RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (14) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >   
  Topic: JAD was banned again from UD..., Can we let him post here again?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5378
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2006,18:23   

No, it's even worse than that.

Conversations with DAJ go something like this....

DAJ: blah blah PEH. (quotes self repeatedly)
AnyoneElse: here's evidence that refutes your hypothesis.
DAJ: No one even dares to face my heresies! (quotes self repeatedly)
AE: Um, DAJ, I just DID.  If you think I'm wrong, explain why.
DAJ: EnyoneAlse has banned me like everywhere else!  I'm banned!  Dilliam Wembski sucks.  Elsy Wesberry sucks!  I'm the heretic that will be proven right someday! (quotes self repeatedly.)
AE: DAJ, you're not banned, could you just address my point?
DAJ: I am unrefuted!  Nobody dares print my heresies!  Spravid Dinger is the wart on a donkey's ass!  Your mother probably did him for pity!  (quotes self repeatedly)
AE:  Dr. Davison, you have said something in your PEH for which I've shown contrary evidence.  Could you please stop calling names and address the issue?
DAJ: Why you little mental midgets!  I knew you couldn't refute my PEH!  Elsey Wesberry and Spravid Dinger are probably f@#$ing each other right now!  You should join them, you're a ^&*%%$ and you probably $*(%$#@!, you blah blah blah....(quotes self repeatedly)
AE: Ok, you're gone, #######.
DAJ on ISCID: See?  Enybody Alse banned me for my heresies!  They are just like Spravid Dinger and Esley Wellsberry! They can't refute my PEH, so they ban me so the truth can't be told! (quotes self repeatedly)

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5378
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2006,18:26   

With all due respect to the good Rev. Dr....

There's no WAY DAJ could go that long without quoting himself three or four times in one post.

Plus, he hasn't mentioned f'ing or reversed the letters in anyone's name.  He hasn't insulted Wes, DaveScot, or Dembski.  DAJ can't go two sentences without doing that.

And this quote...

Quote
He is no way I dare say so arrogant as darwinists and communists to call his facts and very originally thoughts to be "scientifically proved".


Clinches it.  If it were DAJ, he'd be screaming about having PROVED whatever it is he's yammering about.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2006,18:52   

But, seriously, has anyone ever seen apples give birth to horses?

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2006,21:03   

Plus I don't see Davison successfully suppressing that nerve disorder that makes him say 'I love it so!' at the end of every message.

Quote
But, seriously, has anyone ever seen apples give birth to horses?


If they did, then why do we still have apples?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2006,14:59   

Steviepinhead
Quote

It doesn't take a whole bunch of mutations to have a major impact on phenotypic patterns--it takes relatively small changes to signalling genes.


Vow - it seems you discovered America. Is this the "secret wisdom" from your extraordinary book of evo-devo?

Btw on talkreason.org the Carrolls book is marked as book "For the grown-up layman" .

So you are a layman very impressed by first book you read on hox genes. This partly explains your arrogance towards Davison and me. If you will have more knowledges  you would have appreciate more Davison Manifesto and his original conception of evolution.

You would also have read more carrefuly my remarks on mimicry of Papilio Dardanus and Nijhout genetic explanations of the phenomenon. Knowing more on topic you would realise that mimicry is no way to be reduced to genes and genetic backrounds and their regulation but to the fact that one species resemble other one to allegedly protect itself (however it is more claimed as proved)  and how this resemblance could be achieved by random mutation and natural selection. This process is hardly explainable by neodarwinism - even prominent contemporary neodarwinists resort in case of Papilio Dardanus to conceptions like "transvestite evolutionary step" with subsequent "genetic effect of large magnitude".

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/taxome/jim/Mim2/dardanus.html

http://www.nbb.cornell.edu/neurobio/BioNB420/Dardanus2003.pdf

Or even trying to explain hypothetical phantasy of evolution of P.dardanus from P.phorcas with dimorphic non-mimetic females - which should be explained of course while there is no selective advantage - their forged other phantasy how arouse male-like female form - Cook, et al. (1994) suggest that while male-like forms are more visible and prone to predation they may allow females to escape 'sexual harrasment' by males.    

Is there really any final wisdom of these phenomenons in your "compendarium" that enables you treat Davison and me with such an arrogance?

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
REC



Posts: 571
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2006,15:28   

I can see we're not actually going to have a debate.

Essentially JADs entire hypotheisis is a collection of "wow, that's too complex for Darwinism." In any system molecular biology has touched, we've found master regulators and gene clusters-either of which could explain your  "genetic change of large magnitude" that to you reads 'supernaturally prescribed.' I have presented a paper showing the establishment of mimicry by downregulation of 1 enzyme. The particular butterfly you describe seems complex indeed. But your complaints about 'transvestite steps' (which just means males have female color patterns) and "BIG" genetic changes mean what exactly? Why can't a gene cluster, or a single master regulator be changed? Especially with interspecies breeding, predation, sexual pressure on mate selection, are we suprized complex traits emerge?

I will admit, the molecular biology of mimicry seems lacking-which makes it easy for you to rest your arguement that it looks "too complex" upon it. But seriously, there is no 'smoking gun' that smacks down evolution there!

But what does the butterfly data do for your side? Nomogenesis-evolution acording to laws, right? Happened in the past, 'creative phase' not present? So what universal 'rule' of creation led to butterfly species with mimics, pseudo-female males, etc. Why not all butterfly species? What does this suggest to you?

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2006,15:59   

Again, Vmartin, until you have established that you have some vague idea of what you are talking about--which repeatedly claiming supra-laymanesque levels of knowledge by comparing yourself to, koff koff, JAD hardly does--you've done nothing to warrant a response.

Particularly not on this thread.

Beyond that, you claim to have identified one case in which mimicry has not yet been reduced to natural selection.  Isolating one "problem" for such a strongly-supported theory hardly overturns it.  Nor is natural selection the only mechanism by which evolution proceeds.

But do drop me a line when the Martin-Davison collaboration is singled out by the Nobel prize committee...  I won't, however, be holding my breath until that ever-receding date arrives.

  
Shirley Knott



Posts: 148
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2006,17:20   

But dearest vmartin -- the grounds for treating you and JAD with 'such contempt' is that...
you are both contemptible.
Got it?  Write it down!

What more grounds are needed?

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2006,18:07   

C'mon, VMartin is JAD.

'Fess up.


I like them kumquats.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2006,22:39   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Nov. 22 2006,18:07)
C'mon, VMartin is JAD.

'Fess up.


I like them kumquats.

One possible reason that Lenny may be right is that otherwise we have to assume that Davison has actually found an apostle. Someone who actually takes him seriously. If you assume this is impossible, which I tend to lean towards, then yes, this is JAD pulling a tiresome prank.

There are some VMartin passages where Davison's voice seems to ALMOST poke through:

 
Quote
Vow - it seems you discovered America. Is this the "secret wisdom" from your extraordinary book of evo-devo?

Btw on talkreason.org the Carrolls book is marked as book "For the grown-up layman" .

So you are a layman very impressed by first book you read on hox genes. This partly explains your arrogance towards Davison and me. If you will have more knowledges  you would have appreciate more Davison Manifesto and his original conception of evolution.


But I don't know whether JAD could fake Borat-like English like this:

 
Quote
Or even trying to explain hypothetical phantasy of evolution of P.dardanus from P.phorcas with dimorphic non-mimetic females - which should be explained of course while there is no selective advantage - their forged other phantasy how arouse male-like female form -


But then, suddenly, he seems to become more fluent, which seems to indicate it's Davison and he can't stay in character:

 
Quote
Cook, et al. (1994) suggest that while male-like forms are more visible and prone to predation they may allow females to escape 'sexual harrasment' by males.    


It's kind of hard to believe he could pull off a sentence like that while elsewhere sounding like a 20-year-old from Bratislava who just had his first English lesson 2 months ago. UNLESS it was JAD faking it.

So Lenny, maybe you're right! If he ever uses the word 'darwimp', that'll be the dead giveaway.

I love it so!

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Zarquon



Posts: 71
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 23 2006,02:14   

Is VMartin the same dork who was trolling as "Michael Martin" on the Pandas Thumb?

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 23 2006,02:20   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 22 2006,22:39)
But I don't know whether JAD could fake Borat-like English like this:

   
Quote
Or even trying to explain hypothetical phantasy of evolution of P.dardanus from P.phorcas with dimorphic non-mimetic females - which should be explained of course while there is no selective advantage - their forged other phantasy how arouse male-like female form -


But then, suddenly, he seems to become more fluent, which seems to indicate it's Davison and he can't stay in character:

   
Quote
Cook, et al. (1994) suggest that while male-like forms are more visible and prone to predation they may allow females to escape 'sexual harrasment' by males.    


It's kind of hard to believe he could pull off a sentence like that while elsewhere sounding like a 20-year-old from Bratislava who just had his first English lesson 2 months ago. UNLESS it was JAD faking it.

So Lenny, maybe you're right! If he ever uses the word 'darwimp', that'll be the dead giveaway.

I love it so!

Well, I do remember JAD faking a german whose father was a soldier in WWII (or something) under the name of "phishiphred". His pseudo-Englisk was pathetic, even for me. We're not sure it was JAD himself, but it seemed highly probable provided he could manage not to end his posts by "I love it so".
And on Richard Dawkin's board, a few people noticed his bizarre English.

So we have the combination of:
- a supporter of the PEH (which in itself is pretty rare)
- an arrogant person
- a weird English writing (personaly, I can't tell)
Coincidences?
;)

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 23 2006,12:02   

Quote (Zarquon @ Nov. 23 2006,02:14)
Is VMartin the same dork who was trolling as "Michael Martin" on the Pandas Thumb?

I doubt it.  No preaching and no Bible verses.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 23 2006,12:09   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 22 2006,22:39)
One possible reason that Lenny may be right is that otherwise we have to assume that Davison has actually found an apostle. Someone who actually takes him seriously. If you assume this is impossible, which I tend to lean towards, then yes, this is JAD pulling a tiresome prank.

Indeed.  Since JAD is, quite literally, nutty, I find it rather hard to believe that there is anyone else out there who is actually nutty enough to take him seriously.

But then, on the other hand, creationuts HAVE indeed been stupid enough to swallow all SORTS of silly nonsense, as long as someone tells them that it's "anti-evolution".  

So . . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 23 2006,14:32   

Hi folks. I am much impressed by your linguistic analysis of my poor english. Do you work like level-experts sorting pupils in Berlitz-school or something like that? Its big pleasure to discuss some mimicry issues with linguistic experts too.
   
--------------------------------------------------------------------

REC:

Quote

Why can't a gene cluster, or a single master regulator be changed? Especially with interspecies breeding, predation, sexual pressure on mate selection, are we suprized complex traits emerge?



Yes. Might be that modern neordarwinsts are not surprized but when the case of Papilio Dardanus was first published in 1868 it was shock to the scientific world.

I consider the case as something that can be hardly explained by random mutation and selection.

First I would like to notice again that male-like, mimetic and non-mimetic female morphs of P.dardanus live in the same region and make up the same race. You would probably agree that colors of mimetic trophonius and non- mimetic leighi are very different (even if they belong to the same group hippocoon according Nijhout.)But not only that, there are other forms in mentioned race (Shepard and Clarke 1959):

Quote

This race (cenea) inhabits South Africa, northwards to Delagoa Bay. The males are monomorphic, yellow, tailed and nonmimetic as they are wherever the species is found (Figure 1). The female forms that have been studied by us are the nonmimetic f. leighi, f. natalica and f. salaami and the mimics f. hippocoonides, f. cenea, f, trophonius (Figures 2-7) and a modification of f. trophonius in which the large apical spot on the forewings is buff and not the normal white (for a description of the forms, their models and their distribution see FORD19 36 and CLARKaEnd SHEPPAR1D9 59a).



Together with mentioned case in my previous post where male-like females make up 80% of population and mimetic females only 20% question stands like: How is it possible that mimetic form are not prevalent? If the mimic do not thrive better than non-mimic what forces had driven evolution of such a form? It was hardly selection due predation - predation on mimetic and non-mimetic forms seem to be same otherwise one of the form would die out. We see similar process in neodarwinistic icon peppered moths - there according scientists only small selective advantage of melanica vs.
typica would led in only few decades to their clear prevalence.

Explanation of mimicry that neodarwinists offer are that of batesian/mullerian mimicry. It should led to greater protection of mimetic form and subsequent survival.

As we clearly see this is not the case - non-mimetic forms thrive as well - even better!

Sole mutation of regulatory genes as you and some other people here proposed is without selection inconcievable - how it happens that random mutation of "master gene" alone would lead to the same wing patterns and colors distribution as exist in unpalatable species?
Btw. here comes neodarwinistic dialectic - first step was due "genetic effect of large magnitude" and than follow tuning of mimicry to the model via small mutations. You generally cannot argue with such a dialectic - neodarwinist would shift border between tham according situation.

Yet that such process would led to 14 different morphs in one species most of which are mimetic without any selective advantage over non-mimetic morphs - I would say that also hard-cored neodarwinist should be little surprised - expect he is the linguist-polyglot of course.

----
Summary: on my opinion chance and selection cannot play a role in the case of polymorphism of P.dardanus (Mocker Swallowtail). It is in accordance with professor John Davison claim that evolution was never driven by such forces.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 23 2006,14:36   

Hey John, how they hangin'?

Your accent's almost disappeared there, John. You need to be more careful to stay in character.

Got that? Write it down!

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 23 2006,14:51   

Quote
Together with mentioned case in my previous post where male-like females make up 80% of population and mimetic females only 20% question stands like: How is it possible that mimetic form are not prevalent?  

I'm curious, what is your explaination? What do you think controls the frequence of a phenotype/allele in a population if not its reproduction rate, hence selection (or drift)?
Do you think some individuals pop-up, created by the hand of the great Prescriber?

Even the most radical creationists don't contest population genetics.   :O

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 23 2006,14:55   

Takže mládenci ja Vám niečo poviem - nie som John Davison, ale vážim si jeho prácu "Evolutionary Manifesto". Je to jedna z najlepších vecí, ktoré som čítal z kritiky darwinizmu, kde cituje popredných vedcov na poli biológie a palentológie.
Podľa mojej mienky väčšina ľudí tu nesiaha Johnovi ani po päty  a bol by som radšej keby ste kritizovali niečo z jeho Manifesta , alebo z toho čo Vám píšem ja - toto je prázdne mlátenie sena.

So translate it from Slovak and let me know to which level you would put the author in Berlitz-school, hehe.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 23 2006,15:09   

Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 23 2006,14:55)
Takže mládenci ja Vám niečo poviem - nie som John Davison, ale vážim si jeho prácu "Evolutionary Manifesto". Je to jedna z najlepších vecí, ktoré som čítal z kritiky darwinizmu, kde cituje popredných vedcov na poli biológie a palentológie.
Podľa mojej mienky väčšina ľudí tu nesiaha Johnovi ani po päty  a bol by som radšej keby ste kritizovali niečo z jeho Manifesta , alebo z toho čo Vám píšem ja - toto je prázdne mlátenie sena.

So translate it from Slovak and let me know to which level you would put the author in Berlitz-school, hehe.

Actually, John, I've changed my mind. I now think you're Bulgarian. Now please to translate that into Bulgarian. Using Cyrillic.

I love it so!

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 23 2006,16:46   

Given the transnational reality of the readership of this website, how soon before someone calls in a real Slovak speaker to check if that wasnt just run through babelfish?

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 23 2006,16:57   

jeannot
Quote

Do you think some individuals pop-up, created by the hand of the great Prescriber?


In case of mimetic females morphs of Mocker Swallowtail neodarwinists mantras can satisfy only worshippers of chance and selection. Sound mind would doubt such explanations in this case.

Better do not touch the problem and ridicule those who draw attention to it.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 23 2006,17:09   

Quote (guthrie @ Nov. 23 2006,16:46)
Given the transnational reality of the readership of this website, how soon before someone calls in a real Slovak speaker to check if that wasnt just run through babelfish?

I assume that was a Babelfish translation, but I don't read Slovak, Slovak speakers aren't exactly lying around everywhere, and Russian isn't quite close enough to Slovak for me to just wing it.

I'm impressed that Javison went to all that trouble, tho!

So John, no Bulgarian version? :angry:

I love it so!

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10131
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 23 2006,17:38   

*rolls up sleeves*

Right, I'm here to sort this kerfuffle out.

VMartin - I don't like the cut of your jib. I don't think you've be hoisted by your own Davetard, but you do smell of urine and old folks homes. IS THAT YOU, DAVIDSON, YOU ODIOUS BELLEND?

Got that? Right it Down.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 23 2006,18:16   

Quote

VMartin - I don't like the cut of your jib. I don't think you've be hoisted by your own Davetard, but you do smell of urine and old folks homes.



Kto ma poznat tu vasu hantyrku s tym KERFUFFLE alebo nebodaj DAVETARD ?  Myslis ze si mam cas tvoje dristy vyhladavat v nejakom slovniku aby som pochopil tvoj primestsky dialekt? Pokial budete pisat nezrozumitelnou predmestskou hantyrkou, budem vam odpovedat vo svojom jazyku takto - vyjde to na rovnako ta diskusia hlucheho s nemym.


Got it?

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 23 2006,19:23   

Okay, John, that's not Russian 'cuz Russian doesn't have 'h', and also it's not in Cyrillic, which disqualifies it for Russian or Bulgarian.

Try again. Maybe Romanian?

How do you like those cranberries?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5378
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 23 2006,19:48   

Well, the English is definitely improving mysteriously in bursts, and we can all agree this person isn't what is presented here...

It IS pretty unlikely that anyone on earth really buys DAJ's bullshiite...

The childish arrogant attitude is certainly surfacing...

Quote
neodarwinists mantras can satisfy only worshippers of chance and selection.


Sounds DAJiesque enough...

And yet....

DAJ NEVER actually attempts to defend his PEH.  He just insults, swears, and babbles on about what a martyr he is.

He NEVER actually discusses biology, even remotely.

While I've backed way off my previous certainty that this isn't DAJ, I still don't think so.

Smells more like Paley to me.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2006,00:21   

Whats about issuing phenomenon of P.dardanus boys and looking on it from other view?
As you see there is no clear advantage to be mimic in the case. We can say that mimicry doesnot exist in this case. Something proposed by Franz Heikertinger who also - like many by Davison mentioned prominent scientists - accounted for internal factors too.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2006,02:11   

Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 24 2006,00:21)
Whats about issuing phenomenon of P.dardanus boys and looking on it from other view?
As you see there is no clear advantage to be mimic in the case. We can say that mimicry doesnot exist in this case. Something proposed by Franz Heikertinger who also - like many by Davison mentioned prominent scientists - accounted for internal factors too.

So what's the deal? Are you Davison doing a sockpuppet routine, or Paley doing one of his Multiple Personality Disorder routines?

You don't need to keep up the Borat talk. It's not convincing.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2006,02:18   

Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 23 2006,16:57)
In case of mimetic females morphs of Mocker Swallowtail neodarwinists mantras can satisfy only worshippers of chance and selection. Sound mind would doubt such explanations in this case.

I repeat: what determines the frequences of existing alleles in a population, if not their reproduction rates?
Feel free to put forward any natural or supernatural mechanism.

Methinks you don't even have a hypothesis, and the lack of substance in your reply sure makes you sound like JAD.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2006,02:25   

Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 23 2006,16:57)
...

In case of mimetic females morphs of Mocker Swallowtail neodarwinists mantras can satisfy only worshippers of chance and selection. Sound mind would doubt such explanations in this case.

Better do not touch the problem and ridicule those who draw attention to it.

Bam!

Better get pen and paper ready. I am sure everyone will be instructed to take notes soon.

  
  417 replies since Oct. 11 2006,12:18 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (14) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]