RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (17) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >   
  Topic: VMartin's cosmology, where he will not be off-topic< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2007,16:41   

With the "Go" part of that, certainly all of us would agree...

Sort of along the same lines, what did ana ever do to get everybody to ban her, anyway?

Hint: maybe it was her vivid, neon coloration, which certainly could never have been selected...

  
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2007,18:35   

Quote (k.e @ Sep. 12 2007,05:59)
How could the writers make the simple mistake that god did everything in the dark? Or was the dark a semiotic reference to before dawn and therefore the void was a claustrophobic nightmare, an existential dilemma.

Like being stuck in a waiting room with a horny member of a different sexual persuasion? (read that gay for all you straight folks and vice-versa pc and all y'know)

For ever?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2007,19:46   

Quote (BWE @ Sep. 14 2007,02:35)
Quote (k.e @ Sep. 12 2007,05:59)
How could the writers make the simple mistake that god did everything in the dark? Or was the dark a semiotic reference to before dawn and therefore the void was a claustrophobic nightmare, an existential dilemma.

Like being stuck in a waiting room with a horny member of a different sexual persuasion? (read that gay for all you straight folks and vice-versa pc and all y'know)

For ever?

Sounds more like hell, unless you dreamt it  :)

Do you have an uncontrollable desire to shave your legs?

Are you saying the male writers of Genesis were homo erotic?

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2007,14:52   

There was a time when we had a colourless common ancestor. But "natural selection" gave us different coloration. Those who had not such coloration didn't survive. "Struggle for life" you know. We are "aposematics". We are now perfectly adapted to our "niches".


1

2

3
4

5


Enjoy the power of "natural selection"!

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

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2007,15:14   

Are you saying you're a ladybird beetle, VMartin?  Or an albino?

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2007,15:24   

VMartin is very afraid of giving his own opinions on anything. The reason is JAD.

Much like VMartin is JADs only friend, JAD is VMartins only friend - but he's not completely braindead. He knows how JAD is. He knows that if he gives an opinion JAD doesn't like, he will throw him in with everyone else he hates. Then he will be all alone.

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2007,16:20   

I just found a photo of Vmartin and JAD.  Anyone care to use the EF to determine which is which?



--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell.Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2007,17:12   

Marty, no one cares about your damn ladybugs. It's off topic anyway, and I thought you didn't like to get off topic.

Answer the question, Marty:

Do you believe that common descent between apes and humans is true?

Not some burbling from Davison, not some ESL snarl about 'Darwininian orthodoxy'. What YOU believe.

--------------
"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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4059
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2007,17:45   

I didn't descent from no beetle!
:p

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2007,23:11   

Quote

Answer the question, Marty:

Do you believe that common descent between apes and humans is true?


I have answered many of your questions. It's your turn now. Some simple questions:


1) Are ladybirds aposematic?

2) What was the coloration of the ladybirds ancestor? Was it dull, cryptic or bright, aposematic?

If you think it is off topic here answer it at "coloration of fungi". Reading all nonsensses from "knowledgeable evolutionists" at this thread I am afraid nothing is off topic anymore.

Quote

Marty, no one cares about your damn ladybugs.


Yo are wrong as usually. Darwinists continue in research of poisonous qualities of ladybirds (1994):


The defensive mechanisms which protect ladybird beetles (Coccinellidae) against predators are reviewed. Besides behavioural mechanisms, such as thanatosis and reflex bleeding, chemical defence mechanisms are playing a prevalent role.


http://www.springerlink.com/content/q466422173wh8457/

But birds did not read the darwinian article and knew nothing of "chemical defence" of ladybirds. Birds stilleat ladybirds like other beetles. They are not even scared by "reflex bleeding".

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2007,23:26   

No, seriously, Marty, no one here gives a fuck about your ladybugs. Quit changing the subject, you sillyass coward.

I will repeat:

Do you believe that common descent between apes and humans is true?

C'mon, Marty, you can do it! Davison won't punish you!

PS: It would also be nice to get your reply to this message.

--------------
"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: Sep. 15 2007,00:20   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 14 2007,23:26)
No, seriously, Marty, no one here gives a fuck about your ladybugs. Quit changing the subject, you sillyass coward.

I will repeat:

Do you believe that common descent between apes and humans is true?

C'mon, Marty, you can do it! Davison won't punish you!

PS: It would also be nice to get your reply to this message.

First you. No one cares of your f... apes you stupidos singleton.

1) Are ladybirds aposematic?

2) What was the coloration of the ladybirds ancestor? Was it dull, cryptic or bright, aposematic?


Mentioning John Davison - he made a perfect fool of you at Brainstorm:

http://www.iscid.org/ubb....70;p=62

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

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2007,02:37   

Martin

Why not repost on the appropriate thread?

Others

Before engaging this topic with Martin, you may wish to review this EvC thread and judge whether it is worth the effort.

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2007,09:15   

Oh, I think we knew going in it wasn't really the best use of time.  But as I've said before, the situation is somewhat mitigated by getting crackpots on record as crackpots.  That turns out to be useful from time to time.

Really, VMartin, you don't even have to answer the very simple question that my 6 year old nephew could form an answer to.  You just have to tell me WHY YOU WON'T ANSWER IT.

That may be as entertaining as anything else you could possibly do.

Just so you feel good:

1.  I'm an actor, so I may not be the best authority on aposematism, but I'll go with yeah, they are.  Most ladybird beetles are very brightly colored.  I would guess that this is beneficial because a large percentage of the other really brightly colored things in the world are poisonous.

2.  I have no idea what the color of their ancestors was.  And really, your question makes no sense as "aposematic" is not a color scheme, nor does the term necessarily refer to color.

See how easy that was.  Now, this is VERY IMPORTANT.  Don't take this as an excuse to continue off-topic with beetles.  I answered your questions in my own words (as I often tell Creationists to do themselves) to show you the value of doing such.

So, PLEASE ANSWER YOUR OWN ON-TOPIC QUESTION:

Do you believe in the common ancestory of apes and humans?

(Try not to be a dodging dolt anymore--it puts you in rather unsavory company.)

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2007,09:23   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 15 2007,02:37)
Martin

Why not repost on the appropriate thread?

Others

Before engaging this topic with Martin, you may wish to review this EvC thread and judge whether it is worth the effort.

Alan, it is ridiculous. I quoted Heikertinger who disputed with E. Wasmann many years ago about supposedly mimicry coloration. The first was anti-selectionist, the second one selectionist. They were brilliant scientists and their dispute was followed by many European scientists. I quoted some Heikertinger opinions about the issue.

No one here have those knowledges of the mentioned men (including me). It is utterly ridiculous to suppose that "knowledgeable evolutionists" here are able to follow the discussion or make judgment "it is worth the effort". You are funny, really.

You are also unable discuss anything about mimicry and  you only instruct me to go to another thread. Which thread?
With this stupid advice you make your useless and annoying entries at Brainstorm.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2007,10:14   

Martin, why are you afraid to answer that question about common descent?

--------------
"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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2007,10:17   

It was my understanding that this thread concerned VMartin's notions of the age of the earth, and the reality of common descent. Posts vis coloration seem wildly off topic.

VMartin, given that you acknowledge an ancient earth (4.5 billion years), I was wondering if you accept common descent. More narrowly, do you believe that other extant great apes and human beings share a common ancestor?

I certainly do. What are your thoughts on this crucially important matter? Just asking.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2007,11:21   

Quote
You are also unable discuss anything about mimicry


Make a case for what you think is a better explanation for the observations and there may be something to discuss. So far, all we have had are variations on the theme of "This (insert appropriate example of mushrooms, slugs, ladybirds etc) is a problem for Darwinism.

You have to produce something  for discussion if you really want a discussion to take place.

(Hint: You could start with "this is a problem because (insert reason) and a better explanation is (insert hypothesis) because (cite evidence).)

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2007,14:25   

Alan Fox:

Quote

So far, all we have had are variations on the theme of "This (insert appropriate example of mushrooms, slugs, ladybirds etc) is a problem for Darwinism.


It's not my fault that above mentioned facts are problem for darwinism. Many scientists considered it same way. I quoted them.

But I can adress it elsewhere, you suggested me a thread about mimicry. Is there a thread on mimicry here at AtBC?

As to common ancestor of man and ape: I am surprised that people here are unable to address evolution of coloration of ladybirds, mushrooms etc... but they are obviously able to address such complicated problems as evolution of human speech, etc...

Why do you want to discuss the most compliacted phenomenon of the evolution (the evolution of man), when you cannot address simple evolutionary problems like coloration of insects or fungi? Unbelievable.

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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2007,14:32   

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 15 2007,15:25)
As to common ancestor of man and ape: I am surprised that people here are unable to address evolution of coloration of ladybirds, mushrooms etc... but they are obviously able to address such complicated problems as evolution of human speech, etc...

Why do you want to discuss the most compliacted phenomenon of the evolution (the evolution of man), when you cannot address simple evolutionary problems like coloration of insects or fungi? Unbelievable.

Actually, we are asking you to address the question. And surely these are among the most central questions in this domain, which is why we ask.

Do you believe in common ancestry? And, more narrowly, do you believe that extant apes and human beings share a common ancestor?

Just askin' VMartin. Not that complicated, and surely you have a response independent of whether we are able to address the question convincingly.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2007,16:28   

Quote
As to common ancestor of man and ape: I am surprised that people here are unable to address evolution of coloration of ladybirds, mushrooms etc... but they are obviously able to address such complicated problems as evolution of human speech, etc...

Why do you want to discuss the most compliacted phenomenon of the evolution (the evolution of man), when you cannot address simple evolutionary problems like coloration of insects or fungi? Unbelievable.


Bravo, Martin. Two paragraphs of babbling and STILL no answer.

I will ask again:

do YOU believe that common ancestry between humans and primates is true?

No irrelevant snarls about 'Darwinists': do YOU believe it's true?

All we're asking for is ONE word:

a) Yes

or

b) No.

Real simple, V.

I'm noticing a problem you have, Marty: you seem to really hate Darwinism, but you have no alternate explanations.

--------------
"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

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2007,16:52   

VMartin said:

Quote
As to common ancestor of man and ape: I am surprised that people here are unable to address evolution of coloration of ladybirds, mushrooms etc... but they are obviously able to address such complicated problems as evolution of human speech, etc...


Uh, VMartin, as long as you are wildly, insanely, goofily off topic, could you at least argue coherently?

If you start a sentence with "As to common ancestor of man and ape..."

LISTEN CLOSELY HERE

the second part of your sentence should have something to do with the common ancestor of man and ape.

You, perhaps accidentally(?), finished your sentence with mushrooms.  Just saying....

Now, how about finishing the sentence with something that makes sense?  Or do we have to wait another two months for you to say anything coherent?

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Patrick Caldon



Posts: 68
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2007,10:44   

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 15 2007,00:20)
1) Are ladybirds aposematic?

2) What was the coloration of the ladybirds ancestor? Was it dull, cryptic or bright, aposematic?

Hi VM,

I vaguely remember pointing out to you the following:  there is a difference between the statements "I do not know the answer to X" and "X is false".

I recall you agreeing.

In any event, I have no fricking idea why ladybugs have different colors.  If you want to put 10-100 million dollars/euros/whatever towards a crack team of entymologists to work it all out, I'm sure someone can set up a big aviary and work out how to breed ladybugs, and sequence a hella-lotta ladybug genome and work out exactly, and come up with a reasonable answer for you, and provide employment for a few PI's and a great many grad students.

I'm reluctant to come up with the x million myself, because:

- I don't have it;
- if I did I know you'd immediately just ask why the yellow-bellied glider had a yellow belly, whereas the sugar glider doesn't; and
- there's many more useful charitable causes (even of a evolutionary nature) that the cash could be spent on, for instance in research into disease, or endangered species preservation, and indeed many grant bodies seem to share my biases.

So VM, given that you can't tell us whether man and ape has a common ancestor, can you at least answer this question (and save you, and me, and a bunch of charities several million dollars in the investigation of the Petaurus genus ...)

- Why do yellow bellied gliders have a yellow belly and sugar gliders do not?

Given that no-one has to my knowledge answered this question you would be providing a great contribution (on the level of a couple of Nature publications) if you could tell us the answer.

Or alternatively:

- Explain the coloration of ladybugs.  

Again, this is millions of dollars of salaries and taxpayer expenditure which you can apparently click you fingers at.

I also recall a discussion about swans, and vaguely recall saying something along the above lines (i.e. no-one seems to have got a big grant for bazillions to study swan coloration) ... why are black swans black and white swans white?

Why are zebra stripey and horses not stripey?

Given your theory is so powerful, perhaps you could answer one of these questions without having a team of grad students wear themselves out over answering it?

Or maybe you could tell us whether humans and apes have a common ancestor.  As it happens someone has bothered to study this question from a "Darwinian" perspective.  Teams of graduate students have fought (and probably died) to give you an answer from the "Darwinian" point of view, unlike gliders, ladybugs, zebras and swans, where funding is a bit trickier.

If you could therefore explain human-ape ancestry from a VMartin point-of-view, and explain how the millions spent on human-ape evolution (and not spent on ladybug, marsupial glider, zebra/horse, and swan) have been wasted, you would do us all a great service, as our society will then not go on to waste millions of dollars and years of researcher-time on ladybugs etc.

So how about it VM?  Now we've sequences a human and a chimp (unlike swans, ladybugs, zebra/horse and gliders - but if you want to fund this study I'm sure we can find you someone ...), what's your theory's view on human-ape ancestry?

It's not a hard question, and there's a lot of funding and research effort in this area (unlike just about every other species on the planet ... )  so an answer would be peachy.

How about it VM?  Do humans and apes have a common ancestor?  Why or why not?

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 554
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 17 2007,06:31   

Quote
Why do you want to discuss the most compliacted phenomenon of the evolution (the evolution of man), when you cannot address simple evolutionary problems like coloration of insects or fungi? Unbelievable.

What is your evidence that the evolution of man is "the most complicated phenomenon of the evolution"? In what units do you measure the complicatedness of evolutionary phenomena?

And what is your theory, anyway? Am I oversimplifying your/JAD's piddlings when I summarize them as "god made species evolve, then he/she/it died"?

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
Kristine



Posts: 3037
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,15:24   

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Sep. 17 2007,05:31)
Quote
Why do you want to discuss the most compliacted phenomenon of the evolution (the evolution of man), when you cannot address simple evolutionary problems like coloration of insects or fungi? Unbelievable.

What is your evidence that the evolution of man is "the most complicated phenomenon of the evolution"? In what units do you measure the complicatedness of evolutionary phenomena?

And what is your theory, anyway? Am I oversimplifying your/JAD's piddlings when I summarize them as "god made species evolve, then he/she/it died"?

My theory is, God faked His own death because He was being sued. Again! :D

Just like before! (You didn't know God was sued over ID, did you? Case is still pending. Too bad Judge Jones can't preside.)


--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Henry J



Posts: 4059
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,10:03   

Jesus doesn't except sin? Except it from what, I wonder?  :p

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,10:06   

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 19 2007,10:03)
Jesus doesn't except sin? Except it from what, I wonder? :p

Henry, don't be a moran.  ;)

--------------
"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

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,16:15   

Arden, have I got a maroon moraine for you!

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,16:16   

Quote (Steviepinhead @ Sep. 19 2007,16:15)
Arden, have I got a maroon moraine for you!

"E is for ecceptance -- the feeling I always got at Moe's."

--------------
"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: Sep. 20 2007,11:59   

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Sep. 17 2007,06:31)
 
Quote
Why do you want to discuss the most compliacted phenomenon of the evolution (the evolution of man), when you cannot address simple evolutionary problems like coloration of insects or fungi? Unbelievable.

What is your evidence that the evolution of man is "the most complicated phenomenon of the evolution"? In what units do you measure the complicatedness of evolutionary phenomena?

And what is your theory, anyway? Am I oversimplifying your/JAD's piddlings when I summarize them as "god made species evolve, then he/she/it died"?

I wouldn't be surprised if the evolution of man would be very simple in your eyes. Natural selection is so powerful (you have only to believe in it, that's all.)

Anyway if you are unable coherently discuss the coloration of animals you are probably an expert on coloration of human races. It is much more easier for you I suppose.

So:

What was the coloration of a common ancestor of human races?

What is the advantage and meaning of yellow, reddish and black skin? Should we apply darwinian mantras and consider black skin to be "cryptic"? And people with reddish or yellow skin to "aposematics"? Hehe.

But I am pretty sure you have no answer to evolution of coloration of skin of human races. All of you here are lost to explain coloration of insects...  no wonder you are also lost as to coloration of human races.

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

  
  494 replies since Sep. 06 2007,12:29 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (17) < 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]