RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

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



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2006,12:42   

When imagining this man behind his screen in a dark room, typing another post full of insults on a random internet forum, I can't help but laugh.  :D

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2006,07:15   

From the Dawkins forum:

Quote
The most gratifying feature of this thread is the ratio of views to messages which as of this time is 129 to 1. Isn't that some sort of record?

I love it so!


He's kind of like a travelling exhibit.

  
REC



Posts: 567
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2006,11:59   

Wow....Nomogenesis. Isn't that the thesis that pools examples of weak homologies and of convergent evolution into some sort of warped 'evolution guided by laws?' I can't believe with the modern molecular understanding of patterning genes that notion hasn't gone away.

It's like saying: C. elegans has a digestive tube, I have a digestive tube, there is (was) a creator who intended us to be tubey.

And the examples are so weak: Certain sharks and mammals have placentas, so the claim is that the former structure 'predicts' the latter. Except they are non-homologous, the shark 'placenta' derives from the yolk sak, as opposed to the amnion/chorion in mammals. Another example: two mammals from across the globe both developed big teeth. Universal laws, indeed.

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2006,05:02   

Hmmm, I was just going to pop on here to say that Davison sure knows how to get what he wants: his thread over on the Dawkins forum had just been closed.

But, now that I look at it again, the thread is reopened with no sign of the mod's closing post.

Come on Davison, you can do it!

  
stevestory



Posts: 8877
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2006,20:52   

JAD has been banned from the RichardDawkins.net forums. Fora. Forums. Whatever.

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=341&start=270

   
stevestory



Posts: 8877
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2006,20:55   

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 23 2006,02:52)
JAD has been banned from the RichardDawkins.net forums. Fora. Forums. Whatever.

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=341&start=270

Oddly, the Admin who banned him spells like a drunk Salvador Cordova.

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2006,22:13   

Skepticus (forum admin):

Quote
symultaniously


Indubidubiliciously, he is a creeetive spallar.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5377
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2006,01:12   

His "logic has no place in science" comment has to make it on his All Time Hits list.  Classic.  Explains a lot about DAJ, too.

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

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2006,04:10   

Yet another banning for poor old pathetic Davison to add to his CV. I'm sure he's proud.

I think he behaves this way because it keeps him from having to defend his ideas or listen to other people, neither of which he's willing to do. He can be the permanent 'martyr', without ever having to answer any awkward questions or develop any social skills.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2006,04:15   

Wow, they didn't take long to get JAD's number:

Quote
John seems to walk a fine line between a harmless kook and a troll. His method of claiming things that are absurd by any standard and refusing to debate reasonably, were symultaniously, entertaining and annoying. John was like an itch that felt good to scratch but would never stop itching. It was a comment by UndercoverElephant, that caused me to reconsider John as a super troll:
Quote

UndercoverElephant wrote:
I can't personally see his views as being particularly appealing to any community. His theology is every bit as absurd as his evolutionary biology. We have here a creationist who doesn't believe God exists! He disparagingly refered to me as "a natural-selection-worshipping, mutation-obsessed Darwinian mystic." I've got one foot in each camp, trying to bridge the gap. He's got neither foot in either camp.


This, seems to me to be the perfect position to take up if your motive was to be as universaly disagreeable as posible. That, along with the arrogant sophistry, seems to be the perfect strategy for a persistent troll. I think you only go on being a sophist for so long without it becoming obvious that your intention is to simply annoy and frustrate people. John is litteraly a crackpots crackpot.


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

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2006,07:00   

As far as who JAD is and where he's coming from, I though that thread was the most revealing one yet.

JAD clearly comes out saying he has this super duper theory and invites folks to read his thesis and says he;s ready to defend it.

The second people started asking him to actually defend his assertions (and asking for evidence to support those assertions) he starts calling foul and goes in persecuted "scientist" mode.  He never once responded to any the requests for evidence or critiques of his ideas.

He's a certified lunatic.  Let's hope they let him start posting at UD again where is is amongst his own kind.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2006,09:46   

Quote
He's a certified lunatic.


the problem is, he's a lunatic, but he HASN'T been certified.

If he had been, maybe he would get treatment.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Kristine



Posts: 3037
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2006,17:47   

Dum-de-dum...hey, I've written three grad papers since that fun time at TheEndofEvolution, wonder how JAD is doing on his paper, maybe I'll check out Dawkins' site--gaaa! Holy crap!

Quote
John A. Davison wrote:
It is impossible to understand any aspect of life as a manifestation of undirected processes.


Well, he sure lasted long there. :O JAD's sort of an undirected process himself, isn't he?

"Beshrew my heart, but I pity the man."

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 8877
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2006,08:28   

Quote
Zachriel



Posts: 51
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2006,14:21  
John Davison asked me to let everyone know about this thread over at ISCID. I see no reason not to drop the link. Enter at your own risk.


Darwinism as Delusion

--------------
--
Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
id='postcolor'>

   
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2006,10:56   

Same old lunatic, being helped along by his 'boy' Sal Cordova.

I see he's still quoting his out-of-date heros...

Pathetic as ever.

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2006,00:51   

REC:

No doubt there are other examples which cited also Davison in Manifesto and that are no way to be explained away as "superficially resemblance" as you do in case of placenta, tasmanian wolf etc.. Davison cited Punnet who believed that gradualismus cannot explain many baffling examples of mimicry and saltus is needed. Problem of mimicry consist in fact that to be effective there have to be initial resemlance between model and mimic to be deceptive for predators. No initial gradually step is enough to do this. Even today many experts on batesian or mullerian mimicry of butterflies conform with view of saltus even if in guise of "genetic effect of large magnitude".

Maybe you did not see one of most puzzling case of mimicry, where we have 14 different female morphs of Papilio Dardanus and many of them mimics unpalatable species (Batesian mimicry):

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

According Nijhout (2003) :

"Initial step in the evolution of mimicry is likely to have been due to a genetic effect of large magnitude".

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

And do darwinian have enough fantasy to explain even origin of mimetism described by Poulton, when mimics and his model lived in different and distatnt areas?
For instance Limenitis albomaculata lives in West China and their model - males Hypolimnas misippus - southeast Asia?

http://main2.amu.edu.pl/~skoracka/china/tn_49.html

http://www.inra.fr/papillon/papilion/nymphali/texteng/h_misipp.htm

(One darwinian explanation is this: it is due migrating birds that somehow remember archetypes of unpalatable species and to image of which mimic species in West China accomodated!;)

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

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2006,23:35   

Quote
No doubt there are other examples which cited also Davison in Manifesto and that are no way to be explained away as "superficially resemblance" as you do in case of placenta, tasmanian wolf etc.


What is your alternative explanation, apart from personal incredulity?

Quote
Davison cited Punnet who believed that gradualismus cannot explain many baffling examples of mimicry and saltus is needed.


Punnet (and all John's sources) were working many years ago. Biology is a continually developing body of knowledge. Also John's beliefs are not evidence. What he needs is a convincing hypothesis backed up by suggestions for testing it.

Quote
Problem of mimicry consist in fact that to be effective there have to be initial resemlance between model and mimic to be deceptive for predators. No initial gradually step is enough to do this.


Can you support this assertion?

Quote
"Initial step in the evolution of mimicry is likely to have been due to a genetic effect of large magnitude".


Single point mutations can have large phenotypic effects. How do you interpret this statement as a problem for evolutionary theory?

Quote
And do darwinian have enough fantasy to explain even origin of mimetism described by Poulton, when mimics and his model lived in different and distatnt areas?


Fantasy? You seem to be having a problem with personal incredulity again. Remember, if evidence for a theory is weak, it does not strengthen the evidence for a particular alternative theory. John' saltationist-front-loading "hypothesis" needs to have some foothold in evidence if it is ever to rise above crank status.

Quote
One darwinian explanation is this: it is due migrating birds that somehow remember archetypes of unpalatable species and to image of which mimic species in West China accomodated!


If  species of migratory birds were observed to eat models and mimics in different locations in their migratory cycle, it seems a plausible idea. Does John's "hypothesis" have a better, testable alternative?

I noticed your post at ISCID.

Quote
They are sometimes like unleshead beasts.


If you are referring to AtBC posters, I have to agree with you. :D

 
Quote
I am by now way expert on genetics


Fine. Neither am I. But that does not seem to affect your ability to dismiss the work of many hard-working and dedicated scientists, for the alternative of a "hypothesis" that has no evidential basis.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2006,23:59   

I read the abstract of Nijhout's paper. He describes alleles of large effects. What's the problem?

I don't see why the first steps of mimicry would require mutations of large effects in all species.
The initial ressemblance could be the result of another selective factor, an exaptation. For instance, two species of toxic insects could develop flashing colors that warn predators. If the flashing colors are closed (it's quite plausible), predation by birds will favor the ressemblance between the species (mullerian mimics). Then one species may lose its ability to produce toxin, but will still benefit from the toxin produced by the other (batesian mimics).
And this is just the first possibility I have in the top of my head (hope this is the correct expression...).

Regarding the mimic and the model living in different regions... Well, migrations/local extinctions could easily explain this. Maybe the aeras of both species were overlapping, in the past.
What does JAD's PEH have to say about it?

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2006,08:26   

Surely Davison do not dwell in his Manifesto on mimicry, he just cited Punnett, who do not believe on graduall steps that could eventually led to mimicry. Yet I consider Davison Manifesto one of the best critic of darwinism I have ever read.  

As to your remarks that Davison sources are out of date it seems to me very strange, while neoDARWINISm stands on naturalist phantasy of Darwin who lived in 19 century and had no idea, that something like DNA exist.

If you claim, that Punnet is also outdated I must remind you that there are more scientists, who studied insects, mimicry and related phenomens and do not believed in neodarwism - for instance Heikertinger - he and Punnet claimed that behind development are "internal factors".  
Something, that propose also Davison and what is in accord with Grasse.

Modern scientist who visited Amazonia and do not believe in neodarwinism at all, but propose some Goethean approach and other developmental forces is Andreas Suchantke who wrote in 1994 "Metamorphosen im Insektenreich".

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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2006,08:45   

Jeannot.

It would be fine, if you put beside Davison photo your own. We would than might see your fysiognomia and amuse ourselves.

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

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2006,11:19   

No, it would be pointless in a thread about John A Davison. And there's nothing particularly funny in my physionomy (neither in JAD's) if you want to know.
The fun comes from the comparison of JAD's wise face and those childish instults he keeps posting in on any internet forum that hasn't banned him yet.

You know, like the comment you just wrote...
Who, except the man himself, supports this PEH drivel and gets mad on people willing to stay anonymous? (Which BTW never prevented his pathetic attempts to post on this baord under another name).

Davison, is this you? :)

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2006,12:04   

Quote
...I consider Davison Manifesto one of the best critic of darwinism I have ever read.  


One of the best? Then modern evolutionary theory is safe for a while, yet.

 
Quote
...Darwin who lived in 19 century and had no idea, that something like DNA exist.


A scientific theory stands or falls by the evidence that supports or disproves it. Subsequent developments, from Mendel to whole genome sequencing, have generally reinforced the original concept of natural selection. Modern evolutionary theory is not static; observations, experiments and modifications continue to advance and improve on the original theory. "Origin of Species" was a seminal work but is not a very useful reference for anyone wishing to learn about modern evolutionary theory.

 
Quote
Heikertinger


Ah! Googling Heikertinger led me here. Posters at AvC seem already to have dealt quite adequately with your concerns. I doubt you will get any further here without some new material. I wouldn't rely on John to come up with anything original.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2006,13:40   

Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 06 2006,17:19)
Davison, is this you? :)

We'll know for sure if the Fruit starts talking about "liking them fruits".

;)

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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2006,15:02   

Alan Fox

Quote
Can you support this assertion?


Surely I can. You might not read link on my first post
on Papilio Dardanus so I cited from there - page 580:

Quote

Batesian mimicry is believed to originate by means of aninitial mutation that has a sufficiently big effect on the phenotype to give a passable resemblance to a protected model, followed by the accumulation and selection of mutations in modifier genes that progressively refine the mimicry (Fisher 1930; Carpenter and Ford 1933; Sheppard 1959; Clarke and Sheppard 1960c; Charlesworth and Charles-worth 1975a; Turner 1977; Charlesworth 1994). Charlesworth and Charlesworth (1975b,c) calculated the conditions under which mimicry will evolve, and their calculations suggest that modifying mutations that refine the mimicry will be maintained if they are tightly liked to the gene that conferred the initial advantage, thus providing a plausible explanation for the evolution of a supergene.


I underestand that neodarwinists do not like hear of initial big step and prefer to gradual changes. Yet in case of mimicry it is more than 100 years that such theory is accepted as only possible.  

I suppose that even hardcore neodarwinist  do not believe, that "initial mutation" was a one that affected randomly one-two nucleotides and these small random mutation changed completely wing patterns and colors that even birds are unable distinct it from model species.
In Papilio Dardanus most of 14 morphs mimics unpalatable species, so this "randomness" occurs many times.

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

  
REC



Posts: 567
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2006,15:35   

SO-JAD is back at UD, and its some good reading:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1647#comments

In response to V martin, my main complaint is that nomogenesis (evolution according to laws) hasn't been updated-and the utter lack of molecular biology hurts its cause. It might have seemed spectacular that mutliple species develop the same long teeth, or color-patterns, or whatever in the 1960s-so much so that JAD critiques evolution on this basis (which I think are poor examples anyway).

BUT, evolutionary biology now knows about things like HOX genes. If the mammalian skull 'plan' is laid out in a common ancestor, and the expression level of a certain gene controls tooth length, are we surprised two species across the globe could converge on a mammalian skull with long teeth? Does this indicate a supernatural "frontloading?" In short, once you strip away the semantics, the "laws" you claim guide evolution are PREDICTED by understanding molecular mechanisms shared due to common ancestry.

  
REC



Posts: 567
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2006,15:56   

oops-double post

  
REC



Posts: 567
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2006,15:58   

As for the evolution of mimicry, I guess the complaint is the standard  "too complex for evolution."

V martin confirms this  
Quote
mimicry consist in fact that to be effective there have to be initial resemlance between model and mimic to be deceptive for predators. No initial gradually step is enough to do this


I'm not an insect biologist by any means-but it took me about 2 minutes at entrez-pubmed to find:

Mimicry by lack of 1 enzyme, 1 mutation-

The molecular basis of melanism and mimicry in a swallowtail butterfly.
Koch et al Curr Biol. 2000 May 18;10(10):591-4.
Quote

Melanism in Lepidoptera, either industrial or in mimicry, is one of the most commonly cited examples of natural selection [1] [2]. Despite extensive studies of the frequency and maintenance of melanic genes in insect populations [1] [2], there has been little work on the underlying molecular mechanisms. Nowhere is butterfly melanism more striking than in the Eastern Tiger Swallowtail (Papilio glaucus) of North America [3] [4] [5]. In this species, females can be either yellow (wild type) or black (melanic). The melanic form is a Batesian mimic of the distasteful Pipevine Swallowtail (Battus philenor), which is also black in overall color. Melanism in P. glaucus is controlled by a single Y-linked (female) black gene [6]. Melanic females, therefore, always have melanic daughters. Black melanin replaces the background yellow in melanic females. Here, we show that the key enzyme involved is N-beta-alanyl-dopamine-synthase (BAS), which shunts dopamine from the melanin pathway into the production of the yellow color pigment papiliochrome and also provides products for cuticle sclerotization. In melanic females, this enzyme is suppressed, leading to abnormal melanization of a formerly yellow area, and wing scale maturation is also delayed in the same area. This raises the possibility that either reduced BAS activity itself is preventing scale sclerotization (maturation) or, in contrast, that the delay in scale maturation precludes expression of BAS at the correct stage. Together, these data show how changes in expression of a single gene product could result in multiple wing color phenotypes. The implications for the genetic control of mimicry in other Lepidoptera are discussed.


The problem is, the philosophers of the 1970's went a little too far, coming up with examples they thought Darwinian evolution could never explain. And they did it with no data-before the jury was in. Molecular biology is answering these open questions.

Seems like a lesson to be learned for the 'irreducible complexity' community....

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5377
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2006,16:18   

Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 05 2006,23:59)
What does JAD's PEH have to say about it?

God dun it.

Then he died.

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

   
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2006,16:43   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 08 2006,16:18)
Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 05 2006,23:59)
What does JAD's PEH have to say about it?

God dun it.

Then he died.

Thanks.

'Got that, and wrote that down.  :D

It's hard to believe, isn't it?

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2006,10:06   

Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 08 2006,16:43)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 08 2006,16:18)
 
Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 05 2006,23:59)
What does JAD's PEH have to say about it?

God dun it.

Then he died.

Thanks.

'Got that, and wrote that down.  :D

It's hard to believe, isn't it?

I love it so!

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

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

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


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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