RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (8) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 >   
  Topic: The evolution of coloration in fungi, are brightly colored fungi aposematic?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,14:34   

Hey, V, there's some questions for you to answer at the pantloading frontloading thread.

Don't let us down, big guy!

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

  
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,00:41   

Quote (VMartin @ July 03 2007,14:29)
Your gibbering is off topic.

1) You don't know to explain function of coloration of fruiting bodies of mushrooms.

2) You seem to be unable to explain why some related butterfly species inhabiting the same area and feeding on the same plants have totally different patterns and coloration of their wings. One species has aposematic eyspots to scare predators (?) the other one doesn't. But it thrive as well.

It's actually a koan. When you figure it out you will have attained nirvana.

--------------
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

   
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,14:47   

Quote

It's actually a koan. When you figure it out you will have attained nirvana.


I supposed that "natural selection" is a mantra. Something like incantation. If you call it koan so much the better.

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

  
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2007,22:20   

Quote (VMartin @ July 04 2007,14:47)
Quote

It's actually a koan. When you figure it out you will have attained nirvana.


I supposed that "natural selection" is a mantra. Something like incantation. If you call it koan so much the better.

What specific issue you are questioning? The idea she understanding is not. I swam near mantra ray in east coast of United states but koan bear I yet have to see. The fruiting bodies the fungi for to have become that way because either accident or benefit. All questions I have answers.

--------------
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

   
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2007,23:53   

Quote

What specific issue you are questioning? The idea she understanding is not. I swam near mantra ray in east coast of United states but koan bear I yet have to see. The fruiting bodies the fungi for to have become that way because either accident or benefit. All questions I have answers.


You have had to change your first question like this:

What specific issue are you questioning?


I would make such order of words. Slavonic languages are synthetic languages and it means that subject, verb and object do not have fixed place in the sentence. You can change their position without changing the meaning of the sentence. It is something you cannot do in English/German which are analytical languages - changing position of subject and object will change the meaning of the sentence. "The reverend ridiculed darwinists" has different meaning as "Darwinists ridiculed the reverend". In our language
"Duchovny sa vysmieval darwinistom" or "Darwinistom sa vysmieval duchovny" has the same meaning  because of suffix "-om" "darwinist-om". By this suffix I know that the first word in the sentence is an object. We have often hidden subject. You say "He was there" and I say "Bol tam". Because of the hidden subject I can very easily make a mistake like in introductionary sentence. If national socialist darwinist like Arden Chatfield  would start to ridicule synthetic languages as "undedeveloped" he should have to consider that Greek and Latin are syntetic languages too.

   
Quote

The idea she understanding is not.


I wouldn't make such a mistake. Obviously you are missing an important point that in Slavonic languages there are some differences between sentences depending on who said them. Woman use different suffixes as man. That's why our languages were called by one prominent linguist as "erotic languages". From the written sentence "I came home tired" I don't know if woman or man wrote it. But I say "Pris-iel som domov unaven-y" (notice also missing subject I - Ja)  and a woman say "Pris-la som domov unaven-a". You see there are two different suffixes. If national darwinist like Arden Chatfield would start to ridicule Slavonic languages as "ancient" ones you should have notice him that according a hypothesis a language using many suffixes prove the contrary that the language is "new".

   
Quote

The fruiting bodies the fungi for to have become that way because either accident or benefit.


If you check my grammar I will have no problem with it. To be frankly it would be more instructive as many stupid responses here.

Topic:
I have questioned the issue of coloration of animals. On some opinion 90% of animal's coloration cannot be explained by natural selection. Because coloration is something everybody sees and coloration play often a major role in recognition, such a view questions natural selection as evolutionary force. I have started with great kingdom of mushrooms where sexual selection cannot obscure the issue. You can contradict me using some special kind of species like white bears of course. But again - you have no answer why swans are white for instance.

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 07 2007,00:21   

I'm sorry, Martin --- did you say something?


(yawn)

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 07 2007,09:54   

VMartin the Darwinist-obsessed creationist is now calling 'Darwinists' 'National Socialists'. This is at least the second time he's done this. I would propose that along with his refusal to answer questions, it's now time to ban him.

For reference, here is the other place he did it.

--------------
"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: July 07 2007,13:25   

Quote

VMartin the Darwinist-obsessed creationist is now calling 'Darwinists' 'National Socialists'. This is at least the second time he's done this. I would propose that along with his refusal to answer questions, it's now time to ban him.



1) I didn't answer your questions. That's right. You are not worth of it, you know. It doen't mean I don't answer questions from the others if questions are on topic and interesting. I am just one. Answering all questions is impossible considering the fact that I have to respond to many denigrations as well.

2) I didn't call Darwinists "National socialist" generally. I called only your behaviour in that way (and of one guy). You do not represent "darwinists", you represent only the most despicable individual form of social darwinism I hit upon.

This time you managed  that I answered to your post. I hope this is the last time. Unless you start with  East-European psychology analysis using national-socialist manners again.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 07 2007,15:12   

Quote
I didn't answer your questions. That's right. You are not worth of it, you know. It


You've never answered our questions, V. Never since Day One. You've always been too cowardly to answer our questions. And now that you're calling 'Darwinists' 'National Socialists' it confirms that you are indeed as much of a dimwit as everyone here thinks.  But that explains your thing for Davison.

Go back and hide under Davison's coat, V. It's less scary there. The scary Darwinists can't hurt you there. Before you lose your countenace completely.

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 07 2007,17:03   

You bore me, Martin.

Please go away.

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

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 08 2007,04:09   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 07 2007,10:12)
 
Quote
I didn't answer your questions. That's right. You are not worth of it, you know. It


You've never answered our questions, V. Never since Day One. You've always been too cowardly to answer our questions. And now that you're calling 'Darwinists' 'National Socialists' it confirms that you are indeed as much of a dimwit as everyone here thinks.  But that explains your thing for Davison.

Go back and hide under Davison's coat, V. It's less scary there. The scary Darwinists can't hurt you there. Before you lose your countenace completely.

Oh and if I might point out:  
Quote
A person who will not defend his convictions in a neutral arena is of no value to scientific progress.
John A. Davison, professor (associate, retired)

  
Henry J



Posts: 4040
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 08 2007,21:22   

Re "A person who will not defend his convictions in a neutral arena is of no value to scientific progress."

Only neutral? What about hostile? ;)

(Well, come to think of it, we know Davison didn't really defend his ideas on PT - it was always "go read my paper" or some such.)

Henry

  
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2007,13:54   

Quote (VMartin @ July 06 2007,23:53)
Topic:
I have questioned the issue of coloration of animals. On some opinion 90% of animal's coloration cannot be explained by natural selection. Because coloration is something everybody sees and coloration play often a major role in recognition, such a view questions natural selection as evolutionary force. I have started with great kingdom of mushrooms where sexual selection cannot obscure the issue. You can contradict me using some special kind of species like white bears of course. But again - you have no answer why swans are white for instance.

Man, first of all you completely missed my joke by zeroing in on the grammar part. Second, so what? Just because you don't know doesn't mean you can't know. Er..., well, that someone can't know.

When you drill down into the specifics like that you are missing the real issues. You might have a wonderful topic for a paper but it wouldn't be about the validity of evolution, it would be about the evolution of color in fruiting...

Sheesh.

--------------
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

   
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,15:40   

Jeanot at Frontloading thread:

 
Quote

Well, coloration in mushrooms has hardly been studied, and the genetic mechanisms of domestication are very well explained by "Darwinismus".

Is that all you have, Martin?


The coloration of mushroom has been studied. We discussed at this thread an scientific article that concluded coloration of mushrooms have no connection with poisonous quality of mushrooms. It is one of the basic claim of neodarwinism that  coloration signals that species is unpalatable or poisonous. Obviously this is not the case of mushrooms.

---

If genetic mechanism of domestication of dogs is so well explained by darwinism, how darwinism explains the fact that we cannot domesticate the majority of animals whatever we do?

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,15:44   

Quote (VMartin @ July 25 2007,15:40)
If genetic mechanism of domestication of dogs is so well explained by darwinism, how darwinism explains the fact that we cannot domesticate the majority of animals whatever we do?

yeah, and what about PYGMIES + DWARVES????

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,15:50   

yeah and why do we still have bacteria?  and archie comics?

--------------
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

  
Patrick Caldon



Posts: 68
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,15:54   

Quote (VMartin @ July 25 2007,15:40)
The coloration of mushroom has been studied. We discussed at this thread an scientific article that concluded coloration of mushrooms have no connection with poisonous quality of mushrooms. It is one of the basic claim of neodarwinism that  coloration signals that species is unpalatable or poisonous. Obviously this is not the case of mushrooms.

Heh?  I've only read a couple of textbooks on modern evolutionary theory and population genetics, but each of them went into long descriptions of how mimicry and similar false signals do evolve.

Suppose there is a bird who has learned to avoid butterflies having a specific pattern.  There is then a selective advantage to looking like the poisonous butterfly.  This has been studied quite a lot.

I would hazard to guess that something similar could operate in mushrooms.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,16:07   

Quote (VMartin @ July 25 2007,15:40)
Jeanot at Frontloading thread:

   
Quote

Well, coloration in mushrooms has hardly been studied, and the genetic mechanisms of domestication are very well explained by "Darwinismus".

Is that all you have, Martin?


The coloration of mushroom has been studied. We discussed at this thread an scientific article that concluded coloration of mushrooms have no connection with poisonous quality of mushrooms. It is one of the basic claim of neodarwinism that  coloration signals that species is unpalatable or poisonous. Obviously this is not the case of mushrooms.

---

If genetic mechanism of domestication of dogs is so well explained by darwinism, how darwinism explains the fact that we cannot domesticate the majority of animals whatever we do?

A plausible hypothesis is that such animals don't reproduce very well at home because they are adapted to different conditions. Have you heard of "ecological specialization"? Also, adaptation relies on the level of polymorphism in a species. Of course the reasons can differ between different animals. I really don't see how this should be a problem to the ToE. ???

Regarding mushroom. Yeah, there's one article, that failed to link coloration to toxicity. Clearly that means will never find why many mushrooms are colorful. It has to be prescribed evolution...

You think you're raising some issue? Well you clearly not. You're merely pointing to something that has not been deeply studied and you fail to provide your own hypothesis. You're boring.
Give us something new, some positive evidence for your PEH. Was dog "prescribed", Martin?

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,16:09   

Quote (Patrick Caldon @ July 25 2007,15:54)
Heh?  I've only read a couple of textbooks on modern evolutionary theory and population genetics, but each of them went into long descriptions of how mimicry and similar false signals do evolve.

Suppose there is a bird who has learned to avoid butterflies having a specific pattern.  There is then a selective advantage to looking like the poisonous butterfly.  This has been studied quite a lot.

I would hazard to guess that something similar could operate in mushrooms.

Well, apparently it's not the case in mushrooms. See the other thread.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,17:15   

Martin, are you STILL yammering . . . .?

Geez.

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

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,20:27   

Of course, as Lenny well knows, real martins don't yammer.

Quote
The male song is is a low-pitched liquid gurgling, the female’s a mix of chortle calls and downslurred whistles. Martins have a variety of calls, with the most common being a descending cherr.


Since Vmartin does insist on yammering, however, it's clear he's not real.

And can be as readily ignored as any other annoying, but transient, phantasm.

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2007,14:53   

Jeannot
 
Quote

A plausible hypothesis is that such animals don't reproduce very well at home because they are adapted to different conditions. Have you heard of "ecological specialization"? Also, adaptation relies on the level of polymorphism in a species. Of course the reasons can differ between different animals. I really don't see how this should be a problem to the ToE. ???


All species are adapted to different conditions than living close with a man. You suppose that dog's ancestors somehow lived in conditions similar to that of humans. In the same conditions obviously lived ancestors of sheeps and postal pigeons. All the other species lived in different conditions. One would say that ancestors of humans, dogs, sheeps and pigeons lived once in the same forest or what. All the other species lived somewehere on ice-bergs. And that's why other species cannot be domesticated.    
I would say that problem of domestication is little bit more complicated that materialistic "they come from different conditions" and "ecological specialisation".
Obviously there are some internal factors (genetic variability independent from "conditions")  that enable  
some species to be domesticated and the others not.


 
Quote

Regarding mushroom. Yeah, there's one article, that failed to link coloration to toxicity. Clearly that means will never find why many mushrooms are colorful. It has to be prescribed evolution...


It is not one article that failed link coloration to toxicity. The fact was known long before any research has been done. Yes, it has to be some non-darwinian force behind coloration of mushrooms.

 
Quote

You think you're raising some issue? Well you clearly not. You're merely pointing to something that has not been deeply studied and you fail to provide your own hypothesis. You're boring.


I see. If you cannot explain a phenomenon using standard darwinian explanations  the problem was not deeply studied. I am afraid that if problem was studied more deeply the outcome would be the same. Maybe that's the reason why it is not studied, because it fails to support ToE.

 
Quote

Give us something new, some positive evidence for your PEH. Was dog "prescribed", Martin?


There is something in dog's genotype that enables them to be so close to man and what other species do not posses.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2007,16:11   

Quote
Yes, it has to be some non-darwinian force behind coloration of mushrooms.


What would that 'non-darwinian force' be, V?

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

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2007,17:52   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 27 2007,16:11)
Quote
Yes, it has to be some non-darwinian force behind coloration of mushrooms.


What would that 'non-darwinian force' be, V?



Thank you to whoever put this up originally.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2007,20:54   

Geez, Martin, are you STILL yammering . . . ?

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4040
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2007,22:46   

Even if coloration in fungi is an unanswered question at this point, how on earth is that an argument against the overall theory? All current theories have unanswered questions about details (otherwise scientists would be unemployed).

If I'm following this, the color itself doesn't appear to be the controlling factor. But, it's caused by chemicals that the organism produces and concentrates in its outer layers? The chemicals in question happen to be colorful, but has anybody checked on whether those chemicals produce some other benefit that maybe has nothing to do with their reaction to light?

That would after all seem to be the next question if mimicry and/or camoulflage have been determined to be unlikely.

Henry

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 28 2007,01:54   

Henry
Quote

Even if coloration in fungi is an unanswered question at this point, how on earth is that an argument against the overall theory? All current theories have unanswered questions about details (otherwise scientists would be unemployed).


I've put mushrooms as an example where coloration cannot be explained via ToE. I claim that it is only the tip of the iceberg. 90% of coloration in animal kingdom is unexpleinable by ToE. See swans. Why are they white? Because of natural selection? It is the form and color that represents any animal species mostly. It is not detail.

   
Quote

If I'm following this, the color itself doesn't appear to be the controlling factor. But, it's caused by chemicals that the organism produces and concentrates in its outer layers? The chemicals in question happen to be colorful, but has anybody checked on whether those chemicals produce some other benefit that maybe has nothing to do with their reaction to light?

That would after all seem to be the next question if mimicry and/or camoulflage have been determined to be unlikely


We have mentioned already mushrooms genera Amanitta. There are very different coloration in it - red, green, white etc... It is hardly believable that such pigments are byproduct of some process and that they concetrate  at the cap of the mushroom where they are  most visible.````

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

  
Patrick Caldon



Posts: 68
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 28 2007,02:19   

Quote (VMartin @ July 28 2007,01:54)
See swans. Why are they white?

Swans are black where I'm from.  There's a pair of them (with grey-black cygnets) about a mile from where I'm typing now.  Very cute.  The cygnets follow momma swan around and poppa swan chases away all the ducks when people come to feed them.

So why are swans white or black but nothing inbetween?  Well some swans are both white and black.  These are in South America somewhere if I recall.  

So why are some swans white, other swans black and some swans a combination of both black and white?

Dunno.  But I hardly see that the existence of some white swans, some black swans, and some white and black swans destroys the theory of evolution.  It would probably be an interesting project to get to the bottom of.  At the same time it would be interesting to know why black swans have grey cygnets.

  
Patrick Caldon



Posts: 68
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 28 2007,02:23   

Quote (VMartin @ July 28 2007,01:54)
I've put mushrooms as an example where coloration cannot be explained via ToE. I claim that it is only the tip of the iceberg. 90% of coloration in animal kingdom is unexpleinable by ToE.

Forgot to add:  unexplained =/= unexpleinable.  You have to do a lot to show that something is impossible on some kind of theoretical grounds.

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 28 2007,02:33   

Quote (Patrick Caldon @ July 28 2007,02:19)

Dunno.  But I hardly see that the existence of some white swans, some black swans, and some white and black swans destroys the theory of evolution.  It would probably be an interesting project to get to the bottom of.  At the same time it would be interesting to know why black swans have grey cygnets.


White swans on a lake I live near have grey cygnets to.

I have read this conversation refleting prevailing paradigma:

Medieval University:

- Why are swans white?
- Because God determined so.

Modern University, 21st century:
 
- Why are swans white?
- Because it was determined by natural selection.

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

  
  215 replies since June 26 2007,15:36 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (8) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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