo de Vries - son of a deacon in the Mennonite congregation in Haarlem
2) Carl Correns - who worked as tutor at the University of Tubungen. I
found this university always being involved in falsifying history so
that it matches Bible.
The third one is:
3) Erich von Tschermak - who was, actually, largely influenced by his
brother Armin. Well, his brother was elected member of the Pontifical
Academy of Sciences, which is a scientific academy of Vatican City,
established in 28 October 1936, and Armin became member of it right from
the beginning, 28 October 1936.
So, Christian religion all over the place.
The second problem is the problem of nomenclature, which is so
obvious. This is called Mutation Theory, but if you try to discuss in a
term of a 'mutation', everybody tells you immediately that these
*aren't* mutations, but rather changes. Now, if those are changes, why
they are not called changes? Because you can achieve so much by playing
with words (I've seen this so many times, being raised in communism). If
they would be called genetic changes, this isn't a big deal, nothing
strange about it, everything changes over time, even we change during
our lifetime, the change is natural, the change is gradual, after all,
Darwin's theory is about a change. But if you introduce 'mutation', this
is completely different thing. Mutations are unnatural, mutations are
one-off events, mutations are out of any system, mutations are
unsystematic. So now we have, instead of following a simple change which
pertain to some particular system, the whole scientific community
searches for those unnatural one-off events that produce some out of
order unsystematic magic, and the whole scientific community suddenly
revolves around Adam and Eve.
But the real truth is, all this doesn't exist at all. Those genetic
changes are just simple changes, there are no unnatural events, no
"mutations" (just like everybody is so fast to tell you). So, what's the
fuss, then? The fuss is in the fact that scientists don't bloody
understand what they are doing at all, they are pulled by their noses,
this is what the fuss is.

On 8/23/23 11:07 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 24.8.2023. 3:45, Glenn wrote:
>> On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 7:49:29 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 8/19/23 7:28 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>          Ok, I figured this out. Definitely 20 years ago it is known
>>>> that Genetic Mutation Theory was Mendel's (at least, this is how this
>>>> came to me), but maybe somebody misunderstood it, because it is
>>>> based on
>>>> Mendel's work.
>>
>>> Conceivably there is some kind of translation problem here. But no, you
>>> are wrong. Mendel's theory has nothing to do with mutation. You admit at
>>> times that you're ignorant of evolutionary biology and genetics. In
>>> this, if in nothing else, you are correct.
>>
>>
>> Ayala:
>> "The rediscovery in 1900 of Mendel's theory of heredity by the Dutch
>> botanist and geneticist Hugo de Vries and others led to an emphasis on
>> the role of heredity in evolution. De Vries proposed a new theory of
>> evolution known as mutationism, which essentially did away with
>> natural selection as a major evolutionary process."
>>
>> "The controversy between mutationists (also referred to at the time as
>> Mendelians) and biometricians approached a resolution in the 1920s and
>> 1930s through the theoretical work of geneticists."
>>
>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/mutationism
>>
>> Mario appears more accurate about history than you.
>
>         Thanks very much. I know that at the time I was seeking info
> about it, it was called Genetic Mutation Theory in Wikipedia (I
> believe), and they wrote that all this originates from Mendel, and later
> this was "re-discovered" by three independent guys, in a matter of two
> months.

No, the quote from Ayala says nothing of the sort. Note: "Mendel's
theory of heredity" says nothing about mutation. And "De Vries proposed
a *new* theory of evolution". The only connection between Mendelism and
mutationism is that De Vries subscribed to both of them.

> Well, I also searched info about those three guys. At that time
> only one of those had something in his biography (he had only one thing
> in his biography, besides being involved in this, it was probably de
> Vries), and the other two had absolutely nothing in their biographies,
> except that they rediscovered Mendel (I am using exclusively English
> version of Wikipedia). So, by that I figured out that they were just
> filling the number, because for something to be accepted the number has
> to be three.
>         Now I am looking at this in Wikipedia, and somehow, like
> somebody wants deliberately to nullify what I figured out, suddenly they
> emphasize only two of those three, although clearly they, themselves,
> mention that there were three "re-discoverers" in a matter ow two months.
>         Those two are:
> 1) Hugo de Vries - son of a deacon in the Mennonite congregation in Haarlem
> 2) Carl Correns - who worked as tutor at the University of Tubungen. I
> found this university always being involved in falsifying history so
> that it matches Bible.
>         The third one is:
> 3) Erich von Tschermak - who was, actually, largely influenced by his
> brother Armin. Well, his brother was elected member of the Pontifical
> Academy of Sciences, which is a scientific academy of Vatican City,
> established in 28 October 1936, and Armin became member of it right from
> the beginning, 28 October 1936.
>         So, Christian religion all over the place.

This is typical conspiracy thinking, in which any connection to
anything, no matter how tenuous, produces guilt by association. And your
reach has expanded. It used to be the Catholic church, and now it's any
Christian sect. I submit that any European or American scientist can be
connected to Christianity by a very short chain of relationships.

>         The second problem is the problem of nomenclature, which is so
> obvious. This is called Mutation Theory, but if you try to discuss in a
> term of a 'mutation', everybody tells you immediately that these
> *aren't* mutations, but rather changes.

Your pronouns make the sentence conveniently ambiguous. What's "this"?
Not anything Mendel was involved in. What are "these"? Is somebody
supposed to be claiming that mutations don't happen?

> Now, if those are changes, why
> they are not called changes?

What are "those"?

> Because you can achieve so much by playing
> with words (I've seen this so many times, being raised in communism). If
> they would be called genetic changes, this isn't a big deal, nothing
> strange about it, everything changes over time, even we change during
> our lifetime, the change is natural, the change is gradual, after all,
> Darwin's theory is about a change. But if you introduce 'mutation', this
> is completely different thing. Mutations are unnatural, mutations are
> one-off events, mutations are out of any system, mutations are
> unsystematic. So now we have, instead of following a simple change which
> pertain to some particular system, the whole scientific community
> searches for those unnatural one-off events that produce some out of
> order unsystematic magic, and the whole scientific community suddenly
> revolves around Adam and Eve.

I don't think you have any idea what mutations are or what scientists
think they are. Nobody thinks that mutations are unnatural (well, except
for some IDers; but not scientists).

>         But the real truth is, all this doesn't exist at all. Those
> genetic changes are just simple changes, there are no unnatural events,
> no "mutations" (just like everybody is so fast to tell you). So, what's
> the fuss, then? The fuss is in the fact that scientists don't bloody
> understand what they are doing at all, they are pulled by their noses,
> this is what the fuss is.

I think you don't understand what you're doing at all, and all the
pronouns in the world can't disguise that.

On 24.8.2023. 15:34, John Harshman wrote:
> On 8/23/23 11:07 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 24.8.2023. 3:45, Glenn wrote:
>>> On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 7:49:29 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 8/19/23 7:28 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>          Ok, I figured this out. Definitely 20 years ago it is known
>>>>> that Genetic Mutation Theory was Mendel's (at least, this is how this
>>>>> came to me), but maybe somebody misunderstood it, because it is
>>>>> based on
>>>>> Mendel's work.
>>>
>>>> Conceivably there is some kind of translation problem here. But no, you
>>>> are wrong. Mendel's theory has nothing to do with mutation. You
>>>> admit at
>>>> times that you're ignorant of evolutionary biology and genetics. In
>>>> this, if in nothing else, you are correct.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ayala:
>>> "The rediscovery in 1900 of Mendel's theory of heredity by the Dutch
>>> botanist and geneticist Hugo de Vries and others led to an emphasis
>>> on the role of heredity in evolution. De Vries proposed a new theory
>>> of evolution known as mutationism, which essentially did away with
>>> natural selection as a major evolutionary process."
>>>
>>> "The controversy between mutationists (also referred to at the time
>>> as Mendelians) and biometricians approached a resolution in the 1920s
>>> and 1930s through the theoretical work of geneticists."
>>>
>>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/mutationism
>>>
>>> Mario appears more accurate about history than you.
>>
>>          Thanks very much. I know that at the time I was seeking info
>> about it, it was called Genetic Mutation Theory in Wikipedia (I
>> believe), and they wrote that all this originates from Mendel, and
>> later this was "re-discovered" by three independent guys, in a matter
>> of two months.
>
> No, the quote from Ayala says nothing of the sort. Note: "Mendel's
> theory of heredity" says nothing about mutation. And "De Vries proposed
> a *new* theory of evolution". The only connection between Mendelism and
> mutationism is that De Vries subscribed to both of them.

Hm, when I read it in the past it was said that de Vries rediscovered
Mendel, and that he introduced the term 'mutations', and that was all.
But Mendel was the originator and the only important person in the whole
story back then, when I have read about it. Now, I will definitely not
waste my time to research it further because the idea is utterly stupid,
and the fact that the ones who follow the idea search for Adam and Eve
only supports my view on this.
There *is* a *system* (it is so obvious, because it works on each and
every species on this planet, each and every species improves, even if
it eventually goes extinct it *improves* before that point) that makes
things to better adapt, and the idea of mutation cannot work, because
mutations are harmful, in order to have only useful mutations you would
need to win lottery each and every time, this, simply, doesn't work,
although so many would like it to work.
Besides, when I claim something, I claim it based on something, not
just out of thin air. Changes do happen, while I would really like to
see the evidence of those famous useful mutations, other than circular
thinking. As I said, those people probably envisage human "intelligence"
as the evidence. But they are completely wrong, there is *no* human
"intelligence". So, human "intelligence" is possible because of
mutations, and the evidence for mutations is human intelligence. Simple
as that, circular thinking.

>> Well, I also searched info about those three guys. At that time only
>> one of those had something in his biography (he had only one thing in
>> his biography, besides being involved in this, it was probably de
>> Vries), and the other two had absolutely nothing in their biographies,
>> except that they rediscovered Mendel (I am using exclusively English
>> version of Wikipedia). So, by that I figured out that they were just
>> filling the number, because for something to be accepted the number
>> has to be three.
>>          Now I am looking at this in Wikipedia, and somehow, like
>> somebody wants deliberately to nullify what I figured out, suddenly
>> they emphasize only two of those three, although clearly they,
>> themselves, mention that there were three "re-discoverers" in a matter
>> ow two months.
>>          Those two are:
>> 1) Hugo de Vries - son of a deacon in the Mennonite congregation in
>> Haarlem
>> 2) Carl Correns - who worked as tutor at the University of Tubungen. I
>> found this university always being involved in falsifying history so
>> that it matches Bible.
>>          The third one is:
>> 3) Erich von Tschermak - who was, actually, largely influenced by his
>> brother Armin. Well, his brother was elected member of the Pontifical
>> Academy of Sciences, which is a scientific academy of Vatican City,
>> established in 28 October 1936, and Armin became member of it right
>> from the beginning, 28 October 1936.
>>          So, Christian religion all over the place.
>
> This is typical conspiracy thinking, in which any connection to
> anything, no matter how tenuous, produces guilt by association. And your
> reach has expanded. It used to be the Catholic church, and now it's any
> Christian sect. I submit that any European or American scientist can be
> connected to Christianity by a very short chain of relationships.

Of course. Isn't it so obvious? Now, somehow, Vatican doesn't have
conspiracy? How come, if anybody has it, it is Vatican. I don't know in
what relation to Vatican those Mennonites are, though (and I don't care).

>>          The second problem is the problem of nomenclature, which is
>> so obvious. This is called Mutation Theory, but if you try to discuss
>> in a term of a 'mutation', everybody tells you immediately that these
>> *aren't* mutations, but rather changes.
>
> Your pronouns make the sentence conveniently ambiguous. What's "this"?
> Not anything Mendel was involved in. What are "these"? Is somebody
> supposed to be claiming that mutations don't happen?

Oh, of course. Whenever I say that mutations are harmful, and that
this cannot work, the one I am discussion this with (it could have even
been you, I don't remember anymore) immediately says that this actually
aren't mutations. Gee. So, these *are* mutations? Fine. I really don't
get how a person with clear mind can envisage this to work, it's beyond
me. I know that your brain doesn't work, that you accept everything that
is written in books without thinking (obviously you didn't read Bible
yet), so for you this is normal.

>> Now, if those are changes, why they are not called changes?
>
> What are "those"?

"Those" supposed 'mutations'. Set your story straight, it is your
story, not mine (ah, I see, it isn't your story, you just read it in
books, but you actually don't understand it, or what?). So, if "those"
are mutations, they, simply, cannot work. If "those" aren't mutations
(so, it is just wrong nomenclature), if "those" are just changes, then
they aren't what proponents of "mutations" claim for them to be.

>> Because you can achieve so much by playing with words (I've seen this
>> so many times, being raised in communism). If they would be called
>> genetic changes, this isn't a big deal, nothing strange about it,
>> everything changes over time, even we change during our lifetime, the
>> change is natural, the change is gradual, after all, Darwin's theory
>> is about a change. But if you introduce 'mutation', this is completely
>> different thing. Mutations are unnatural, mutations are one-off
>> events, mutations are out of any system, mutations are unsystematic.
>> So now we have, instead of following a simple change which pertain to
>> some particular system, the whole scientific community searches for
>> those unnatural one-off events that produce some out of order
>> unsystematic magic, and the whole scientific community suddenly
>> revolves around Adam and Eve.
>
> I don't think you have any idea what mutations are or what scientists
> think they are. Nobody thinks that mutations are unnatural (well, except
> for some IDers; but not scientists).

On 8/24/23 8:59 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 24.8.2023. 15:34, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 8/23/23 11:07 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>> On 24.8.2023. 3:45, Glenn wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 7:49:29 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> On 8/19/23 7:28 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>          Ok, I figured this out. Definitely 20 years ago it is known
>>>>>> that Genetic Mutation Theory was Mendel's (at least, this is how this
>>>>>> came to me), but maybe somebody misunderstood it, because it is
>>>>>> based on
>>>>>> Mendel's work.
>>>>
>>>>> Conceivably there is some kind of translation problem here. But no,
>>>>> you
>>>>> are wrong. Mendel's theory has nothing to do with mutation. You
>>>>> admit at
>>>>> times that you're ignorant of evolutionary biology and genetics. In
>>>>> this, if in nothing else, you are correct.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ayala:
>>>> "The rediscovery in 1900 of Mendel's theory of heredity by the Dutch
>>>> botanist and geneticist Hugo de Vries and others led to an emphasis
>>>> on the role of heredity in evolution. De Vries proposed a new theory
>>>> of evolution known as mutationism, which essentially did away with
>>>> natural selection as a major evolutionary process."
>>>>
>>>> "The controversy between mutationists (also referred to at the time
>>>> as Mendelians) and biometricians approached a resolution in the
>>>> 1920s and 1930s through the theoretical work of geneticists."
>>>>
>>>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/mutationism
>>>>
>>>> Mario appears more accurate about history than you.
>>>
>>>          Thanks very much. I know that at the time I was seeking info
>>> about it, it was called Genetic Mutation Theory in Wikipedia (I
>>> believe), and they wrote that all this originates from Mendel, and
>>> later this was "re-discovered" by three independent guys, in a matter
>>> of two months.
>>
>> No, the quote from Ayala says nothing of the sort. Note: "Mendel's
>> theory of heredity" says nothing about mutation. And "De Vries
>> proposed a *new* theory of evolution". The only connection between
>> Mendelism and mutationism is that De Vries subscribed to both of them.
>
>         Hm, when I read it in the past it was said that de Vries
> rediscovered Mendel, and that he introduced the term 'mutations', and
> that was all. But Mendel was the originator and the only important
> person in the whole story back then, when I have read about it. Now, I
> will definitely not waste my time to research it further because the
> idea is utterly stupid, and the fact that the ones who follow the idea
> search for Adam and Eve only supports my view on this.

I get the idea you're really talking about something else. What idea is
utterly stupid, and who searches for Adam and Eve?

But again, Mendel never said anything about mutations, using that term
or any other. De Vries rediscovered Mendel *and* De Vries was a
mutationist. There is no connection between those two things other than
that De Vries entertained them both.

>         There *is* a *system* (it is so obvious, because it works on
> each and every species on this planet, each and every species improves,
> even if it eventually goes extinct it *improves* before that point) that
> makes things to better adapt, and the idea of mutation cannot work,
> because mutations are harmful, in order to have only useful mutations
> you would need to win lottery each and every time, this, simply, doesn't
> work, although so many would like it to work.

Not true. Most mutations are neutral, some are harmful, and some are
beneficial. Which ones are which depends quite a bit on the environment.
And you completely ignore natural selection, which eliminates the
harmful ones and fixes the beneficial ones.

>         Besides, when I claim something, I claim it based on something,
> not just out of thin air. Changes do happen, while I would really like
> to see the evidence of those famous useful mutations, other than
> circular thinking. As I said, those people probably envisage human
> "intelligence" as the evidence. But they are completely wrong, there is
> *no* human "intelligence". So, human "intelligence" is possible because
> of mutations, and the evidence for mutations is human intelligence.
> Simple as that, circular thinking.

Still don't know who "those people" are. The evidence of mutations is
differences in the genomes of parents and children, genetic variation
within populations, and genetic differences between species, all of
which are the sort of thing we observe happening and whose causes we know.

>>> Well, I also searched info about those three guys. At that time only
>>> one of those had something in his biography (he had only one thing in
>>> his biography, besides being involved in this, it was probably de
>>> Vries), and the other two had absolutely nothing in their
>>> biographies, except that they rediscovered Mendel (I am using
>>> exclusively English version of Wikipedia). So, by that I figured out
>>> that they were just filling the number, because for something to be
>>> accepted the number has to be three.
>>>          Now I am looking at this in Wikipedia, and somehow, like
>>> somebody wants deliberately to nullify what I figured out, suddenly
>>> they emphasize only two of those three, although clearly they,
>>> themselves, mention that there were three "re-discoverers" in a
>>> matter ow two months.
>>>          Those two are:
>>> 1) Hugo de Vries - son of a deacon in the Mennonite congregation in
>>> Haarlem
>>> 2) Carl Correns - who worked as tutor at the University of Tubungen.
>>> I found this university always being involved in falsifying history
>>> so that it matches Bible.
>>>          The third one is:
>>> 3) Erich von Tschermak - who was, actually, largely influenced by his
>>> brother Armin. Well, his brother was elected member of the Pontifical
>>> Academy of Sciences, which is a scientific academy of Vatican City,
>>> established in 28 October 1936, and Armin became member of it right
>>> from the beginning, 28 October 1936.
>>>          So, Christian religion all over the place.
>>
>> This is typical conspiracy thinking, in which any connection to
>> anything, no matter how tenuous, produces guilt by association. And
>> your reach has expanded. It used to be the Catholic church, and now
>> it's any Christian sect. I submit that any European or American
>> scientist can be connected to Christianity by a very short chain of
>> relationships.
>
>         Of course. Isn't it so obvious? Now, somehow, Vatican doesn't
> have conspiracy? How come, if anybody has it, it is Vatican. I don't
> know in what relation to Vatican those Mennonites are, though (and I
> don't care).

This is crazy talk, pure and simple.

>>>          The second problem is the problem of nomenclature, which is
>>> so obvious. This is called Mutation Theory, but if you try to discuss
>>> in a term of a 'mutation', everybody tells you immediately that these
>>> *aren't* mutations, but rather changes.
>>
>> Your pronouns make the sentence conveniently ambiguous. What's "this"?
>> Not anything Mendel was involved in. What are "these"? Is somebody
>> supposed to be claiming that mutations don't happen?
>
>         Oh, of course. Whenever I say that mutations are harmful, and
> that this cannot work, the one I am discussion this with (it could have
> even been you, I don't remember anymore) immediately says that this
> actually aren't mutations.

I have no idea what you think you're talking about here. Mutations
aren't mutations? What cannot work? Could you try very hard to be clearer?

> Gee. So, these *are* mutations? Fine. I
> really don't get how a person with clear mind can envisage this to work,
> it's beyond me. I know that your brain doesn't work, that you accept
> everything that is written in books without thinking (obviously you
> didn't read Bible yet), so for you this is normal.

On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 8:40:26 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> On 8/23/23 6:45 PM, Glenn wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 7:49:29 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 8/19/23 7:28 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >>> On 20.8.2023. 3:06, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 8/19/23 5:22 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >>>>> On 20.8.2023. 1:56, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>> On 8/19/23 2:17 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >>>>>>> 20 years ago situation was like this, Genetic Mutation
> >>>>>>> Theory was all over the place.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I have no idea what you're talking about. I suspect you don't either.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Then I noticed that authors of both, the Big Bang Theory and the
> >>>>>>> Genetic Mutation Theory are Catholic priests, and I started to
> >>>>>>> write about this, I wrote about it here a few times.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You're right about the Big Bang, but Mendel had zero to do with
> >>>>>> mutations.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Of course, that's why his theory is called Genetic Mutation
> >>>>> Theory.
> >>>>
> >>>> Nobody calls it that.
> >>>
> >>> Ok, I figured this out. Definitely 20 years ago it is known
> >>> that Genetic Mutation Theory was Mendel's (at least, this is how this
> >>> came to me), but maybe somebody misunderstood it, because it is based on
> >>> Mendel's work.
> >
> >> Conceivably there is some kind of translation problem here. But no, you
> >> are wrong. Mendel's theory has nothing to do with mutation. You admit at
> >> times that you're ignorant of evolutionary biology and genetics. In
> >> this, if in nothing else, you are correct.
> >
> >
> > Ayala:
> > "The rediscovery in 1900 of Mendel's theory of heredity by the Dutch botanist and geneticist Hugo de Vries and others led to an emphasis on the role of heredity in evolution. De Vries proposed a new theory of evolution known as mutationism, which essentially did away with natural selection as a major evolutionary process."
> >
> > "The controversy between mutationists (also referred to at the time as Mendelians) and biometricians approached a resolution in the 1920s and 1930s through the theoretical work of geneticists."
> >
> > https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/mutationism
> >
> > Mario appears more accurate about history than you.
> Mario is no better at reading than you are, which is not very good,
> apparently. Mendel wasn't the mutationist, DeVries was. The mutationists
> were indeed Mendelians, and the biometricians were not. But that doesn't
> mean that Mendel had anything personally to do with mutationism. He
> didn't. Your quotes make my case, not Mario's. So thanks.

You have no case, other than to interpret the relevant statements by Mario as you wished:

" Ok, I figured this out. Definitely 20 years ago it is known
that Genetic Mutation Theory was Mendel's (at least, this is how this
came to me), but maybe somebody misunderstood it, because it is based on
Mendel's work."

You may have nitpicked about the claim that the idea of mutations were based on Mendel's work, but instead you made it sound like Mario claimed that Mendel personally came up with the idea of mutation - which he most certainly does not.

But as usual, you'll avoid this and continue to play games. But then you are much better at reading than anyone else on the planet.

> >>>>>>> Now:
> >>>>>>> - BEFORE that I newer heard *anybody* even mention this
> >>>>>>> - DURING the time I was writing about it I didn't hear anybody even
> >>>>>>> mention this
> >>>>>>> - AFTER that time, even to this days, I never heard *anybody* even
> >>>>>>> mention this
> >>>>>>> Ok. Before I started to write about it you can clearly
> >>>>>>> find "Genetic Mutation Theory" in Wikipedia. Of course, right in
> >>>>>>> the preamble of the article you will clearly see who is the author,
> >>>>>>> written in bold letters, so that everybody can see it clearly,
> >>>>>>> right at the first sight. This also goes for the Big Bang Theory,
> >>>>>>> you will clearly see in the preamble who is the author of it, in
> >>>>>>> bold letters.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I don't believe you. I don't believe that "Genetic Mutation Theory"
> >>>>>> was ever a Wikipedia article. I certainly don't know what such an
> >>>>>> article would contain.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In the previous post I provided a citation, with a whole
> >>>>> bunch of references.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> These days you even cannot find the Genetic Mutation
> >>>>>>> Theory in Wikipedia. You can find Big Bang Theory in Wikipedia, but
> >>>>>>> if you manage to find in this article who is the actually author of
> >>>>>>> it within 20 minutes, I'll buy you a beer.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> First sentence of the second paragraph of the Big Bang Theory
> >>>>>> article: "Crucially, these models are compatible with the
> >>>>>> Hubble–Lemaître law—the observation that the farther away a galaxy
> >>>>>> is, the faster it is moving away from Earth." Under "Development":
> >>>>>> "Independently deriving Friedmann's equations in 1927, Georges
> >>>>>> Lemaître, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic priest, proposed
> >>>>>> that the recession of the nebulae was due to the expansion of the
> >>>>>> universe."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Not sure how you will get my beer to me.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Oh really? No, it is Lemaitre's theory, it isn't by somebody
> >>>>> else, or a bunch of people but based on Hubble-Lemaitre something,
> >>>>> how they are twisting it today, it is full blown solely Lemaitre's
> >>>>> theory. And it isn't Hubble-Lemaitre's law, now it is called Hubble's
> >>>>> law, but actually it was published by Lemaitre, without Hubble. Now
> >>>>> they are twisting this all around these days, trying to somehow
> >>>>> disconnect this theory from Lemaitre, and desperately connect it to
> >>>>> something else. Oh yes, I am insane, lol.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm beginning to think you are in fact insane. But I guess I won't get
> >>>> my beer. That's always a problem when the judge of the challenge is
> >>>> the one who presented it.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Now, science behaves like it never had anything to do with
> >>>>>>> Mendel and his theory, and Harshman even calls me insane.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No, science has much to do with Mendel's theory, but you don't
> >>>>>> understand what Mendel's theory is.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Of course, Hrshman behaves also like science never had anything to
> >>>>>>> do with the Genetic Mutation Theory,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No idea what the Genetic Mutation Theory is, but it can't have
> >>>>>> anything to do with Mendel.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> he behaves like he never heard of it,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes. That's because I never heard of it, or at least I don't know
> >>>>>> what you mean by it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> and whoever claims that science had something to do with it, he
> >>>>>>> calls him insane.
> >>>>>>> This post talks about human intelligence, talks about
> >>>>>>> learning from books, and talks about science.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This post seems to talk about none of those things.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>

On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 9:45:27 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 7:49:29 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> > On 8/19/23 7:28 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> > > On 20.8.2023. 3:06, John Harshman wrote:
> > >> On 8/19/23 5:22 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> > >>> On 20.8.2023. 1:56, John Harshman wrote:
> > >>>> On 8/19/23 2:17 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> > >>>>> 20 years ago situation was like this, Genetic Mutation
> > >>>>> Theory was all over the place.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I have no idea what you're talking about. I suspect you don't either.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Then I noticed that authors of both, the Big Bang Theory and the
> > >>>>> Genetic Mutation Theory are Catholic priests, and I started to
> > >>>>> write about this, I wrote about it here a few times.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> You're right about the Big Bang, but Mendel had zero to do with
> > >>>> mutations.
> > >>>
> > >>> Of course, that's why his theory is called Genetic Mutation
> > >>> Theory.
> > >>
> > >> Nobody calls it that.
> > >
> > > Ok, I figured this out. Definitely 20 years ago it is known
> > > that Genetic Mutation Theory was Mendel's (at least, this is how this
> > > came to me), but maybe somebody misunderstood it, because it is based on
> > > Mendel's work.
>
> > Conceivably there is some kind of translation problem here. But no, you
> > are wrong. Mendel's theory has nothing to do with mutation. You admit at
> > times that you're ignorant of evolutionary biology and genetics. In
> > this, if in nothing else, you are correct.

> Ayala:
> "The rediscovery in 1900 of Mendel's theory of heredity by the Dutch botanist and geneticist Hugo de Vries and others led to an emphasis on the role of heredity in evolution. De Vries proposed a new theory of evolution known as mutationism, which essentially did away with natural selection as a major evolutionary process."
>
> "The controversy between mutationists (also referred to at the time as Mendelians) and biometricians approached a resolution in the 1920s and 1930s through the theoretical work of geneticists."
>
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/mutationism
>
> Mario appears more accurate about history than you.

It's a fascinating history that your link brings to light, but it seems that "Mendelian"
is one of those misnomers that have confused people since time immemorial.

Ripley collected an impressive number of them in the very first (and by far the most interesting, despite
a number of bad mistakes) of his "Believe It or Not" books. Here are two of the ones that
stuck in my mind after all the decades since I last saw the book.

"Dresden china" (porcelain) is manufactured in Meissen.

"Panama hats" are produced in Ecuador.

Here is a pair of scientific ones that come to mind.

"Bode's law" of planetary spacing was due to Titius. [Also, Neptune disproved it by
being a lot closer to the sun than the "law" states.]

"Darwin's theory of natural selection" was independently discovered
by Wallace, and also by an obscure person well before Darwin formulated it.

There are also a lot of misnomers in chess and mathematics,
but I don't want to get into them now.

Also, there are innumerable cases of famous people being credited
with sayings that are not due to them. One that Ripley himself mentioned
in that first book was "Let them eat cake," supposedly in reaction to
news of a bread shortage. It was falsely attributed to
Marie Antionette, but that attribution was thoroughly discredited from
several directions here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_them_eat_cake

The upshot of all this is that no evidence has been posted by Mario
to suggest that "Mendelian" extended to Mendel having been
in any way involved in any theory about mutations.

I have one more point to make below.

<snip for focus>

> > >>> No, it is Lemaitre's theory, it isn't by somebody
> > >>> else, or a bunch of people but based on Hubble-Lemaitre something,
> > >>> how they are twisting it today, it is full blown solely Lemaitre's
> > >>> theory. And it isn't Hubble-Lemaitre's law, now it is called Hubble's
> > >>> law,

This is a "law" about how further a galaxy is, the faster it recedes from us.
It is just an approximation, inasmuch as some nearby galaxies are approaching us
rather than receding. But Hubble never made the sophisticated calculations
from Einstein's theory of general relativity that inspired Lemaitre to propose
that the universe is expanding from a very small initial configuration.

As far as I know, no cosmologist has ever claimed that Hubble
proposed any form of the Big Bang theory.

> > >>> but actually it was published by Lemaitre, without Hubble. Now
> > >>> they are twisting this all around these days, trying to somehow
> > >>> disconnect this theory from Lemaitre, and desperately connect it to
> > >>> something else. Oh yes, I am insane, lol.

There is no such twisting, only just another misnomer (or misunderstanding
of what Hubble's law is about) at work.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

On 8/24/23 11:15 AM, Glenn wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 8:40:26 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 8/23/23 6:45 PM, Glenn wrote:
>>> On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 7:49:29 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 8/19/23 7:28 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>> On 20.8.2023. 3:06, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/19/23 5:22 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>> On 20.8.2023. 1:56, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/19/23 2:17 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 20 years ago situation was like this, Genetic Mutation
>>>>>>>>> Theory was all over the place.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have no idea what you're talking about. I suspect you don't either.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then I noticed that authors of both, the Big Bang Theory and the
>>>>>>>>> Genetic Mutation Theory are Catholic priests, and I started to
>>>>>>>>> write about this, I wrote about it here a few times.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're right about the Big Bang, but Mendel had zero to do with
>>>>>>>> mutations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course, that's why his theory is called Genetic Mutation
>>>>>>> Theory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nobody calls it that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, I figured this out. Definitely 20 years ago it is known
>>>>> that Genetic Mutation Theory was Mendel's (at least, this is how this
>>>>> came to me), but maybe somebody misunderstood it, because it is based on
>>>>> Mendel's work.
>>>
>>>> Conceivably there is some kind of translation problem here. But no, you
>>>> are wrong. Mendel's theory has nothing to do with mutation. You admit at
>>>> times that you're ignorant of evolutionary biology and genetics. In
>>>> this, if in nothing else, you are correct.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ayala:
>>> "The rediscovery in 1900 of Mendel's theory of heredity by the Dutch botanist and geneticist Hugo de Vries and others led to an emphasis on the role of heredity in evolution. De Vries proposed a new theory of evolution known as mutationism, which essentially did away with natural selection as a major evolutionary process."
>>>
>>> "The controversy between mutationists (also referred to at the time as Mendelians) and biometricians approached a resolution in the 1920s and 1930s through the theoretical work of geneticists."
>>>
>>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/mutationism
>>>
>>> Mario appears more accurate about history than you.
>> Mario is no better at reading than you are, which is not very good,
>> apparently. Mendel wasn't the mutationist, DeVries was. The mutationists
>> were indeed Mendelians, and the biometricians were not. But that doesn't
>> mean that Mendel had anything personally to do with mutationism. He
>> didn't. Your quotes make my case, not Mario's. So thanks.
>
>
> You have no case, other than to interpret the relevant statements by Mario as you wished:
>
> " Ok, I figured this out. Definitely 20 years ago it is known
> that Genetic Mutation Theory was Mendel's (at least, this is how this
> came to me), but maybe somebody misunderstood it, because it is based on
> Mendel's work."
>
> You may have nitpicked about the claim that the idea of mutations
> were based on Mendel's work, but instead you made it sound like Mario
> claimed that Mendel personally came up with the idea of mutation -
> which he most certainly does not.
That's exactly what Mario claimed. And the idea of mutations wasn't
based on Mendel's work either; neither was "Genetic Mutation Theory",
whatever that is.

> But as usual, you'll avoid this and continue to play games. But then
> you are much better at reading than anyone else on the planet.
I never said that. But I am much better than reading (even, apparently,
at reading Mario's gibberish) than you are, and much better than Mario
is. That much is clear.

>>>>>>>>> Now:
>>>>>>>>> - BEFORE that I newer heard *anybody* even mention this
>>>>>>>>> - DURING the time I was writing about it I didn't hear anybody even
>>>>>>>>> mention this
>>>>>>>>> - AFTER that time, even to this days, I never heard *anybody* even
>>>>>>>>> mention this
>>>>>>>>> Ok. Before I started to write about it you can clearly
>>>>>>>>> find "Genetic Mutation Theory" in Wikipedia. Of course, right in
>>>>>>>>> the preamble of the article you will clearly see who is the author,
>>>>>>>>> written in bold letters, so that everybody can see it clearly,
>>>>>>>>> right at the first sight. This also goes for the Big Bang Theory,
>>>>>>>>> you will clearly see in the preamble who is the author of it, in
>>>>>>>>> bold letters.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't believe you. I don't believe that "Genetic Mutation Theory"
>>>>>>>> was ever a Wikipedia article. I certainly don't know what such an
>>>>>>>> article would contain.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the previous post I provided a citation, with a whole
>>>>>>> bunch of references.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> These days you even cannot find the Genetic Mutation
>>>>>>>>> Theory in Wikipedia. You can find Big Bang Theory in Wikipedia, but
>>>>>>>>> if you manage to find in this article who is the actually author of
>>>>>>>>> it within 20 minutes, I'll buy you a beer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> First sentence of the second paragraph of the Big Bang Theory
>>>>>>>> article: "Crucially, these models are compatible with the
>>>>>>>> Hubble–Lemaître law—the observation that the farther away a galaxy
>>>>>>>> is, the faster it is moving away from Earth." Under "Development":
>>>>>>>> "Independently deriving Friedmann's equations in 1927, Georges
>>>>>>>> Lemaître, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic priest, proposed
>>>>>>>> that the recession of the nebulae was due to the expansion of the
>>>>>>>> universe."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not sure how you will get my beer to me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh really? No, it is Lemaitre's theory, it isn't by somebody
>>>>>>> else, or a bunch of people but based on Hubble-Lemaitre something,
>>>>>>> how they are twisting it today, it is full blown solely Lemaitre's
>>>>>>> theory. And it isn't Hubble-Lemaitre's law, now it is called Hubble's
>>>>>>> law, but actually it was published by Lemaitre, without Hubble. Now
>>>>>>> they are twisting this all around these days, trying to somehow
>>>>>>> disconnect this theory from Lemaitre, and desperately connect it to
>>>>>>> something else. Oh yes, I am insane, lol.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm beginning to think you are in fact insane. But I guess I won't get
>>>>>> my beer. That's always a problem when the judge of the challenge is
>>>>>> the one who presented it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now, science behaves like it never had anything to do with
>>>>>>>>> Mendel and his theory, and Harshman even calls me insane.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, science has much to do with Mendel's theory, but you don't
>>>>>>>> understand what Mendel's theory is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course, Hrshman behaves also like science never had anything to
>>>>>>>>> do with the Genetic Mutation Theory,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No idea what the Genetic Mutation Theory is, but it can't have
>>>>>>>> anything to do with Mendel.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> he behaves like he never heard of it,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes. That's because I never heard of it, or at least I don't know
>>>>>>>> what you mean by it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and whoever claims that science had something to do with it, he
>>>>>>>>> calls him insane.
>>>>>>>>> This post talks about human intelligence, talks about
>>>>>>>>> learning from books, and talks about science.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This post seems to talk about none of those things.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>

On 24.8.2023. 19:56, John Harshman wrote:
> On 8/24/23 8:59 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 24.8.2023. 15:34, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 8/23/23 11:07 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>> On 24.8.2023. 3:45, Glenn wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 7:49:29 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/19/23 7:28 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>          Ok, I figured this out. Definitely 20 years ago it is known
>>>>>>> that Genetic Mutation Theory was Mendel's (at least, this is how
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>> came to me), but maybe somebody misunderstood it, because it is
>>>>>>> based on
>>>>>>> Mendel's work.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Conceivably there is some kind of translation problem here. But
>>>>>> no, you
>>>>>> are wrong. Mendel's theory has nothing to do with mutation. You
>>>>>> admit at
>>>>>> times that you're ignorant of evolutionary biology and genetics. In
>>>>>> this, if in nothing else, you are correct.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ayala:
>>>>> "The rediscovery in 1900 of Mendel's theory of heredity by the
>>>>> Dutch botanist and geneticist Hugo de Vries and others led to an
>>>>> emphasis on the role of heredity in evolution. De Vries proposed a
>>>>> new theory of evolution known as mutationism, which essentially did
>>>>> away with natural selection as a major evolutionary process."
>>>>>
>>>>> "The controversy between mutationists (also referred to at the time
>>>>> as Mendelians) and biometricians approached a resolution in the
>>>>> 1920s and 1930s through the theoretical work of geneticists."
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/mutationism
>>>>>
>>>>> Mario appears more accurate about history than you.
>>>>
>>>>          Thanks very much. I know that at the time I was seeking
>>>> info about it, it was called Genetic Mutation Theory in Wikipedia (I
>>>> believe), and they wrote that all this originates from Mendel, and
>>>> later this was "re-discovered" by three independent guys, in a
>>>> matter of two months.
>>>
>>> No, the quote from Ayala says nothing of the sort. Note: "Mendel's
>>> theory of heredity" says nothing about mutation. And "De Vries
>>> proposed a *new* theory of evolution". The only connection between
>>> Mendelism and mutationism is that De Vries subscribed to both of them.
>>
>>          Hm, when I read it in the past it was said that de Vries
>> rediscovered Mendel, and that he introduced the term 'mutations', and
>> that was all. But Mendel was the originator and the only important
>> person in the whole story back then, when I have read about it. Now, I
>> will definitely not waste my time to research it further because the
>> idea is utterly stupid, and the fact that the ones who follow the idea
>> search for Adam and Eve only supports my view on this.
>
> I get the idea you're really talking about something else. What idea is
> utterly stupid, and who searches for Adam and Eve?

Everybody. Everybody searches for this moment when some mutation
happened, and like, the original owner of it would be, either Adam, or
Eve. I cannot believe that you never heard those terms, they are all
around. They are connected to mutations, because the Adam/Eve is the one
who first got it.

> But again, Mendel never said anything about mutations, using that term
> or any other. De Vries rediscovered Mendel *and* De Vries was a
> mutationist. There is no connection between those two things other than
> that De Vries entertained them both.
>
>>          There *is* a *system* (it is so obvious, because it works on
>> each and every species on this planet, each and every species
>> improves, even if it eventually goes extinct it *improves* before that
>> point) that makes things to better adapt, and the idea of mutation
>> cannot work, because mutations are harmful, in order to have only
>> useful mutations you would need to win lottery each and every time,
>> this, simply, doesn't work, although so many would like it to work.
>
> Not true. Most mutations are neutral, some are harmful, and some are
> beneficial. Which ones are which depends quite a bit on the environment.
> And you completely ignore natural selection, which eliminates the
> harmful ones and fixes the beneficial ones.

Mutations cannot be eliminated by natural selection, there is no time
for it. Since the waste majority of them are harmful, because they are
mutations, there is no place for them in the system, they are not
systematic, as you try to imply, they are pure errors, they have to be
eliminated. This is like, imagine if there is life on Mars. We have our
diseases, they have their. If we come to Mars their diseases will not
affect us, just like pig diseases will not affect us, because those
diseases work in pig system, and our evolve in our system. Of course,
there are variations on a theme, pigs can be transporters of our
disease, but only if we are long time in contact, and things like that.
In short, for something to affect us it has to be part of our system.
This "system", though, can go long time into the past, there is a bit of
fish, and who knows what, still in us, but it has to be a part of us
already. No aliens will find home in our body, because things aren't so
simple at all. Even Lego cubes, in order to build something, has to be
made per exact measures. No place for errors, there was no "evolution by
errors". When evolution started, it was a system. This system improved,
but its basis always stays the same. For example, no matter how smart
you are, you never can follow five points in space. You will have
absolutely no problems with four points, but five points is too much. It
is too much for humans, but this goes for amoeba also, it can defend
from four attackers, not from five. Why? Because all the nervous systems
are based on four pipelines, amoeba and human, doesn't matter. There
will *never* be a mutation that will give you five pipelines. At least,
this didn't happen so far, although it would give you the immense
advantage, like a difference between 8 and 16 bit computers. Not because
system with five pipelines wouldn't be possible, it is because this
system wouldn't be possible to implement into body which revolves around
four pipelines. So, this mutation would be, actually, deadly. Just the
same, all mutations are harmful, because this is a complex interlaced
system, no part works on its own, every part has to have connections to
other parts. You can dream about your mutation working, but only because
your dreams are childish, and not thorough enough.

>>          Besides, when I claim something, I claim it based on
>> something, not just out of thin air. Changes do happen, while I would
>> really like to see the evidence of those famous useful mutations,
>> other than circular thinking. As I said, those people probably
>> envisage human "intelligence" as the evidence. But they are completely
>> wrong, there is *no* human "intelligence". So, human "intelligence" is
>> possible because of mutations, and the evidence for mutations is human
>> intelligence. Simple as that, circular thinking.
>
> Still don't know who "those people" are. The evidence of mutations is
> differences in the genomes of parents and children, genetic variation
> within populations, and genetic differences between species, all of
> which are the sort of thing we observe happening and whose causes we know.

The difference is the evidence of change, not the evidence of mutations.

>>>> Well, I also searched info about those three guys. At that time only
>>>> one of those had something in his biography (he had only one thing
>>>> in his biography, besides being involved in this, it was probably de
>>>> Vries), and the other two had absolutely nothing in their
>>>> biographies, except that they rediscovered Mendel (I am using
>>>> exclusively English version of Wikipedia). So, by that I figured out
>>>> that they were just filling the number, because for something to be
>>>> accepted the number has to be three.
>>>>          Now I am looking at this in Wikipedia, and somehow, like
>>>> somebody wants deliberately to nullify what I figured out, suddenly
>>>> they emphasize only two of those three, although clearly they,
>>>> themselves, mention that there were three "re-discoverers" in a
>>>> matter ow two months.
>>>>          Those two are:
>>>> 1) Hugo de Vries - son of a deacon in the Mennonite congregation in
>>>> Haarlem
>>>> 2) Carl Correns - who worked as tutor at the University of Tubungen.
>>>> I found this university always being involved in falsifying history
>>>> so that it matches Bible.
>>>>          The third one is:
>>>> 3) Erich von Tschermak - who was, actually, largely influenced by
>>>> his brother Armin. Well, his brother was elected member of the
>>>> Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which is a scientific academy of
>>>> Vatican City, established in 28 October 1936, and Armin became
>>>> member of it right from the beginning, 28 October 1936.
>>>>          So, Christian religion all over the place.
>>>
>>> This is typical conspiracy thinking, in which any connection to
>>> anything, no matter how tenuous, produces guilt by association. And
>>> your reach has expanded. It used to be the Catholic church, and now
>>> it's any Christian sect. I submit that any European or American
>>> scientist can be connected to Christianity by a very short chain of
>>> relationships.
>>
>>          Of course. Isn't it so obvious? Now, somehow, Vatican doesn't
>> have conspiracy? How come, if anybody has it, it is Vatican. I don't
>> know in what relation to Vatican those Mennonites are, though (and I
>> don't care).
>
> This is crazy talk, pure and simple.
>
>>>>          The second problem is the problem of nomenclature, which is
>>>> so obvious. This is called Mutation Theory, but if you try to
>>>> discuss in a term of a 'mutation', everybody tells you immediately
>>>> that these *aren't* mutations, but rather changes.
>>>
>>> Your pronouns make the sentence conveniently ambiguous. What's
>>> "this"? Not anything Mendel was involved in. What are "these"? Is
>>> somebody supposed to be claiming that mutations don't happen?
>>
>>          Oh, of course. Whenever I say that mutations are harmful, and
>> that this cannot work, the one I am discussion this with (it could
>> have even been you, I don't remember anymore) immediately says that
>> this actually aren't mutations.
>
> I have no idea what you think you're talking about here. Mutations
> aren't mutations? What cannot work? Could you try very hard to be clearer?
>
>> Gee. So, these *are* mutations? Fine. I really don't get how a person
>> with clear mind can envisage this to work, it's beyond me. I know that
>> your brain doesn't work, that you accept everything that is written in
>> books without thinking (obviously you didn't read Bible yet), so for
>> you this is normal.
>
> Again, what are "these"? What is "this"?

On 8/24/23 1:28 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 24.8.2023. 19:56, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 8/24/23 8:59 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>> On 24.8.2023. 15:34, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 8/23/23 11:07 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>> On 24.8.2023. 3:45, Glenn wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 7:49:29 PM UTC-7, John Harshman
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/19/23 7:28 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>          Ok, I figured this out. Definitely 20 years ago it is
>>>>>>>> known
>>>>>>>> that Genetic Mutation Theory was Mendel's (at least, this is how
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> came to me), but maybe somebody misunderstood it, because it is
>>>>>>>> based on
>>>>>>>> Mendel's work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Conceivably there is some kind of translation problem here. But
>>>>>>> no, you
>>>>>>> are wrong. Mendel's theory has nothing to do with mutation. You
>>>>>>> admit at
>>>>>>> times that you're ignorant of evolutionary biology and genetics. In
>>>>>>> this, if in nothing else, you are correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ayala:
>>>>>> "The rediscovery in 1900 of Mendel's theory of heredity by the
>>>>>> Dutch botanist and geneticist Hugo de Vries and others led to an
>>>>>> emphasis on the role of heredity in evolution. De Vries proposed a
>>>>>> new theory of evolution known as mutationism, which essentially
>>>>>> did away with natural selection as a major evolutionary process."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The controversy between mutationists (also referred to at the
>>>>>> time as Mendelians) and biometricians approached a resolution in
>>>>>> the 1920s and 1930s through the theoretical work of geneticists."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/mutationism
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mario appears more accurate about history than you.
>>>>>
>>>>>          Thanks very much. I know that at the time I was seeking
>>>>> info about it, it was called Genetic Mutation Theory in Wikipedia
>>>>> (I believe), and they wrote that all this originates from Mendel,
>>>>> and later this was "re-discovered" by three independent guys, in a
>>>>> matter of two months.
>>>>
>>>> No, the quote from Ayala says nothing of the sort. Note: "Mendel's
>>>> theory of heredity" says nothing about mutation. And "De Vries
>>>> proposed a *new* theory of evolution". The only connection between
>>>> Mendelism and mutationism is that De Vries subscribed to both of them.
>>>
>>>          Hm, when I read it in the past it was said that de Vries
>>> rediscovered Mendel, and that he introduced the term 'mutations', and
>>> that was all. But Mendel was the originator and the only important
>>> person in the whole story back then, when I have read about it. Now,
>>> I will definitely not waste my time to research it further because
>>> the idea is utterly stupid, and the fact that the ones who follow the
>>> idea search for Adam and Eve only supports my view on this.
>>
>> I get the idea you're really talking about something else. What idea
>> is utterly stupid, and who searches for Adam and Eve?
>
>         Everybody. Everybody searches for this moment when some
> mutation happened, and like, the original owner of it would be, either
> Adam, or Eve. I cannot believe that you never heard those terms, they
> are all around. They are connected to mutations, because the Adam/Eve is
> the one who first got it.

Wait, are you talking about mitochondrial Eve and Y chromosome Adam?
Those are just fanciful names attached to real things, the most recent
ancestor of everyone's mitochondria and the most recent ancestor of all
current Y chromosomes. Nothing to do with the biblical characters of the
same names. Nor are they attached to mutations. It's quite likely that
mt-Eve's mother had an identical mitochondrial genome, and likely
several prior generations too. Mitochondria do have a high mutation rate
but the genome is also tiny.

>> But again, Mendel never said anything about mutations, using that term
>> or any other. De Vries rediscovered Mendel *and* De Vries was a
>> mutationist. There is no connection between those two things other
>> than that De Vries entertained them both.
>>
>>>          There *is* a *system* (it is so obvious, because it works on
>>> each and every species on this planet, each and every species
>>> improves, even if it eventually goes extinct it *improves* before
>>> that point) that makes things to better adapt, and the idea of
>>> mutation cannot work, because mutations are harmful, in order to have
>>> only useful mutations you would need to win lottery each and every
>>> time, this, simply, doesn't work, although so many would like it to
>>> work.
>>
>> Not true. Most mutations are neutral, some are harmful, and some are
>> beneficial. Which ones are which depends quite a bit on the
>> environment. And you completely ignore natural selection, which
>> eliminates the harmful ones and fixes the beneficial ones.
>
>         Mutations cannot be eliminated by natural selection, there is
> no time for it.

That makes no sense. Of course there's time for it.

> Since the waste majority of them are harmful, because
> they are mutations, there is no place for them in the system, they are
> not systematic, as you try to imply, they are pure errors, they have to
> be eliminated.

And that's gibberish.

> This is like, imagine if there is life on Mars. We have
> our diseases, they have their. If we come to Mars their diseases will
> not affect us, just like pig diseases will not affect us, because those
> diseases work in pig system, and our evolve in our system. Of course,
> there are variations on a theme, pigs can be transporters of our
> disease, but only if we are long time in contact, and things like that.
> In short, for something to affect us it has to be part of our system.

It's not clear what you mean by "system", and of course there are many
diseases that began in other species and found their way into humans.

> This "system", though, can go long time into the past, there is a bit of
> fish, and who knows what, still in us, but it has to be a part of us
> already. No aliens will find home in our body, because things aren't so
> simple at all. Even Lego cubes, in order to build something, has to be
> made per exact measures. No place for errors, there was no "evolution by
> errors". When evolution started, it was a system. This system improved,
> but its basis always stays the same. For example, no matter how smart
> you are, you never can follow five points in space. You will have
> absolutely no problems with four points, but five points is too much. It
> is too much for humans, but this goes for amoeba also, it can defend
> from four attackers, not from five. Why? Because all the nervous systems
> are based on four pipelines, amoeba and human, doesn't matter. There
> will *never* be a mutation that will give you five pipelines. At least,
> this didn't happen so far, although it would give you the immense
> advantage, like a difference between 8 and 16 bit computers. Not because
> system with five pipelines wouldn't be possible, it is because this
> system wouldn't be possible to implement into body which revolves around
> four pipelines. So, this mutation would be, actually, deadly. Just the
> same, all mutations are harmful, because this is a complex interlaced
> system, no part works on its own, every part has to have connections to
> other parts. You can dream about your mutation working, but only because
> your dreams are childish, and not thorough enough.

And that takes gibberish to a new level. Four pipelines??

>>>          Besides, when I claim something, I claim it based on
>>> something, not just out of thin air. Changes do happen, while I would
>>> really like to see the evidence of those famous useful mutations,
>>> other than circular thinking. As I said, those people probably
>>> envisage human "intelligence" as the evidence. But they are
>>> completely wrong, there is *no* human "intelligence". So, human
>>> "intelligence" is possible because of mutations, and the evidence for
>>> mutations is human intelligence. Simple as that, circular thinking.
>>
>> Still don't know who "those people" are. The evidence of mutations is
>> differences in the genomes of parents and children, genetic variation
>> within populations, and genetic differences between species, all of
>> which are the sort of thing we observe happening and whose causes we
>> know.
>
>         The difference is the evidence of change, not the evidence of
> mutations.

On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 11:41:49 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 9:45:27 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 7:49:29 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> > > On 8/19/23 7:28 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> > > > On 20.8.2023. 3:06, John Harshman wrote:
> > > >> On 8/19/23 5:22 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> > > >>> On 20.8.2023. 1:56, John Harshman wrote:
> > > >>>> On 8/19/23 2:17 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> > > >>>>> 20 years ago situation was like this, Genetic Mutation
> > > >>>>> Theory was all over the place.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I have no idea what you're talking about. I suspect you don't either.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> Then I noticed that authors of both, the Big Bang Theory and the
> > > >>>>> Genetic Mutation Theory are Catholic priests, and I started to
> > > >>>>> write about this, I wrote about it here a few times.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> You're right about the Big Bang, but Mendel had zero to do with
> > > >>>> mutations.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Of course, that's why his theory is called Genetic Mutation
> > > >>> Theory.
> > > >>
> > > >> Nobody calls it that.
> > > >
> > > > Ok, I figured this out. Definitely 20 years ago it is known
> > > > that Genetic Mutation Theory was Mendel's (at least, this is how this
> > > > came to me), but maybe somebody misunderstood it, because it is based on
> > > > Mendel's work.
> >
> > > Conceivably there is some kind of translation problem here. But no, you
> > > are wrong. Mendel's theory has nothing to do with mutation. You admit at
> > > times that you're ignorant of evolutionary biology and genetics. In
> > > this, if in nothing else, you are correct.
>
> > Ayala:
> > "The rediscovery in 1900 of Mendel's theory of heredity by the Dutch botanist and geneticist Hugo de Vries and others led to an emphasis on the role of heredity in evolution. De Vries proposed a new theory of evolution known as mutationism, which essentially did away with natural selection as a major evolutionary process."
> >
> > "The controversy between mutationists (also referred to at the time as Mendelians) and biometricians approached a resolution in the 1920s and 1930s through the theoretical work of geneticists."
> >
> > https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/mutationism
> >
> > Mario appears more accurate about history than you.
> It's a fascinating history that your link brings to light, but it seems that "Mendelian"
> is one of those misnomers that have confused people since time immemorial..
>
> Ripley collected an impressive number of them in the very first (and by far the most interesting, despite
> a number of bad mistakes) of his "Believe It or Not" books. Here are two of the ones that
> stuck in my mind after all the decades since I last saw the book.
>
> "Dresden china" (porcelain) is manufactured in Meissen.
>
> "Panama hats" are produced in Ecuador.
>
>
> Here is a pair of scientific ones that come to mind.
>
> "Bode's law" of planetary spacing was due to Titius. [Also, Neptune disproved it by
> being a lot closer to the sun than the "law" states.]
>
> "Darwin's theory of natural selection" was independently discovered
> by Wallace, and also by an obscure person well before Darwin formulated it.
>
> There are also a lot of misnomers in chess and mathematics,
> but I don't want to get into them now.
>
>
> Also, there are innumerable cases of famous people being credited
> with sayings that are not due to them. One that Ripley himself mentioned
> in that first book was "Let them eat cake," supposedly in reaction to
> news of a bread shortage. It was falsely attributed to
> Marie Antionette, but that attribution was thoroughly discredited from
> several directions here:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_them_eat_cake
>
Here's another:
"Genetic algorithm (GA) is an optimization searching algorithm based on the theory of evolution and the genetic mutation theory of Mendel (Atmar, 1994, Chaudhry et al., 2000, Fogel, 1994, Srinivas and Patnaik, 1994)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0957417411001114
>
> The upshot of all this is that no evidence has been posted by Mario
> to suggest that "Mendelian" extended to Mendel having been
> in any way involved in any theory about mutations.

Well that depends on what "mutations" mean, and what de Vries meant.

" In 1901 the geneticist Hugo de Vries gave the name "mutation" to seemingly new forms that suddenly arose in his experiments on the evening primrose Oenothera lamarckiana. In the first decade of the 20th century, mutationism, or as de Vries named it mutationstheorie, became a rival to Darwinism supported for a while by geneticists including William Bateson, Thomas Hunt Morgan, and Reginald Punnett. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutationism

Think "he rediscovered Mendel's work"...but by all means, do more research on the subject. Suffice to say that Harshman is making a mountain out of a molehill, all clearly to serve his needs of being seen as "in the know" and everyone else not, and stupid, or insane as well.
From the next paragraph of the Wiki quote above:

"Despite the controversy, the early mutationists had by 1918 already accepted natural selection and explained continuous variation as the result of multiple genes acting on the same characteristic, such as height. "
>
>
> I have one more point to make below.
>
>
> <snip for focus>
> > > >>> No, it is Lemaitre's theory, it isn't by somebody
> > > >>> else, or a bunch of people but based on Hubble-Lemaitre something,
> > > >>> how they are twisting it today, it is full blown solely Lemaitre's
> > > >>> theory. And it isn't Hubble-Lemaitre's law, now it is called Hubble's
> > > >>> law,
> This is a "law" about how further a galaxy is, the faster it recedes from us.
> It is just an approximation, inasmuch as some nearby galaxies are approaching us
> rather than receding. But Hubble never made the sophisticated calculations
> from Einstein's theory of general relativity that inspired Lemaitre to propose
> that the universe is expanding from a very small initial configuration.
>
> As far as I know, no cosmologist has ever claimed that Hubble
> proposed any form of the Big Bang theory.
> > > >>> but actually it was published by Lemaitre, without Hubble. Now
> > > >>> they are twisting this all around these days, trying to somehow
> > > >>> disconnect this theory from Lemaitre, and desperately connect it to
> > > >>> something else. Oh yes, I am insane, lol.
> There is no such twisting, only just another misnomer (or misunderstanding
> of what Hubble's law is about) at work.
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> University of South Carolina
> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

On 8/24/23 3:20 PM, Glenn wrote:
> On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 11:41:49 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 9:45:27 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
>>> On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 7:49:29 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 8/19/23 7:28 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>> On 20.8.2023. 3:06, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/19/23 5:22 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>> On 20.8.2023. 1:56, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/19/23 2:17 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 20 years ago situation was like this, Genetic Mutation
>>>>>>>>> Theory was all over the place.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have no idea what you're talking about. I suspect you don't either.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then I noticed that authors of both, the Big Bang Theory and the
>>>>>>>>> Genetic Mutation Theory are Catholic priests, and I started to
>>>>>>>>> write about this, I wrote about it here a few times.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're right about the Big Bang, but Mendel had zero to do with
>>>>>>>> mutations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course, that's why his theory is called Genetic Mutation
>>>>>>> Theory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nobody calls it that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, I figured this out. Definitely 20 years ago it is known
>>>>> that Genetic Mutation Theory was Mendel's (at least, this is how this
>>>>> came to me), but maybe somebody misunderstood it, because it is based on
>>>>> Mendel's work.
>>>
>>>> Conceivably there is some kind of translation problem here. But no, you
>>>> are wrong. Mendel's theory has nothing to do with mutation. You admit at
>>>> times that you're ignorant of evolutionary biology and genetics. In
>>>> this, if in nothing else, you are correct.
>>
>>> Ayala:
>>> "The rediscovery in 1900 of Mendel's theory of heredity by the Dutch botanist and geneticist Hugo de Vries and others led to an emphasis on the role of heredity in evolution. De Vries proposed a new theory of evolution known as mutationism, which essentially did away with natural selection as a major evolutionary process."
>>>
>>> "The controversy between mutationists (also referred to at the time as Mendelians) and biometricians approached a resolution in the 1920s and 1930s through the theoretical work of geneticists."
>>>
>>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/mutationism
>>>
>>> Mario appears more accurate about history than you.
>> It's a fascinating history that your link brings to light, but it seems that "Mendelian"
>> is one of those misnomers that have confused people since time immemorial.
>>
>> Ripley collected an impressive number of them in the very first (and by far the most interesting, despite
>> a number of bad mistakes) of his "Believe It or Not" books. Here are two of the ones that
>> stuck in my mind after all the decades since I last saw the book.
>>
>> "Dresden china" (porcelain) is manufactured in Meissen.
>>
>> "Panama hats" are produced in Ecuador.
>>
>>
>> Here is a pair of scientific ones that come to mind.
>>
>> "Bode's law" of planetary spacing was due to Titius. [Also, Neptune disproved it by
>> being a lot closer to the sun than the "law" states.]
>>
>> "Darwin's theory of natural selection" was independently discovered
>> by Wallace, and also by an obscure person well before Darwin formulated it.
>>
>> There are also a lot of misnomers in chess and mathematics,
>> but I don't want to get into them now.
>>
>>
>> Also, there are innumerable cases of famous people being credited
>> with sayings that are not due to them. One that Ripley himself mentioned
>> in that first book was "Let them eat cake," supposedly in reaction to
>> news of a bread shortage. It was falsely attributed to
>> Marie Antionette, but that attribution was thoroughly discredited from
>> several directions here:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_them_eat_cake
>>
> Here's another:
> "Genetic algorithm (GA) is an optimization searching algorithm based on the theory of evolution and the genetic mutation theory of Mendel (Atmar, 1994, Chaudhry et al., 2000, Fogel, 1994, Srinivas and Patnaik, 1994)
>
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0957417411001114

Note that none of the references used in support of this sentence are
about biology or its history, just genetic algorithms and simulations. I
don't know whether any of them mention Mendel, but even if so they are
not reasonable sources for information about Mendel's theories.

>> The upshot of all this is that no evidence has been posted by Mario
>> to suggest that "Mendelian" extended to Mendel having been
>> in any way involved in any theory about mutations.
>
> Well that depends on what "mutations" mean, and what de Vries meant.

In fact it doesn't. Mendel had nothing to do with mutations by any
definition.

> " In 1901 the geneticist Hugo de Vries gave the name "mutation" to
> seemingly new forms that suddenly arose in his experiments on the
> evening primrose Oenothera lamarckiana. In the first decade of the
> 20th century, mutationism, or as de Vries named it mutationstheorie,
> became a rival to Darwinism supported for a while by geneticists
> including William Bateson, Thomas Hunt Morgan, and Reginald
> Punnett."

It's true that the "mutations" De Vries noted were not actually
mutations in the modern sense. Oenothera just has unusual genetics. But
the idea was extended quickly to things we would call mutations. Still
nothing to do with Mendel, and nothing relevant to the discussion.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutationism
>
> Think "he rediscovered Mendel's work"...but by all means, do more
> research on the subject. Suffice to say that Harshman is making a
> mountain out of a molehill, all clearly to serve his needs of being
> seen as "in the know" and everyone else not, and stupid, or insane as
> well.

> From the next paragraph of the Wiki quote above:
>
> "Despite the controversy, the early mutationists had by 1918 already
> accepted natural selection and explained continuous variation as the
> result of multiple genes acting on the same characteristic, such as
> height. "

In your opinion, how is this relevant to the present questions?

>> I have one more point to make below.
>>
>>
>> <snip for focus>
>>>>>>> No, it is Lemaitre's theory, it isn't by somebody
>>>>>>> else, or a bunch of people but based on Hubble-Lemaitre something,
>>>>>>> how they are twisting it today, it is full blown solely Lemaitre's
>>>>>>> theory. And it isn't Hubble-Lemaitre's law, now it is called Hubble's
>>>>>>> law,
>> This is a "law" about how further a galaxy is, the faster it recedes from us.
>> It is just an approximation, inasmuch as some nearby galaxies are approaching us
>> rather than receding. But Hubble never made the sophisticated calculations
>> from Einstein's theory of general relativity that inspired Lemaitre to propose
>> that the universe is expanding from a very small initial configuration.
>>
>> As far as I know, no cosmologist has ever claimed that Hubble
>> proposed any form of the Big Bang theory.
>>>>>>> but actually it was published by Lemaitre, without Hubble. Now
>>>>>>> they are twisting this all around these days, trying to somehow
>>>>>>> disconnect this theory from Lemaitre, and desperately connect it to
>>>>>>> something else. Oh yes, I am insane, lol.
>> There is no such twisting, only just another misnomer (or misunderstanding
>> of what Hubble's law is about) at work.
>>
>>
>> Peter Nyikos
>> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
>> University of South Carolina
>> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

On 24.8.2023. 23:05, John Harshman wrote:
> On 8/24/23 1:28 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 24.8.2023. 19:56, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 8/24/23 8:59 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>> On 24.8.2023. 15:34, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> On 8/23/23 11:07 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>> On 24.8.2023. 3:45, Glenn wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 7:49:29 PM UTC-7, John Harshman
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/19/23 7:28 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>>          Ok, I figured this out. Definitely 20 years ago it is
>>>>>>>>> known
>>>>>>>>> that Genetic Mutation Theory was Mendel's (at least, this is
>>>>>>>>> how this
>>>>>>>>> came to me), but maybe somebody misunderstood it, because it is
>>>>>>>>> based on
>>>>>>>>> Mendel's work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Conceivably there is some kind of translation problem here. But
>>>>>>>> no, you
>>>>>>>> are wrong. Mendel's theory has nothing to do with mutation. You
>>>>>>>> admit at
>>>>>>>> times that you're ignorant of evolutionary biology and genetics. In
>>>>>>>> this, if in nothing else, you are correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ayala:
>>>>>>> "The rediscovery in 1900 of Mendel's theory of heredity by the
>>>>>>> Dutch botanist and geneticist Hugo de Vries and others led to an
>>>>>>> emphasis on the role of heredity in evolution. De Vries proposed
>>>>>>> a new theory of evolution known as mutationism, which essentially
>>>>>>> did away with natural selection as a major evolutionary process."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The controversy between mutationists (also referred to at the
>>>>>>> time as Mendelians) and biometricians approached a resolution in
>>>>>>> the 1920s and 1930s through the theoretical work of geneticists."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/mutationism
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mario appears more accurate about history than you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          Thanks very much. I know that at the time I was seeking
>>>>>> info about it, it was called Genetic Mutation Theory in Wikipedia
>>>>>> (I believe), and they wrote that all this originates from Mendel,
>>>>>> and later this was "re-discovered" by three independent guys, in a
>>>>>> matter of two months.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, the quote from Ayala says nothing of the sort. Note: "Mendel's
>>>>> theory of heredity" says nothing about mutation. And "De Vries
>>>>> proposed a *new* theory of evolution". The only connection between
>>>>> Mendelism and mutationism is that De Vries subscribed to both of them.
>>>>
>>>>          Hm, when I read it in the past it was said that de Vries
>>>> rediscovered Mendel, and that he introduced the term 'mutations',
>>>> and that was all. But Mendel was the originator and the only
>>>> important person in the whole story back then, when I have read
>>>> about it. Now, I will definitely not waste my time to research it
>>>> further because the idea is utterly stupid, and the fact that the
>>>> ones who follow the idea search for Adam and Eve only supports my
>>>> view on this.
>>>
>>> I get the idea you're really talking about something else. What idea
>>> is utterly stupid, and who searches for Adam and Eve?
>>
>>          Everybody. Everybody searches for this moment when some
>> mutation happened, and like, the original owner of it would be, either
>> Adam, or Eve. I cannot believe that you never heard those terms, they
>> are all around. They are connected to mutations, because the Adam/Eve
>> is the one who first got it.
>
> Wait, are you talking about mitochondrial Eve and Y chromosome Adam?
> Those are just fanciful names attached to real things, the most recent
> ancestor of everyone's mitochondria and the most recent ancestor of all
> current Y chromosomes. Nothing to do with the biblical characters of the
> same names. Nor are they attached to mutations. It's quite likely that
> mt-Eve's mother had an identical mitochondrial genome, and likely
> several prior generations too. Mitochondria do have a high mutation rate
> but the genome is also tiny.
>
>>> But again, Mendel never said anything about mutations, using that
>>> term or any other. De Vries rediscovered Mendel *and* De Vries was a
>>> mutationist. There is no connection between those two things other
>>> than that De Vries entertained them both.
>>>
>>>>          There *is* a *system* (it is so obvious, because it works
>>>> on each and every species on this planet, each and every species
>>>> improves, even if it eventually goes extinct it *improves* before
>>>> that point) that makes things to better adapt, and the idea of
>>>> mutation cannot work, because mutations are harmful, in order to
>>>> have only useful mutations you would need to win lottery each and
>>>> every time, this, simply, doesn't work, although so many would like
>>>> it to work.
>>>
>>> Not true. Most mutations are neutral, some are harmful, and some are
>>> beneficial. Which ones are which depends quite a bit on the
>>> environment. And you completely ignore natural selection, which
>>> eliminates the harmful ones and fixes the beneficial ones.
>>
>>          Mutations cannot be eliminated by natural selection, there is
>> no time for it.
>
> That makes no sense. Of course there's time for it.

So, you will carry all the negative mutations along with one positive
for considerable amount of time, until natural selection somehow figures
out that you have one positive as well?

>> Since the waste majority of them are harmful, because they are
>> mutations, there is no place for them in the system, they are not
>> systematic, as you try to imply, they are pure errors, they have to be
>> eliminated.
>
> And that's gibberish.

Hm, in your world there are only positive mutations, or what? As I see
it, you get, by chance, one positive out of million negative. I don't
get how you are imagining all this? One positive, one negative? Or what?

>> This is like, imagine if there is life on Mars. We have our diseases,
>> they have their. If we come to Mars their diseases will not affect us,
>> just like pig diseases will not affect us, because those diseases work
>> in pig system, and our evolve in our system. Of course, there are
>> variations on a theme, pigs can be transporters of our disease, but
>> only if we are long time in contact, and things like that. In short,
>> for something to affect us it has to be part of our system.
>
> It's not clear what you mean by "system", and of course there are many
> diseases that began in other species and found their way into humans.
>
>> This "system", though, can go long time into the past, there is a bit
>> of fish, and who knows what, still in us, but it has to be a part of
>> us already. No aliens will find home in our body, because things
>> aren't so simple at all. Even Lego cubes, in order to build something,
>> has to be made per exact measures. No place for errors, there was no
>> "evolution by errors". When evolution started, it was a system. This
>> system improved, but its basis always stays the same. For example, no
>> matter how smart you are, you never can follow five points in space.
>> You will have absolutely no problems with four points, but five points
>> is too much. It is too much for humans, but this goes for amoeba also,
>> it can defend from four attackers, not from five. Why? Because all the
>> nervous systems are based on four pipelines, amoeba and human, doesn't
>> matter. There will *never* be a mutation that will give you five
>> pipelines. At least, this didn't happen so far, although it would give
>> you the immense advantage, like a difference between 8 and 16 bit
>> computers. Not because system with five pipelines wouldn't be
>> possible, it is because this system wouldn't be possible to implement
>> into body which revolves around four pipelines. So, this mutation
>> would be, actually, deadly. Just the same, all mutations are harmful,
>> because this is a complex interlaced system, no part works on its own,
>> every part has to have connections to other parts. You can dream about
>> your mutation working, but only because your dreams are childish, and
>> not thorough enough.
>
> And that takes gibberish to a new level. Four pipelines??

On 25.8.2023. 1:14, John Harshman wrote:
> It's true that the "mutations" De Vries noted were not actually
> mutations in the modern sense. Oenothera just has unusual genetics. But
> the idea was extended quickly to things we would call mutations. Still
> nothing to do with Mendel, and nothing relevant to the discussion.

The only thing you need mutations for is to explain the uniqueness of
humans. And this is what all those people tied to church wanted, and
nothing else.

On 8/24/23 4:32 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 24.8.2023. 23:05, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 8/24/23 1:28 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>> On 24.8.2023. 19:56, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 8/24/23 8:59 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>> On 24.8.2023. 15:34, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/23/23 11:07 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>> On 24.8.2023. 3:45, Glenn wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 7:49:29 PM UTC-7, John Harshman
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/19/23 7:28 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>          Ok, I figured this out. Definitely 20 years ago it is
>>>>>>>>>> known
>>>>>>>>>> that Genetic Mutation Theory was Mendel's (at least, this is
>>>>>>>>>> how this
>>>>>>>>>> came to me), but maybe somebody misunderstood it, because it
>>>>>>>>>> is based on
>>>>>>>>>> Mendel's work.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Conceivably there is some kind of translation problem here. But
>>>>>>>>> no, you
>>>>>>>>> are wrong. Mendel's theory has nothing to do with mutation. You
>>>>>>>>> admit at
>>>>>>>>> times that you're ignorant of evolutionary biology and
>>>>>>>>> genetics. In
>>>>>>>>> this, if in nothing else, you are correct.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ayala:
>>>>>>>> "The rediscovery in 1900 of Mendel's theory of heredity by the
>>>>>>>> Dutch botanist and geneticist Hugo de Vries and others led to an
>>>>>>>> emphasis on the role of heredity in evolution. De Vries proposed
>>>>>>>> a new theory of evolution known as mutationism, which
>>>>>>>> essentially did away with natural selection as a major
>>>>>>>> evolutionary process."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "The controversy between mutationists (also referred to at the
>>>>>>>> time as Mendelians) and biometricians approached a resolution in
>>>>>>>> the 1920s and 1930s through the theoretical work of geneticists."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/mutationism
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mario appears more accurate about history than you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>          Thanks very much. I know that at the time I was seeking
>>>>>>> info about it, it was called Genetic Mutation Theory in Wikipedia
>>>>>>> (I believe), and they wrote that all this originates from Mendel,
>>>>>>> and later this was "re-discovered" by three independent guys, in
>>>>>>> a matter of two months.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, the quote from Ayala says nothing of the sort. Note: "Mendel's
>>>>>> theory of heredity" says nothing about mutation. And "De Vries
>>>>>> proposed a *new* theory of evolution". The only connection between
>>>>>> Mendelism and mutationism is that De Vries subscribed to both of
>>>>>> them.
>>>>>
>>>>>          Hm, when I read it in the past it was said that de Vries
>>>>> rediscovered Mendel, and that he introduced the term 'mutations',
>>>>> and that was all. But Mendel was the originator and the only
>>>>> important person in the whole story back then, when I have read
>>>>> about it. Now, I will definitely not waste my time to research it
>>>>> further because the idea is utterly stupid, and the fact that the
>>>>> ones who follow the idea search for Adam and Eve only supports my
>>>>> view on this.
>>>>
>>>> I get the idea you're really talking about something else. What idea
>>>> is utterly stupid, and who searches for Adam and Eve?
>>>
>>>          Everybody. Everybody searches for this moment when some
>>> mutation happened, and like, the original owner of it would be,
>>> either Adam, or Eve. I cannot believe that you never heard those
>>> terms, they are all around. They are connected to mutations, because
>>> the Adam/Eve is the one who first got it.
>>
>> Wait, are you talking about mitochondrial Eve and Y chromosome Adam?
>> Those are just fanciful names attached to real things, the most recent
>> ancestor of everyone's mitochondria and the most recent ancestor of
>> all current Y chromosomes. Nothing to do with the biblical characters
>> of the same names. Nor are they attached to mutations. It's quite
>> likely that mt-Eve's mother had an identical mitochondrial genome, and
>> likely several prior generations too. Mitochondria do have a high
>> mutation rate but the genome is also tiny.
>>
>>>> But again, Mendel never said anything about mutations, using that
>>>> term or any other. De Vries rediscovered Mendel *and* De Vries was a
>>>> mutationist. There is no connection between those two things other
>>>> than that De Vries entertained them both.
>>>>
>>>>>          There *is* a *system* (it is so obvious, because it works
>>>>> on each and every species on this planet, each and every species
>>>>> improves, even if it eventually goes extinct it *improves* before
>>>>> that point) that makes things to better adapt, and the idea of
>>>>> mutation cannot work, because mutations are harmful, in order to
>>>>> have only useful mutations you would need to win lottery each and
>>>>> every time, this, simply, doesn't work, although so many would like
>>>>> it to work.
>>>>
>>>> Not true. Most mutations are neutral, some are harmful, and some are
>>>> beneficial. Which ones are which depends quite a bit on the
>>>> environment. And you completely ignore natural selection, which
>>>> eliminates the harmful ones and fixes the beneficial ones.
>>>
>>>          Mutations cannot be eliminated by natural selection, there
>>> is no time for it.
>>
>> That makes no sense. Of course there's time for it.
>
>         So, you will carry all the negative mutations along with one
> positive for considerable amount of time, until natural selection
> somehow figures out that you have one positive as well?

Natural selection doesn't figure out anything. Why must you
anthropomorphize everything? Now, the fitness of a particular genome is
composed of the sum (or more complicated function) of the fitnesses of
all the genome's various parts. So if a beneficial allele at some locus
is accompanied by deleterious ones at many other loci, that genome won't
have a very high fitness. But if that were generally true, populations
would become extinct.

>>> Since the waste majority of them are harmful, because they are
>>> mutations, there is no place for them in the system, they are not
>>> systematic, as you try to imply, they are pure errors, they have to
>>> be eliminated.
>>
>> And that's gibberish.
>
>         Hm, in your world there are only positive mutations, or what?
> As I see it, you get, by chance, one positive out of million negative. I
> don't get how you are imagining all this? One positive, one negative? Or
> what?

No. But that's a number you just made up, and let's recall that both
deleterious and beneficial mutations are fairly rare, so anyone is
unlikely to have very many of either, perhaps not even one. Thus the
mutations that do happen can be exposed to selection individually.

>>> This is like, imagine if there is life on Mars. We have our diseases,
>>> they have their. If we come to Mars their diseases will not affect
>>> us, just like pig diseases will not affect us, because those diseases
>>> work in pig system, and our evolve in our system. Of course, there
>>> are variations on a theme, pigs can be transporters of our disease,
>>> but only if we are long time in contact, and things like that. In
>>> short, for something to affect us it has to be part of our system.
>>
>> It's not clear what you mean by "system", and of course there are many
>> diseases that began in other species and found their way into humans.
>>
>>> This "system", though, can go long time into the past, there is a bit
>>> of fish, and who knows what, still in us, but it has to be a part of
>>> us already. No aliens will find home in our body, because things
>>> aren't so simple at all. Even Lego cubes, in order to build
>>> something, has to be made per exact measures. No place for errors,
>>> there was no "evolution by errors". When evolution started, it was a
>>> system. This system improved, but its basis always stays the same.
>>> For example, no matter how smart you are, you never can follow five
>>> points in space. You will have absolutely no problems with four
>>> points, but five points is too much. It is too much for humans, but
>>> this goes for amoeba also, it can defend from four attackers, not
>>> from five. Why? Because all the nervous systems are based on four
>>> pipelines, amoeba and human, doesn't matter. There will *never* be a
>>> mutation that will give you five pipelines. At least, this didn't
>>> happen so far, although it would give you the immense advantage, like
>>> a difference between 8 and 16 bit computers. Not because system with
>>> five pipelines wouldn't be possible, it is because this system
>>> wouldn't be possible to implement into body which revolves around
>>> four pipelines. So, this mutation would be, actually, deadly. Just
>>> the same, all mutations are harmful, because this is a complex
>>> interlaced system, no part works on its own, every part has to have
>>> connections to other parts. You can dream about your mutation
>>> working, but only because your dreams are childish, and not thorough
>>> enough.
>>
>> And that takes gibberish to a new level. Four pipelines??
>
>         This is why reading books doesn't work. I read articles, not
> books. That way you learn much more, but for sure, if you read books you
> are expert in knowing that particular book. I am not interested in
> selected books, I am scooping knowledge, in various ways.
>         This is why we have so many experts in one particular book
> (Bible), talking stupidity all the time.
>         See, just try to follow the position of five objects around
> you. This is so easy. But, of course, it isn't easy for you, first you
> need to read it in some book.
>         And, my advice, this is well known thing. The next time five
> youngsters approach to you asking to buy drugs or weapons (or anything
> illegal), I'll tell you a secret, these are young policemen in disguise.
> Yes, there are always five of them. The reason? They know this trick.
> And you don't know it, it isn't written in any book that you've read.