A Fitness & exercise forum. FitnessBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » FitnessBanter.com forum » Fitness & Exercise » Walking in the UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Corbett - Breabag TR



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #291  
Old August 10th 06, 02:54 PM posted to uk.rec.walking
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,178
Default Protection of the public

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 13:19:42 +0100, wrote:

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 12:34:40 +0100, wrote:

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 11:27:29 +0100, Mike Clark
wrote:

In message
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 12:41:39 +0100, Mike Clark
wrote:

In message
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 19:37:00 +0100, Mike Clark
wrote:

In message
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 13:02:24 +0100, Mike Clark
wrote:

In message
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 11:48:36 +0100, Mike Clark
wrote:

In message
wrote:

So if everything is natural your whole argument falls to bits because
people take decisions that are completely different to each other so
you cannot claim that evolution is a pathway that affects all beings
from any species in the same way.


You obviously don't understand evolution or what I've written.

You obviously don't understand what you wrote yourself.


However did you come to a conclusion that I would want to claim that
"evolution is a pathway that affects all beings from any species in the
same way"?


Absolute nonsense.

Oh I see you came to wrong the conclusion because you were spouting
absolute nonsense. Of course, that explains it.

I see. All you can do is try to twist words around :-(


No I asked a clear question and you made a statement that answered the
question.


No I was referring to the question - and you know it.



Evolution can alter members of the same species in different ways.

Are you invoking a Lamarkian explanation?

I'm not invoking anything.

Your statement uses "evolution" as "altering" members of a species, and
that sounds to me very much like a Lamarkian rather than a Darwinian
interpretation.


I'm not invoking anything; I'm just saying what happens.


But members of a species are not "altered" by evolution.

Of course they are.

Absolute nonsense.


Not nonsense at all. If a species is altered by evolution then
members of the species must be subject to very small alterations as
time goes on.

Evolution can follow different pathways determined by separation and
result in different traits in a single species.


The process is one of selection of individuals who already differ in
traits.


Please expand.


That is a Lamarkian explanation and it does not describe the process
properly. Giraffes didn't get longer necks because they stretched
them more and this adaptation was then re-encoded in the germline.
The counter explanation is the Darwinian explanation whereby there
is diversity amongst individuals but selection only allows some
individuals to survive and to breed.


See above.



See above



See above.


For evolution to happen it helps if only a selective proportion of
individuals in a group survive. Disease, predation and competition
are some of the selective pressures that contribute to evolution.

Evolution happens all the time to all.


Absolute nonsense.


Not nonsense at all. See above.




Darwin realised that your domestic cat or dog looks the way it does
because humans have selectively allowed some animals to survive and
breed based on traits that humans found attractive (the others were
killed or allowed to die without passing on their traits).

This is really boring stuff. Where did you learn this? Primary
school?


I'm trying to find the lowest common denominator of understanding
between us.


Well you'll have to raise your sights.

It isn't made easy by your refusal to expand on, or explain,
your particular use of words.


Your lack of comprehension is not something I can do much about.


However it is an attitude I'm well used
to from some petulant teenagers.

Perhaps they need a better teacher.





[snip]

Perhaps you could try a course at night school :-))


Sorry I already am teaching on enough courses without offering to
teach at night school as well.

I might have known.


Yes especially if you'd paid attention to my sigs, email addresses
and other statements in my postings.

I don't bother with sigs. They can be faked.

Are you some sort of professor at Cambridge?

Google is your friend. The clue is that I'm the Mike Clark who is also
into mountain climbing, cycling, skiing, immunology, antibody
engineering, and of course campaigning on various issues such as
conservation, access etc.

So what? Nothing better else to do?


Such as?


Condemn the dishonesty of the fake conservationists and try not to be
such a smart****.


He sounds like a real dick.

BTW. Are you using university time and computers to access
newsgroups?


I seem to remember Colin Davidson at Cambridge did the same.


LOL should be fun finding out.....!


Yes, and could probably be regarded as more conservation dishonesty.












%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%





Malcolm Ogilvie of
on the suggestion he
copied Konters book.


" You are making yourself look foolish. The book on Grebes by Andre
Konter that was published in 2001 was entitled 'Grebes of OUR World'.
My book, published only this month, is entitled 'Grebes of THE World',
and as such is entirely different. The similarity of the front covers
is quite coincidental. My book IS the first ever devoted to Grebes.

Malcolm Ogilivie."

...............................................

KONTER (Andre) - Grebes of our World. Visiting all Species on Five
Continents - 2001, 8vo. 187pp. Colour photographs, line drawings. A
description of the 22 species of grebes, their natural history, ecology
and behaviour.


Grebes of the World
Malcolm Ogilvie
The book starts with an authoritative introduction on the origin,
evolution, distribution, physiology and behaviour of grebes, followed by
accounts of each of the 22 species


Malcolm it looks as though Konter might dispute that statement!


Rob


"Yes, indeed, what I said was wrong and I apologise to Andre Konter,


Malcolm Ogilvie"

................................................

The error I made was in a chatty piece about the actual writing of the
book which I posted to a non-birdwatching newsgroup


M Ogilvie


You clearly and explicitly stated that yours was the first book on the
subject, in the full knowledge that the topic had recently been
covered very thoroughly in Konter's book.
The facts speak for themselves. You are a liar who only had the grace
to own up when you had been found out - you even persisted in giving
the impression that you were the first to write it *after* I had drawn
attention to your untruth. Your apology comes a little late.
You do yourself no credit in introducing other, wholly irrelevant
matters in order to deflect criticism from your behaviour. Shame on
you.

Paul

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk
  #292  
Old August 10th 06, 03:37 PM posted to uk.rec.walking
Mike Clark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 365
Default Protection of the public

In message
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 11:27:29 +0100, Mike Clark
wrote:

In message
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 12:41:39 +0100, Mike Clark
wrote:

In message
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 19:37:00 +0100, Mike Clark
wrote:

In message
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 13:02:24 +0100, Mike Clark
wrote:

In message
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 11:48:36 +0100, Mike Clark
wrote:

In message
wrote:

So if everything is natural your whole argument falls to bits because
people take decisions that are completely different to each other so
you cannot claim that evolution is a pathway that affects all beings
from any species in the same way.


You obviously don't understand evolution or what I've written.

You obviously don't understand what you wrote yourself.


However did you come to a conclusion that I would want to claim that
"evolution is a pathway that affects all beings from any species in the
same way"?


Absolute nonsense.

Oh I see you came to wrong the conclusion because you were spouting
absolute nonsense. Of course, that explains it.

I see. All you can do is try to twist words around :-(


No I asked a clear question and you made a statement that answered the
question.


No I was referring to the question - and you know it.



Evolution can alter members of the same species in different ways.

Are you invoking a Lamarkian explanation?

I'm not invoking anything.

Your statement uses "evolution" as "altering" members of a species, and
that sounds to me very much like a Lamarkian rather than a Darwinian
interpretation.


I'm not invoking anything; I'm just saying what happens.


But members of a species are not "altered" by evolution.

Of course they are.


Absolute nonsense.


Not nonsense at all. If a species is altered by evolution then
members of the species must be subject to very small alterations as
time goes on.


Individuals of a species show variation, one from another. For species
that reproduce asexually that variation is limited to a slow rate of
mutation of the germline, but for species that have adopted sexual
reproduction that variation is enhanced by a reassortment of the genes
contributed by two individuals at each generation.

Evolution happens because only some individuals get to survive long
enough to spawn the next generation.

Variation exists first and it is the selection of individuals from that
variation that gives rise to evolution.

The critical aspect of Evolution is that it is essentially a product of
"natural selection" not natural alteration".

Evolution can follow different pathways determined by separation
and result in different traits in a single species.


The process is one of selection of individuals who already differ in
traits.


Please expand.


E.g. If you have a population that consists of individuals that have
alternative alleles at a given genetic locus which we'll call a and A,
then the population consists of individuals who might be aa aA and AA in
genotype. Imagine that the population consists of 100s of individuals
but an event separates them into two groups. If in one group selection
means that individuals with a are more successful, then that population
eventually tends towards aa, whilst if in the other population A is more
successful then that population tends towards AA. ie phenotypically they
become different in makeup, but the differences were selected from a
pre-existing natural variation.

Obviously if you consider many more loci the variation becomes greater.

e.g. a mating between two individuals who are aAbB x aAbB can give aabb,
aabB, aaBB, aAbb, aAbB, aABB, AAbb, AAbB, AABB amongst the offspring

So all these individuals would differ in traits and if only some of them
survived to breed to the next generation dependent on selection for the
traits you would see a change in the genes surviving within the species
as a whole.


That is a Lamarkian explanation and it does not describe the
process properly. Giraffes didn't get longer necks because they
stretched them more and this adaptation was then re-encoded in
the germline. The counter explanation is the Darwinian
explanation whereby there is diversity amongst individuals but
selection only allows some individuals to survive and to breed.


See above.



See above



See above.


Also see above.


For evolution to happen it helps if only a selective proportion
of individuals in a group survive. Disease, predation and
competition are some of the selective pressures that contribute
to evolution.

Evolution happens all the time to all.


Absolute nonsense.


Not nonsense at all. See above.


See above.




Darwin realised that your domestic cat or dog looks the way it
does because humans have selectively allowed some animals to
survive and breed based on traits that humans found attractive
(the others were killed or allowed to die without passing on
their traits).

This is really boring stuff. Where did you learn this? Primary
school?


I'm trying to find the lowest common denominator of understanding
between us.


Well you'll have to raise your sights.

It isn't made easy by your refusal to expand on, or explain, your
particular use of words.


Your lack of comprehension is not something I can do much about.


I'm sure you could if you tried.


However it is an attitude I'm well used to from some petulant
teenagers.

Perhaps they need a better teacher.


Or perhaps some of them simply need a different teacher or style of
teaching?

It's always difficult to please all the people all the time.





[snip]

Perhaps you could try a course at night school :-))


Sorry I already am teaching on enough courses without offering to
teach at night school as well.

I might have known.


Yes especially if you'd paid attention to my sigs, email addresses
and other statements in my postings.

I don't bother with sigs. They can be faked.

Are you some sort of professor at Cambridge?

Google is your friend. The clue is that I'm the Mike Clark who is also
into mountain climbing, cycling, skiing, immunology, antibody
engineering, and of course campaigning on various issues such as
conservation, access etc.

So what? Nothing better else to do?


Such as?


Condemn the dishonesty of the fake conservationists and try not to be
such a smart****.


I ask questions, I gather information, I engage in discussions and I
reach personal decisions. I'm prepared to listen to ideas of others and
if I find them convincing I will modify my ideas and opinions.

Whilst I support conservation and campaigning organisations I don't
agree with everything they say and do and sometimes I therefor end up
opposing them on some issues. However my opinion at the moment is that
on balance most of the organisations I support do more good than harm.
You have acknowledged that humans are fallible so fallibility is not
something I choose to condemn too harshly.


BTW. Are you using university time and computers to access
newsgroups?


What is the significance of your questions?


I seem to remember Colin Davidson at Cambridge did the same.



What is the significance of this statement?

Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
" || _`\,_ |__\ \ | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"
  #295  
Old August 10th 06, 05:34 PM posted to uk.rec.walking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default Protection of the public

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 15:00:19 +0100, Philip Powell
wrote:

In message , Mike
Clark writes
In message
wrote:
BTW. Are you using university time and computers to access
newsgroups?


What is the significance of your questions?


I seem to remember Colin Davidson at Cambridge did the same.



What is the significance of this statement?


It means he knows he has lost the argument so it now attempting bully
boy tactics.


It was a simple, straightforward question. You don't even need to be
too bright to answer it.

I'd put him in your killfile as most of us probably have - there is no
point in arguing with a closed mind [though I use the term "mind"
loosely].


Which is quite appropriate for your loose mind!








%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%





Malcolm Ogilvie of
on the suggestion he
copied Konters book.


" You are making yourself look foolish. The book on Grebes by Andre
Konter that was published in 2001 was entitled 'Grebes of OUR World'.
My book, published only this month, is entitled 'Grebes of THE World',
and as such is entirely different. The similarity of the front covers
is quite coincidental. My book IS the first ever devoted to Grebes.

Malcolm Ogilivie."

...............................................

KONTER (Andre) - Grebes of our World. Visiting all Species on Five
Continents - 2001, 8vo. 187pp. Colour photographs, line drawings. A
description of the 22 species of grebes, their natural history, ecology
and behaviour.


Grebes of the World
Malcolm Ogilvie
The book starts with an authoritative introduction on the origin,
evolution, distribution, physiology and behaviour of grebes, followed by
accounts of each of the 22 species


Malcolm it looks as though Konter might dispute that statement!


Rob


"Yes, indeed, what I said was wrong and I apologise to Andre Konter,


Malcolm Ogilvie"

................................................

The error I made was in a chatty piece about the actual writing of the
book which I posted to a non-birdwatching newsgroup


M Ogilvie



You clearly and explicitly stated that yours was the first book on the
subject, in the full knowledge that the topic had recently been
covered very thoroughly in Konter's book.
The facts speak for themselves. You are a liar who only had the grace
to own up when you had been found out - you even persisted in giving
the impression that you were the first to write it *after* I had drawn
attention to your untruth. Your apology comes a little late.
You do yourself no credit in introducing other, wholly irrelevant
matters in order to deflect criticism from your behaviour. Shame on
you.

Paul

  #296  
Old August 10th 06, 05:35 PM posted to uk.rec.walking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default Protection of the public

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 15:16:44 +0100, Mike Clark
wrote:

In message
Philip Powell wrote:

In message , Mike
Clark writes
In message
wrote:
BTW. Are you using university time and computers to access
newsgroups?

What is the significance of your questions?


I seem to remember Colin Davidson at Cambridge did the same.



What is the significance of this statement?


It means he knows he has lost the argument so it now attempting bully
boy tactics.

I'd put him in your killfile as most of us probably have - there is no
point in arguing with a closed mind [though I use the term "mind"
loosely].


Advice followed.

Mike


Phew, that was close.










%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%





Malcolm Ogilvie of
on the suggestion he
copied Konters book.


" You are making yourself look foolish. The book on Grebes by Andre
Konter that was published in 2001 was entitled 'Grebes of OUR World'.
My book, published only this month, is entitled 'Grebes of THE World',
and as such is entirely different. The similarity of the front covers
is quite coincidental. My book IS the first ever devoted to Grebes.

Malcolm Ogilivie."

...............................................

KONTER (Andre) - Grebes of our World. Visiting all Species on Five
Continents - 2001, 8vo. 187pp. Colour photographs, line drawings. A
description of the 22 species of grebes, their natural history, ecology
and behaviour.


Grebes of the World
Malcolm Ogilvie
The book starts with an authoritative introduction on the origin,
evolution, distribution, physiology and behaviour of grebes, followed by
accounts of each of the 22 species


Malcolm it looks as though Konter might dispute that statement!


Rob


"Yes, indeed, what I said was wrong and I apologise to Andre Konter,


Malcolm Ogilvie"

................................................

The error I made was in a chatty piece about the actual writing of the
book which I posted to a non-birdwatching newsgroup


M Ogilvie



You clearly and explicitly stated that yours was the first book on the
subject, in the full knowledge that the topic had recently been
covered very thoroughly in Konter's book.
The facts speak for themselves. You are a liar who only had the grace
to own up when you had been found out - you even persisted in giving
the impression that you were the first to write it *after* I had drawn
attention to your untruth. Your apology comes a little late.
You do yourself no credit in introducing other, wholly irrelevant
matters in order to deflect criticism from your behaviour. Shame on
you.

Paul

  #297  
Old August 10th 06, 05:55 PM posted to uk.rec.walking
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,178
Default Protection of the public

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 14:37:43 +0100, Mike Clark
wrote:

In message
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 11:27:29 +0100, Mike Clark
wrote:

In message
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 12:41:39 +0100, Mike Clark
wrote:

In message
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 19:37:00 +0100, Mike Clark
wrote:

In message
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 13:02:24 +0100, Mike Clark
wrote:

In message
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 11:48:36 +0100, Mike Clark
wrote:

In message
wrote:

So if everything is natural your whole argument falls to bits because
people take decisions that are completely different to each other so
you cannot claim that evolution is a pathway that affects all beings
from any species in the same way.


You obviously don't understand evolution or what I've written.

You obviously don't understand what you wrote yourself.


However did you come to a conclusion that I would want to claim that
"evolution is a pathway that affects all beings from any species in the
same way"?


Absolute nonsense.

Oh I see you came to wrong the conclusion because you were spouting
absolute nonsense. Of course, that explains it.

I see. All you can do is try to twist words around :-(


No I asked a clear question and you made a statement that answered the
question.


No I was referring to the question - and you know it.



Evolution can alter members of the same species in different ways.

Are you invoking a Lamarkian explanation?

I'm not invoking anything.

Your statement uses "evolution" as "altering" members of a species, and
that sounds to me very much like a Lamarkian rather than a Darwinian
interpretation.


I'm not invoking anything; I'm just saying what happens.


But members of a species are not "altered" by evolution.

Of course they are.

Absolute nonsense.


Not nonsense at all. If a species is altered by evolution then
members of the species must be subject to very small alterations as
time goes on.


Individuals of a species show variation, one from another.


I would agree with that.

For species
that reproduce asexually that variation is limited to a slow rate of
mutation of the germline, but for species that have adopted sexual
reproduction that variation is enhanced by a reassortment of the genes
contributed by two individuals at each generation.


But surely an alteration in behviour during part of an individual's
lifetime is an important factor in evolution.


Evolution happens because only some individuals get to survive long
enough to spawn the next generation.


I agree.

Variation exists first and it is the selection of individuals from that
variation that gives rise to evolution.


Sure but that's where the different path of evolution come in.

The critical aspect of Evolution is that it is essentially a product of
"natural selection" not natural alteration".


I don't agree. Behavioural alteration throughout the lifetimes of
individuals must play an important part in evolution.

Evolution can follow different pathways determined by separation
and result in different traits in a single species.


The process is one of selection of individuals who already differ in
traits.


Please expand.


E.g. If you have a population that consists of individuals that have
alternative alleles at a given genetic locus which we'll call a and A,
then the population consists of individuals who might be aa aA and AA in
genotype. Imagine that the population consists of 100s of individuals
but an event separates them into two groups. If in one group selection
means that individuals with a are more successful, then that population
eventually tends towards aa, whilst if in the other population A is more
successful then that population tends towards AA. ie phenotypically they
become different in makeup, but the differences were selected from a
pre-existing natural variation.

Obviously if you consider many more loci the variation becomes greater.

e.g. a mating between two individuals who are aAbB x aAbB can give aabb,
aabB, aaBB, aAbb, aAbB, aABB, AAbb, AAbB, AABB amongst the offspring


That sounds pretty basic A level biology, but what I'm getting at is
alterations during individuals lifetimes can significantly change the
trends and traits so seperation in this way can alter the evolutionary
pathway for the future.

So all these individuals would differ in traits and if only some of them
survived to breed to the next generation dependent on selection for the
traits you would see a change in the genes surviving within the species
as a whole.


I see there's an "if" qualifier in there :-)



That is a Lamarkian explanation and it does not describe the
process properly. Giraffes didn't get longer necks because they
stretched them more and this adaptation was then re-encoded in
the germline. The counter explanation is the Darwinian
explanation whereby there is diversity amongst individuals but
selection only allows some individuals to survive and to breed.


See above.



See above



See above.


Also see above.


For evolution to happen it helps if only a selective proportion
of individuals in a group survive. Disease, predation and
competition are some of the selective pressures that contribute
to evolution.

Evolution happens all the time to all.


Absolute nonsense.


Not nonsense at all. See above.


See above.




Darwin realised that your domestic cat or dog looks the way it
does because humans have selectively allowed some animals to
survive and breed based on traits that humans found attractive
(the others were killed or allowed to die without passing on
their traits).

This is really boring stuff. Where did you learn this? Primary
school?


I'm trying to find the lowest common denominator of understanding
between us.


Well you'll have to raise your sights.

It isn't made easy by your refusal to expand on, or explain, your
particular use of words.


Your lack of comprehension is not something I can do much about.


I'm sure you could if you tried.


Too much like hard work :-)



However it is an attitude I'm well used to from some petulant
teenagers.

Perhaps they need a better teacher.


Or perhaps some of them simply need a different teacher or style of
teaching?

It's always difficult to please all the people all the time.


Or some of the people some of the time?






[snip]

Perhaps you could try a course at night school :-))


Sorry I already am teaching on enough courses without offering to
teach at night school as well.

I might have known.


Yes especially if you'd paid attention to my sigs, email addresses
and other statements in my postings.

I don't bother with sigs. They can be faked.

Are you some sort of professor at Cambridge?

Google is your friend. The clue is that I'm the Mike Clark who is also
into mountain climbing, cycling, skiing, immunology, antibody
engineering, and of course campaigning on various issues such as
conservation, access etc.

So what? Nothing better else to do?


Such as?


Condemn the dishonesty of the fake conservationists and try not to be
such a smart****.


I ask questions, I gather information, I engage in discussions and I
reach personal decisions. I'm prepared to listen to ideas of others and
if I find them convincing I will modify my ideas and opinions.


So do I but I've yet to find anyone who can convince me that the
conservation industry is honest.


Whilst I support conservation and campaigning organisations I don't
agree with everything they say and do and sometimes I therefor end up
opposing them on some issues. However my opinion at the moment is that
on balance most of the organisations I support do more good than harm.


I'm on the other side of the fence and in my opinion they do more harm
than good.


You have acknowledged that humans are fallible so fallibility is not
something I choose to condemn too harshly.


So you wouldn't condemn someone that broke into your house and stole
you skis, or the like?



BTW. Are you using university time and computers to access
newsgroups?


What is the significance of your questions?


I seem to remember Colin Davidson at Cambridge did the same.



What is the significance of this statement?


I think that could be regarded as a bit fallable.

If you were doing this, could it not be regarded as dishonest?

After all, it would be your employer's time and energy you'd be
consuming for personal use.


Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk
  #299  
Old August 10th 06, 06:21 PM posted to uk.rec.walking,demon.local
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default Protection of the public

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 16:57:06 +0100, wrote:

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 15:00:19 +0100, Philip Powell
wrote:

In message , Mike
Clark writes
In message
wrote:
BTW. Are you using university time and computers to access
newsgroups?

What is the significance of your questions?


I seem to remember Colin Davidson at Cambridge did the same.



What is the significance of this statement?


It means he knows he has lost the argument so it now attempting bully
boy tactics.


Not at all. I think it's a perfectly fair question.


I'd put him in your killfile as most of us probably have - there is no
point in arguing with a closed mind [though I use the term "mind"
loosely].


Easy way out?


Google reveals powell is the little ****** who tried to create his own
web group for birds/conservation..FAILED as no one wanted to follow
the little twerp, and he has been sulking ever since. He also trolls
the newsgroups trying to get them moderated.

http://tinyurl.com/lmhlc
What a dick.










%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%





Malcolm Ogilvie of on the suggestion he
copied Konters book.


" You are making yourself look foolish. The book on Grebes by Andre
Konter that was published in 2001 was entitled 'Grebes of OUR World'.
My book, published only this month, is entitled 'Grebes of THE World',
and as such is entirely different. The similarity of the front covers
is quite coincidental. My book IS the first ever devoted to Grebes.

Malcolm Ogilivie."

...............................................

KONTER (Andre) - Grebes of our World. Visiting all Species on Five
Continents - 2001, 8vo. 187pp. Colour photographs, line drawings. A
description of the 22 species of grebes, their natural history, ecology
and behaviour.


Grebes of the World
Malcolm Ogilvie
The book starts with an authoritative introduction on the origin,
evolution, distribution, physiology and behaviour of grebes, followed by
accounts of each of the 22 species


Malcolm it looks as though Konter might dispute that statement!


Rob


"Yes, indeed, what I said was wrong and I apologise to Andre Konter,


Malcolm Ogilvie"

................................................

The error I made was in a chatty piece about the actual writing of the
book which I posted to a non-birdwatching newsgroup


M Ogilvie



You clearly and explicitly stated that yours was the first book on the
subject, in the full knowledge that the topic had recently been
covered very thoroughly in Konter's book.
The facts speak for themselves. You are a liar who only had the grace
to own up when you had been found out - you even persisted in giving
the impression that you were the first to write it *after* I had drawn
attention to your untruth. Your apology comes a little late.
You do yourself no credit in introducing other, wholly irrelevant
matters in order to deflect criticism from your behaviour. Shame on
you.

Paul

  #300  
Old August 10th 06, 07:32 PM posted to uk.rec.walking
Mike Clark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 365
Default Protection of the public

In message
wrote:

Individuals of a species show variation, one from another.


I would agree with that.

For species that reproduce asexually that variation is limited to a
slow rate of mutation of the germline, but for species that have
adopted sexual reproduction that variation is enhanced by a
reassortment of the genes contributed by two individuals at each
generation.


But surely an alteration in behviour during part of an individual's
lifetime is an important factor in evolution.


How does an alteration in behaviour get encoded in the genes and passed
on to the next generation?


Evolution happens because only some individuals get to survive long
enough to spawn the next generation.


I agree.

Variation exists first and it is the selection of individuals from that
variation that gives rise to evolution.


Sure but that's where the different path of evolution come in.

The critical aspect of Evolution is that it is essentially a product of
"natural selection" not natural alteration".


I don't agree. Behavioural alteration throughout the lifetimes of
individuals must play an important part in evolution.


Behavioural alteration can't be re-encoded in the genes.

However genes that already exist that give rise to a preponderance of
particular types of behaviour might be selected through behaviour.

E.g. If you have a population that consists of individuals that have
alternative alleles at a given genetic locus which we'll call a and
A, then the population consists of individuals who might be aa aA and
AA in genotype. Imagine that the population consists of 100s of
individuals but an event separates them into two groups. If in one
group selection means that individuals with a are more successful,
then that population eventually tends towards aa, whilst if in the
other population A is more successful then that population tends
towards AA. ie phenotypically they become different in makeup, but
the differences were selected from a pre-existing natural variation.

Obviously if you consider many more loci the variation becomes greater.

e.g. a mating between two individuals who are aAbB x aAbB can give aabb,
aabB, aaBB, aAbb, aAbB, aABB, AAbb, AAbB, AABB amongst the offspring


That sounds pretty basic A level biology, but what I'm getting at is
alterations during individuals lifetimes can significantly change the
trends and traits so seperation in this way can alter the evolutionary
pathway for the future.


So how does the behavioural alteration during an animals lifetime get
encoded in the genes for the next generation?

For example if you gave a sperm donation today, and then tomorrow you
suddenly changed your attitude to conservation organisations, would your
sperm donated at a later date show different genes that encoded that new
behaviour and would thus give rise to children that had a different
attitude to conservation organisations?

So all these individuals would differ in traits and if only some of
them survived to breed to the next generation dependent on selection
for the traits you would see a change in the genes surviving within
the species as a whole.


I see there's an "if" qualifier in there :-)


Yes that's because it isn't clear that evolution can happen as
easily when most individuals survive to help populate the next
generation. Evolution probably happens more quickly when selective
pressures are most severe.

[snip]

Condemn the dishonesty of the fake conservationists and try not to be
such a smart****.


I ask questions, I gather information, I engage in discussions and I
reach personal decisions. I'm prepared to listen to ideas of others and
if I find them convincing I will modify my ideas and opinions.


So do I but I've yet to find anyone who can convince me that the
conservation industry is honest.


Well for me it is one of choosing between the many alternatives on a
balance of acceptability. Am I more convinced of the righteousness of
companies like Exxon or of organisations such as the WWF?

Do I trust governments in setting policy on treatment of individuals or
would I prefer to help Amnesty International lobby for better human
rights?


Whilst I support conservation and campaigning organisations I don't
agree with everything they say and do and sometimes I therefor end
up opposing them on some issues. However my opinion at the moment is
that on balance most of the organisations I support do more good
than harm.


I'm on the other side of the fence and in my opinion they do more harm
than good.


Yes but if you were to succeed in weakening the conservation
organisations who is more likely to benefit? Perhaps you'd end up
strengthening the more extreme organisations that engage in even more
pollution and arbitrary killing. Wouldn't you regard that as
counter productive.

[snip]

BTW. Are you using university time and computers to access
newsgroups?


What is the significance of your questions?


I seem to remember Colin Davidson at Cambridge did the same.



What is the significance of this statement?


I think that could be regarded as a bit fallable.

If you were doing this, could it not be regarded as dishonest?


The newsgroups are hosted on an official server called

nntp-serv.cam.ac.uk

This server is provided by the University and run by the University for
members of the University to use.

uk.rec.walking is one of the groups hosted on that server.

Why would you think that it is dishonest to access groups that are
locally hosted on an official University computer?


After all, it would be your employer's time and energy you'd be
consuming for personal use.


In addition to having an acceptable use policy that allows for personal
use of facilities it seems to me that it could be argued that in
discussing in public, ideas and concepts, that are related to my
particular field of research and teaching, that this discussion falls
well within the terms of my appointment to office.

Employment of academic staff within the University is principally
governed by Statute U 1 which states

"This Statute and an Ordinances made under this Statute shall be
construed in every case to give effect to the following guiding
principles, that is to say:

(a) to ensure that members of the academic staff have freedom within
the law to question and test received wisdom, and to put forward new
ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions, without placing
themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges;
(b) to enable the University to provide education, promote learning,
and engage in research efficiently and economically;
(c) to apply the principles of justice and fairness"



Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
" || _`\,_ |__\ \ | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Corbett - Creag Uchdag Lindsay Walking in the UK 0 May 20th 06 10:12 AM
Corbett - Am Bathach Lindsay Walking in the UK 9 April 8th 06 10:18 AM
Corbett - Braigh nan Uamhachan -Loch Eil Lindsay Walking in the UK 0 March 10th 06 09:24 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 FitnessBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.