RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (17) < ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] >   
  Topic: VMartin's cosmology, where he will not be off-topic< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2008,13:11   

Quote (VMartin @ April 11 2008,13:04)
If you know something more about modern "evolutionary biologists" who are not "darwinists" and haven't been fired from their Uni yet (except Behe and biologists from Uni Prague hehe) let me know. I quoted Heikertinger, Mc Atee, Portman, Goldschmidt, Neubauer, Komarek, Petr and Davison who are no way orthodox neo-darwinists and who dismissed "natural selection" and "random mutation" as the source of evolution - or mimicry. I would say many of their arguments might be neglected - but not refuted.

Let me know who refuted 45 years lasting research of US agriculture department of 80.000 stomach contents of birds and of so called "aposematism" of insects (the same for Csiki conclusion about 2.900 birds stomachs Hungary 1905-1910) . The argument that they didn't base their conclusions on "representative sample" is no sufficient unless modern "evolutionary biologists" do the same "representative research" themselves. I would say some dubious experiments with stressed caged birds are no way "representative research" dismissing voluminous observation of behaviour of birds in free done in past.

Sure, Marty

Whatever you say. "Darwinists" are obviously completely wrong about all of this. Nobody can argue with a refutation of 45 years of stomach content analysis...

But there must be a better explanation that you and the other refuters have some evidence for. So perhaps now you can divulge your explanation of how those dragonflies got those colors and patterns.

I'm all ears...

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
- Pattiann Rogers

   
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2008,13:12   

Quote
But perhaps you could do some study of the issue before.


How ironic! Science fascinates me and I try to learn about new developments as time permits. What can I learn from you? How to open a bank account in Bratislava, perhaps?

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2008,13:26   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 11 2008,13:11)
Quote (VMartin @ April 11 2008,13:04)
If you know something more about modern "evolutionary biologists" who are not "darwinists" and haven't been fired from their Uni yet (except Behe and biologists from Uni Prague hehe) let me know. I quoted Heikertinger, Mc Atee, Portman, Goldschmidt, Neubauer, Komarek, Petr and Davison who are no way orthodox neo-darwinists and who dismissed "natural selection" and "random mutation" as the source of evolution - or mimicry. I would say many of their arguments might be neglected - but not refuted.

Let me know who refuted 45 years lasting research of US agriculture department of 80.000 stomach contents of birds and of so called "aposematism" of insects (the same for Csiki conclusion about 2.900 birds stomachs Hungary 1905-1910) . The argument that they didn't base their conclusions on "representative sample" is no sufficient unless modern "evolutionary biologists" do the same "representative research" themselves. I would say some dubious experiments with stressed caged birds are no way "representative research" dismissing voluminous observation of behaviour of birds in free done in past.

Sure, Marty

Whatever you say. "Darwinists" are obviously completely wrong about all of this. Nobody can argue with a refutation of 45 years of stomach content analysis...

But there must be a better explanation that you and the other refuters have some evidence for. So perhaps now you can divulge your explanation of how those dragonflies got those colors and patterns.

I'm all ears...

Obviously "natural selection" is no explanation of it.

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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2008,13:29   

Quote (Alan Fox @ April 11 2008,13:12)
Quote
But perhaps you could do some study of the issue before.


How ironic! Science fascinates me and I try to learn about new developments as time permits. What can I learn from you? How to open a bank account in Bratislava, perhaps?

In Bratislava? Do you think your irony is as witty as those of Voltaire or Stendhal? I am afraid you are the second class comparing those great French authors. You have still to learn.

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

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2008,13:35   

Quote
You have still to learn.


Agreed. So, teach me your alternative to variation followed by selection.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2008,13:53   

Quote (VMartin @ April 11 2008,13:26)
Obviously "natural selection" is no explanation of it.

Obviously.

So please tell us your explanation of it, and the evidence that supports it.

Thanks in advance!

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
- Pattiann Rogers

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2008,13:58   

Quote (VMartin @ April 11 2008,13:26)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 11 2008,13:11)
Quote (VMartin @ April 11 2008,13:04)
If you know something more about modern "evolutionary biologists" who are not "darwinists" and haven't been fired from their Uni yet (except Behe and biologists from Uni Prague hehe) let me know. I quoted Heikertinger, Mc Atee, Portman, Goldschmidt, Neubauer, Komarek, Petr and Davison who are no way orthodox neo-darwinists and who dismissed "natural selection" and "random mutation" as the source of evolution - or mimicry. I would say many of their arguments might be neglected - but not refuted.

Let me know who refuted 45 years lasting research of US agriculture department of 80.000 stomach contents of birds and of so called "aposematism" of insects (the same for Csiki conclusion about 2.900 birds stomachs Hungary 1905-1910) . The argument that they didn't base their conclusions on "representative sample" is no sufficient unless modern "evolutionary biologists" do the same "representative research" themselves. I would say some dubious experiments with stressed caged birds are no way "representative research" dismissing voluminous observation of behaviour of birds in free done in past.

Sure, Marty

Whatever you say. "Darwinists" are obviously completely wrong about all of this. Nobody can argue with a refutation of 45 years of stomach content analysis...

But there must be a better explanation that you and the other refuters have some evidence for. So perhaps now you can divulge your explanation of how those dragonflies got those colors and patterns.

I'm all ears...

Obviously "natural selection" is no explanation of it.

What is?

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

  
BopDiddy



Posts: 71
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2008,16:04   

Quote (VMartin @ April 11 2008,13:26)

Obviously "natural selection" is no explanation of it.

I'm curious, too.  What is the explanation?

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2008,22:01   

Quote (Lou FCD @ April 05 2008,07:18)
Quote (VMartin @ April 04 2008,17:24)
It's "natural selection" on the trial here, not me.

You are quite mistaken.

The trial for natural selection took place in the peer reviewed scientific literature a very long time ago. It was vindicated.

Your sour grapes and cockamamie rantings on the sidewalk outside the courthouse are irrelevant unless you can go inside and get an alternative to be similarly vindicated.

So far, you've got a sandwich board full of lunatic ravings.



 
Quote
Protester or Crazy Man, by tbertor1


Natural selection has been vindicated only in your confused mind Lou.

---

Good message. The neodarwinian idiots have just banned me at EvC.

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin....3&m=226

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

  
olegt



Posts: 1387
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2008,22:31   

VMartin,

I think you have been asked several times about the alternative theory that presumably fares better than mainstream biology.  You have avoided answering the question so far.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2008,23:47   

Just before I am banned here too.

The top idiots at AtBC are:

1) ArdenChatfield
2) theolddarwinismyhero
3) Erasmus
4) LouFCD

They have never produced any arguments except denigration, abuses, stupid questions and nonsensical babbling. The whole discussion at AtBC is moderated
by idiot LouFCD who has no slightest idea about justice.

Idiots here are unable to discuss any issue. The only thing they are able to do is to "google out" some neodarwinian article and to parrot the first page of it.

This is not a forum, this is a cage of fools.

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

  
olegt



Posts: 1387
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2008,23:52   

Thanks, VMartin, for providing an exhaustive answer.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2008,02:12   

Quote (VMartin @ April 13 2008,00:14)
Your questions are not on the programme now.

But you can hand down a message to LouFCD from professor John Davison.

If natural selection does not explain variation, Martin, what does?

Why won't you answer this?

Quote
LouFCD can kiss him on his purple blister.


That seems to be your job, Marty.

--------------
"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: April 13 2008,03:25   

You are a neodarwinian idiot par excellence.

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

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5377
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2008,06:49   

Posting in proxy for a banned commenter is a bannable offense, for which I had warned you on several occasions.

Offending comments can be found here, and here on The Bathroom Wall.  VMartin can be found elsewhere.

Goodbye, VMartin.

Thread closed.



 
Quote
Fremont Troll, by Travis S.




 
Quote
help, i'm a stick figure trapped in this boring picture , by robotson


Edited by Lou FCD on April 13 2008,08:02

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

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

Pages: (17) < ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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