Printable Version of Topic
-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: JAD was banned again from UD... started by Mr_Christopher
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Oct. 11 2006,12:18
Could we allow JAD to post here again? Maybe just one thread like Afdave, tard, fighter pilot and part time biologist got?
Just a thought. JAD is too special to be silenced and Davetard just nuked him again.
JAD if you read this your fans here are pulling for you!
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 11 2006,12:23
No.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Oct. 11 2006,12:26
Aawwww man...That's cold!
Well hopefully our man about science will find someplace other than larry farafarafarafarafara's blog to land and spread his message.
I am going to miss him over at UD.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 11 2006,12:32
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Oct. 11 2006,18:26) | Aawwww man...That's cold!
Well hopefully our man about science will find someplace other than larry farafarafarafarafara's blog to land and spread his message.
I am going to miss him over at UD. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Honestly, I don't remember when and why JAD was banned. But the fact is, this isn't Uncommon Descent, where they ban you if they don't like the cut of your jib. So few people get banned here, it's really only the people who are extremely disruptive and problematic, and even then, it's only after months of tired patience. So once banned, forever banned. I'm sure JAD and DaveScot will manage to find places to have their flame wars.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 11 2006,12:36
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 11 2006,17:23) | No. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Got that? Write it down!
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Well hopefully our man about science will find someplace other than larry farafarafarafarafara's blog to land and spread his message. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Doesn't JAD still have a blog of his own? Or did he mothball it last time the ashtrays got full?
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Oct. 11 2006,13:20
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 11 2006,17:32) | Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Oct. 11 2006,18:26) | Aawwww man...That's cold!
Well hopefully our man about science will find someplace other than larry farafarafarafarafara's blog to land and spread his message.
I am going to miss him over at UD. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Honestly, I don't remember when and why JAD was banned. But the fact is, this isn't Uncommon Descent, where they ban you if they don't like the cut of your jib. So few people get banned here, it's really only the people who are extremely disruptive and problematic, and even then, it's only after months of tired patience. So once banned, forever banned. I'm sure JAD and DaveScot will manage to find places to have their flame wars. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
IIRC it was to do with his offensive tone and inability to stop repeating himself.
He posted for quite a while on PT but was only allowed on the bathroom wall (the old 1 that was on PT); At least since I started reading it, that was where he was "caged".
His spats often made me laugh. However the regulars who had been there for some time had had enough of him. But boy could that guy rant.
In a way I supose it was pretty sad. People would taunt him and he would go into instant rage mode.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 11 2006,13:25
With Heddle and JAD gone, UD is out of 'scientists'. Chock full of engineers, though.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Oct. 11 2006,13:59
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Oct. 11 2006,18:20) | In a way I supose it was pretty sad. People would taunt him and he would go into instant rage mode. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It WAS fun to rattle then monkey's bars and watch him fling poo in all directions.
Well, it did get boring after a while, though.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 11 2006,14:47
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 11 2006,18:25) | With Heddle and JAD gone, UD is out of 'scientists'. Chock full of engineers, though. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Don't they still have Phil Skell?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 11 2006,17:28
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Don't they still have Phil Skell?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Haven't you heard? Phil Skell turns out to be unnecessary to the progress of science.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Oct. 11 2006,19:25
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 11 2006,17:36) | Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 11 2006,17:23) | No. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Got that? Write it down! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I love it so!
Bob
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Oct. 11 2006,22:13
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Oct. 11 2006,18:59) | Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Oct. 11 2006,18:20) | In a way I supose it was pretty sad. People would taunt him and he would go into instant rage mode. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It WAS fun to rattle then monkey's bars and watch him fling poo in all directions.
Well, it did get boring after a while, though. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When I first started reading PT, JAD's favourite end-comment was "how do you like them apples" (equivalent to his "Got that? Right it down!"). Then someone asked him if he lacked the knowledge to name more than one fruit (aprox).
JAD then ended each comment with "How do you like them (insert obscure fruit, each one different)". That whent on for quite a while.
I also quite liked JAD's reaction to the banning of Dave Scott. That lasted quite a while. Back then he was describing D-T along the lines of a "genius in the field of computing".
Then the was the people calling JAD a a caged monkey throughing his feces about; That went down well. Guess that was you then Lenny.
I do remember the day JAD was correct though. Something to do with a dinosaur nest and the way the eggs lay. JAD commented on how this was evidence for a certain pelvic arangement in the species (something along those lines, it was few years ago). He was instantly ridiculed by many posters, but turned out JAD was right.
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 11 2006,22:33
It's "Got that? Write that down."
Alan could probably confirm this.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Oct. 12 2006,02:16
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Oct. 12 2006,03:13) | I do remember the day JAD was correct though. Something to do with a dinosaur nest and the way the eggs lay. JAD commented on how this was evidence for a certain pelvic arangement in the species (something along those lines, it was few years ago). He was instantly ridiculed by many posters, but turned out JAD was right. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
JAD was an actual scientist at one time, before he lost his marbles and went stark raving mad.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 12 2006,02:54
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Oct. 12 2006,07:16) | Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Oct. 12 2006,03:13) | I do remember the day JAD was correct though. Something to do with a dinosaur nest and the way the eggs lay. JAD commented on how this was evidence for a certain pelvic arangement in the species (something along those lines, it was few years ago). He was instantly ridiculed by many posters, but turned out JAD was right. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
JAD was an actual scientist at one time, before he lost his marbles and went stark raving mad. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I wonder if he was as dull and repetitive before the breakdown?
His thread over at Dawkins place is progressing nicely, they've got to the point of going "huh" now, little do they know the madness that awaits (repetitive madness mind!
I fark it so!
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 12 2006,04:01
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 11 2006,22:28) |
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Don't they still have Phil Skell?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Haven't you heard? Phil Skell turns out to be unnecessary to the progress of science. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I wasn't paying any attention to UD for several days, what happened? Did Skell bow out?
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Oct. 12 2006,05:28
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Oct. 12 2006,07:16) | JAD was an actual scientist at one time, before he lost his marbles and went stark raving mad. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Got that? Write that down. <- (Better Jeannot?)
I know.
Hard to believe isn't it?
How do you like those apples?
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 12 2006,05:33
A much more observant reader that myself emails to tell me:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- JAD was not banned from PT. He was confined to his very own thread, which he stopped posting to after it dropped off the front page. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So he could come back anytime he wants.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 12 2006,05:38
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Oct. 12 2006,10:28) | Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Oct. 12 2006,07:16) | JAD was an actual scientist at one time, before he lost his marbles and went stark raving mad. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Got that? Write that down. <- (Better Jeannot?)
I know.
Hard to believe isn't it?
How do you like those apples? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You guys are forgetting 'darwimp'.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Oct. 12 2006,05:44
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 12 2006,10:38) | You guys are forgetting 'darwimp'. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh, no. I assure you I hadn't forgotten that one. He used it so often on PT that a regular eventually lost his rag and offered JAD a fistfight. (Hopefully) Forgetting JAD was an 80+ y.o. man.
Oh, those funny memories just keep on truckin.
Deja Vu - all over again.
Posted by: argystokes on Oct. 12 2006,05:59
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 12 2006,08:33) | A much more observant reader that myself emails to tell me:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- JAD was not banned from PT. He was confined to his very own thread, which he stopped posting to after it dropped off the front page. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So he could come back anytime he wants. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are you sure? I suspect that his last comment was enough to have Wes pull the plug:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Posted by John A. Davison on May 27, 2005 09:12 AM (e)
Neither allelic mutation nor selection ever had anything to do with organic evolution which was predetermined executed and now finished. This post is destined for oblivion in the Welsberry gas chamber as just another example of his Nazi tactics.
John A. Davison ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 12 2006,06:12
I have now been informed by email that John A Davison has indeed been sacked.
Mynd you, mØØse bites Kan be pretty nasti ...
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Oct. 12 2006,07:35
---------------------QUOTE------------------- This post is destined for oblivion in the Welsberry gas chamber as just another example of his Nazi tactics ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now that was some comedy. JAD should be a fundie christian. He has the persecuted victim thing down to a "science".
His latest on Dawkins site is pretty much:
JAD: Read my thesis, I am prepared to defend it!
Forumites: Ok, we read it. Please defend it here, here, here and here with some sort of evidence for these claims.
JAD: I will no longer tollerate the personal attacks on me! Go ahead and ban me now!!!
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 12 2006,08:41
(I see I accidentally posted this in the wrong thread)
Looking over the fiasco at RichardDawkins.net, I'm starting to think that < this > may be JAD's problem.
Or ONE of them, at least.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Oct. 12 2006,13:46
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 12 2006,13:41) | (I see I accidentally posted this in the wrong thread)
Looking over the fiasco at RichardDawkins.net, I'm starting to think that < this > may be JAD's problem.
Or ONE of them, at least. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sounds just like every fundie IDer I've ever met. (shrug)
Posted by: GCT on Oct. 13 2006,03:56
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 11 2006,17:23) | No. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thank you.
Although the fact that he isn't off the deep end in regards to climate change was a nice surprise, his posts in relation to biology are simply annoying. Nothing more, nothing less.
Posted by: 2ndclass on Oct. 13 2006,05:39
Quote (GCT @ Oct. 13 2006,08:56) | Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 11 2006,17:23) | No. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thank you.
Although the fact that he isn't off the deep end in regards to climate change was a nice surprise, his posts in relation to biology are simply annoying. Nothing more, nothing less. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Amen to that. JAD isn't just a crackpot; he's an insufferably boring crackpot. Other IDers regularly come up with new angles, but JAD is a broken record. He's the kid sitting behind you at the theater who keeps kicking your seat through the whole movie.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 13 2006,05:48
Anyone who wants to engage that nut can just go to < http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=341 > Or better yet, go tell Davetard where he is and put some popcorn in the microwave.
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 14 2006,08:16
I was amazed to see that Professor Davison envisioned his governorship of Vermont. < John A. Davison for Governor of Vermont >.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Oct. 14 2006,11:08
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 14 2006,08:16) | I was amazed to see that Professor Davison envisioned his governorship of Vermont. < John A. Davison for Governor of Vermont >. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think he should have stuck with his composting < toilet >.
Posted by: jeannot on 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.
Posted by: Ved on 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! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He's kind of like a travelling exhibit.
Posted by: REC on 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.
Posted by: Ved on 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!
Posted by: stevestory on 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 >
Posted by: stevestory on 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 > ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oddly, the Admin who banned him spells like a drunk Salvador Cordova.
Posted by: Ichthyic on Oct. 22 2006,22:13
Skepticus (forum admin):
---------------------QUOTE------------------- symultaniously ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Indubidubiliciously, he is a creeetive spallar.
Posted by: Lou FCD on 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.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on 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.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on 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.
Posted by: Ichthyic on Oct. 23 2006,09:46
---------------------QUOTE------------------- He's a certified lunatic. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
the problem is, he's a lunatic, but he HASN'T been certified.
If he had been, maybe he would get treatment.
Posted by: Kristine on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, he sure lasted long there. JAD's sort of an undirected process himself, isn't he?
"Beshrew my heart, but I pity the man."
Posted by: stevestory on 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/ ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by: slpage on 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.
Posted by: VMartin on 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!
Posted by: Alan Fox on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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". ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you are referring to AtBC posters, I have to agree with you.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I am by now way expert on genetics ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: jeannot on 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?
Posted by: VMartin on 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".
Posted by: VMartin on 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.
Posted by: jeannot on 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?
Posted by: Alan Fox on Nov. 06 2006,12:04
---------------------QUOTE------------------- ...I consider Davison Manifesto one of the best critic of darwinism I have ever read.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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 ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Nov. 06 2006,13:40
Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 06 2006,17:19) | Davison, is this you? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We'll know for sure if the Fruit starts talking about "liking them fruits".
Posted by: VMartin on Nov. 08 2006,15:02
Alan Fox
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Can you support this assertion?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: REC on 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.
Posted by: REC on Nov. 08 2006,15:56
oops-double post
Posted by: REC on 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 ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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....
Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 08 2006,16:18
Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 05 2006,23:59) | What does JAD's PEH have to say about it? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
God dun it.
Then he died.
Posted by: jeannot on 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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
God dun it.
Then he died. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thanks.
'Got that, and wrote that down.
It's hard to believe, isn't it?
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on 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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
God dun it.
Then he died. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thanks.
'Got that, and wrote that down.
It's hard to believe, isn't it? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I love it so!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 09 2006,10:12
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ 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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
God dun it.
Then he died. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thanks.
'Got that, and wrote that down.
It's hard to believe, isn't it? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I love it so! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
SOCK IT TO HIM!
Posted by: VMartin on Nov. 16 2006,16:20
Davison cited prominent modern scientists who dismissed darwinism. I would like add one name from "small philosophy" - atheist Friedrich Nietzsche who ridicules Darwin very. I cannot find english translation of his last book Gotzen dammerung, but German original can be found easily on inet.
Nietzsche on darwinism AND MIMICRY in Gotzen Dammerung (see especially that Darwin forget spirit (Geist) - "das ist englisch!"), :
Anti-Darwin. - Was den berühmten Kampf um's Leben betrifft, so scheint er mir einstweilen mehr behauptet als bewiesen. Er kommt vor, aber als Ausnahme; der Gesammt-Aspekt des Lebens ist nicht die Nothlage, die Hungerlage, vielmehr der Reichthum, die Üppigkeit, selbst die absurde Verschwendung, - wo gekämpft wird, kämpft man um Macht... Man soll nicht Malthus mit der Natur verwechseln. - Gesetzt aber, es giebt diesen Kampf - und in der That, er kommt vor -, so läuft er leider umgekehrt aus als die Schule Darwin's wünscht, als man vielleicht mit ihr wünschen dürfte: nämlich zu Ungunsten der Starken, der Bevorrechtigten, der glücklichen Ausnahmen. Die Gattungen wachsen nicht in der Vollkommenheit: die Schwachen werden immer wieder über die Starken Herr, - das macht, sie sind die grosse Zahl, sie sind auch klüger... Darwin hat den Geist vergessen (- das ist englisch!, die Schwachen haben mehr Geist... Man muss Geist nöthig haben, um Geist zu bekommen, - man verliert ihn, wenn man ihn nicht mehr nöthig hat. Wer die Stärke hat, entschlägt sich des Geistes (- "lass fahren dahin! denkt man heute in Deutschland - das Reich muss uns doch bleiben"...). Ich verstehe unter Geist, wie man sieht, die Vorsicht, die Geduld, die List, die Verstellung, die grosse Selbstbeherrschung und Alles, was mimicry ist (zu letzterem gehört ein grosser Theil der sogenannten Tugend).
< http://manybooks.net/support....xp.html >
Posted by: VMartin on Nov. 16 2006,16:57
Am I now banned like Davison?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Nov. 16 2006,21:21
Huh, did you say something?
Sorry, but nobody is listening to you. (shrug)
Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 16 2006,22:54
Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 16 2006,17:20) | Davison cited prominent modern scientists who dismissed darwinism. I would like add one name from "small philosophy" - atheist Friedrich Nietzsche who ridicules Darwin very. I cannot find english translation of his last book Gotzen dammerung, but German original can be found easily on inet.
Nietzsche on darwinism AND MIMICRY in Gotzen Dammerung (see especially that Darwin forget spirit (Geist) - "das ist englisch!"), :
Anti-Darwin. - Was den berühmten Kampf um's Leben betrifft, so scheint er mir einstweilen mehr behauptet als bewiesen. Er kommt vor, aber als Ausnahme; der Gesammt-Aspekt des Lebens ist nicht die Nothlage, die Hungerlage, vielmehr der Reichthum, die Üppigkeit, selbst die absurde Verschwendung, - wo gekämpft wird, kämpft man um Macht... Man soll nicht Malthus mit der Natur verwechseln. - Gesetzt aber, es giebt diesen Kampf - und in der That, er kommt vor -, so läuft er leider umgekehrt aus als die Schule Darwin's wünscht, als man vielleicht mit ihr wünschen dürfte: nämlich zu Ungunsten der Starken, der Bevorrechtigten, der glücklichen Ausnahmen. Die Gattungen wachsen nicht in der Vollkommenheit: die Schwachen werden immer wieder über die Starken Herr, - das macht, sie sind die grosse Zahl, sie sind auch klüger... Darwin hat den Geist vergessen (- das ist englisch!, die Schwachen haben mehr Geist... Man muss Geist nöthig haben, um Geist zu bekommen, - man verliert ihn, wenn man ihn nicht mehr nöthig hat. Wer die Stärke hat, entschlägt sich des Geistes (- "lass fahren dahin! denkt man heute in Deutschland - das Reich muss uns doch bleiben"...). Ich verstehe unter Geist, wie man sieht, die Vorsicht, die Geduld, die List, die Verstellung, die grosse Selbstbeherrschung und Alles, was mimicry ist (zu letzterem gehört ein grosser Theil der sogenannten Tugend).
< http://manybooks.net/support....xp.html > ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And the babelfish translation....
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Which concerns the famous fight um's life, then it seems to me meanwhile more stated than proven. It occurs, but as exception; Gesammt aspect life is not Nothlage, which which sumptuousness, even the absurd verschwendung, - one fights where, one fights to hunger situation, rather the Reichthum, for power... One is not to confound Malthus with nature. - set however, it giebt this fight - and in the That, he comes forwards -, then it runs out unfortunately in reverse as the school Darwin's wishes, when perhaps one might wish with it: indeed to Ungunsten of the strong ones, which privileged, the lucky exceptions. The kinds do not grow in the perfection: the weak ones become again and again over the strong ones gentleman, - which makes, them are the large number, them are also more intelligent... Darwin forgot the spirit (- that is English!, the weak ones have more spirit... One must have spirit noethig, in order to get spirit, - one loses him, if one does not have him any longer noethig. Who has the strength, entschlaegt itself the spirit (- "lass drive there! one thinks today in Germany - the realm must us nevertheless bleiben"...). I understand the caution, the patience, the ruse, the adjustment, the large self-control and everything that mimicry by spirit, as one see, is (to the latter a large Theil of the so-called virtue belongs). ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, reading this fairly quickly. It sounds more like JAD than Nietzsche. It just needs the proper flourish at the end. Pick one:
- I love it so!
- Write it down!
- How do you like them dung-dripping apples!
Posted by: VMartin on Nov. 19 2006,13:37
I do not see what is this thread is about - I see no arguments only "jokes" missing any meaning. Arguments against Davison I do not see at all, not even against prominent scientists he cited. I cited also Punnet mentioned in Manifesto who did not believe in darwinian gradualism as sufficient explanation of mimicry. I suppose that you will ridicule also this response but anyhow I cannnot help myself but send it - I never suppose that prominent neodarwinian scientists would support their phatasy how mimicry evolve by "transvestite evolutionary step" in 21 century!
< http://www.nbb.cornell.edu/neurobio/BioNB420/Dardanus2003.pdf >
1)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The niobe phenotype can be obtained with the niobe allele of the mimicry locus (Hni) but also as a heterozygote between the planemoides and trophonius alleles (Hpl/HT), yielding the so-called synthetic niobe (Clarke and Sheppard 1960a). ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I would say that color on back wings of niobe is distinctly different from that of plamenoides and trophonius. So from where this color came from?
2)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Our studies on the correlated variation of pattern elements revealed a substantial amount of phenotypic variability in the various forms of P. dardanus. Assuming a similar mutation load, patterns that are subject to strong selection should exhibit less genetic and phenotypic variability than patterns that are under weaker selection. . . The absence of correlated variation among pattern elements in mimicking forms stands in contrast to the neighbor and regional correlations observed in the nonmimetic patterns. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Again I would say - studying neodarwinian explanation of Batesian mimicry - that mimic should be protected against any shift of patterns and colors that would anyhow diminish its resemblance to distasteful model. I would also say that no such constrains would exist in nonmimetic patterns, while there I see no protection and subsequntly no selective pressure to look same. Yet the measured values for Papilio d. are exactly opposite to this consideration.
3)
There is accepted theory that even if males of P.d. look same throughout species its patterns and colors are not ancestral form - probably as I assume it would complicated neodarwinists phancy how to explain initial mutation from these ancestor to others mimic morphs. Instead according Nijhout archaic patterns look like P.phorcas. There should be than only 6 mutations that changed patterns on forewing - author probably forget on hindwings and colors - but even these 6 mutations occuring simultaneously from 12 measured patterns give probability 1/3.000.000.
What is more interesting is that supposed ancestor of P.d. morphs have 2 female morphs that are eatable so question aroses how it comes that these two morphs exists when there is no selective pressure? Neodarwinists do not lack phantasy at all:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The polymorphic female form of P. phorcas is believed to have originated as a male-mimicking ‘‘transvestitism’’ from a primitively sexually dimorphic color pattern (Vane-Wright 1976; Clarke et al. 1985). ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you never heard about transvestite evolution than again:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This suggests that the species may initially have been sexually dimorphic (with brown/yellow females and black/green males) and that a so-called transvestite evolutionary step (Vane-Wright 1976; Clarke et al. 1985) produced male-like females and was the origin of the female color ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So that is the modern, "scientific" neodarwinistic account for Papilio dardanus polymorphism - resting partly upon "transvestite evolutionary step" with subsequent "genetic effect of large magnitude".
Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 19 2006,14:29
Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 19 2006,13:37) | I do not see what is this thread is about - I see no arguments only "jokes" missing any meaning. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This thread is about DAJ, so that's rather appropriate, doncha think?
Posted by: VMartin on Nov. 19 2006,15:24
I would appreciate if you addressed my post on mimicry instead of talking on somebody who is banned and cannot defend himself. I agree with Davison Manifesto on Punnet and mimicry. I would appreciate any comment of this part on Davison Manifesto or on my previous post connected with it.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Nov. 19 2006,15:25
Dude, no one is paying any attention to you. (shrug)
Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 19 2006,16:01
Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 19 2006,13:37) | Arguments against Davison I do not see at all ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
'Cause there's nothing at all in JAD's arguments, that's why.
"God 'dun it, then he died."
Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 19 2006,19:21
Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 19 2006,16:01) | "God 'dun it, then he died." ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Thanks.
'Got that, and wrote that down.
It's hard to believe, isn't it?"
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Nov. 19 2006,20:03
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 19 2006,19:21) | Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 19 2006,16:01) | "God 'dun it, then he died." ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Thanks.
'Got that, and wrote that down.
It's hard to believe, isn't it?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Aren't we forgetting something?
Something about apples? ? ? ?
Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 20 2006,05:52
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 19 2006,19:21) | Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 19 2006,16:01) | "God 'dun it, then he died." ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Thanks.
'Got that, and wrote that down.
It's hard to believe, isn't it?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I love it so!
Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 20 2006,05:56
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I would appreciate if you addressed my post on mimicry instead of talking on somebody who is banned and cannot defend himself. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote (Alan Fox @ Nov. 06 2006,12:04) | 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Nov. 20 2006,12:03
Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 19 2006,15:24) | I would appreciate if you addressed my post on mimicry instead of talking on somebody who is banned and cannot defend himself. I agree with Davison Manifesto on Punnet and mimicry. I would appreciate any comment of this part on Davison Manifesto or on my previous post connected with it. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dude, do you honestly think we're going to argue about JAD's "theories" with you? Are you serious?
Besides, this thread isn't about JAD's "theories" it's about his banning.
Got that? Write it down!
ps - I love it so!
Posted by: VMartin on Nov. 20 2006,13:04
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dude, do you honestly think we're going to argue about JAD's "theories" with you? Are you serious?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Darling I do not suppose you folks here are able discuss any problem outlined by Davison. Your discussion here is only childish mockery of Davison of no value. Whats more he is banned and so unable defend himself.
Your mockery with naive and unscientific opinion on mimicry like this one from Jeannot Nov.5:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't see why the first steps of mimicry would require mutations of large effects in all species.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
explain everything.
Enjoy your inane discussion!
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Nov. 20 2006,13:09
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 20 2006,12:03) | Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 19 2006,15:24) | I would appreciate if you addressed my post on mimicry instead of talking on somebody who is banned and cannot defend himself. I agree with Davison Manifesto on Punnet and mimicry. I would appreciate any comment of this part on Davison Manifesto or on my previous post connected with it. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dude, do you honestly think we're going to argue about JAD's "theories" with you? Are you serious?
Besides, this thread isn't about JAD's "theories" it's about his banning.
Got that? Write it down!
ps - I love it so! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How do you like those road apples?
Posted by: REC on Nov. 20 2006,16:37
Vmartin, I replied on page 2 of this topic. Perhaps you would care to reply directly? If I understand correctly, you have 2 points:
1) Mimicry is too complex to have evolved simultaneously. 2) Mimics defy natural selection
My complaint that a molecular understanding of mimicry is lacking stands. Your "BIG" genetic changes may be large in phenotypic consequence, but minor in actual genetic change (think HOX expression). The paper I found describes mimicry achieved by the altered expression of a single enzyme. This seems to support Jeannot's response, which you mock. Secondly, there seem to be only philosophical guesses at how many alterations yield a mimic-which without molecular backing are indeed guesses. You rest your complaint upon these...
As for the second point-that a mimic, once evolved, would not drift from mimicry, as this would put it at risk of being eaten. Interesting premise-but predation is only one variable. Suppose being a mimic decreases other fitness parameters-attractiveness to mates, stress resistance, who knows what? Therefore, a more complex, multi-phenotypic species could persist.
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Nov. 20 2006,16:54
Vmartin, you need to read a book by evo-devo biologist Sean Carroll re evolution of butterfly wing markings, etc.: Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo and the Making of the Animal Kingdom, W.W. Norton (2005).
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.
Do your research and then come back and talk about your questions.
On some relevant thread, which--as you will have gathered--this is not.
Posted by: VMartin on Nov. 21 2006,13:18
And why dont you read discussions on brainstorms?
< http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-forum-f-6.html >
Whats more - Davison has full access there and he also has some allies there - me too. Davison is right with his conclusion that "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
Posted by: Ichthyic on Nov. 21 2006,13:35
hey, VM:
If you think Davison is correct with his PEH, all you have to do is ask him why he, nor ANYBODY else, has EVER attempted to test any prediction resulting from it.
or even ask youself....
why there ARE no testable predictions to begin with.
or why it was never published in a credible peer reviewed journal (Hint: Revista de Biologia is NOT a credible journal).
so yeah, we can just as easily make fun of your ability to rationally process information if you think Davison's PEH is any more credible or viable than the old creationist "front loading" meme.
get a clue.
Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 21 2006,14:15
Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 21 2006,13:18) | Davison is right with his conclusion that "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And he has shown that it's impossible to argue with him.
Davison : "I'm right and darwinism is wrong" Sane person: "but look all these recent papers that prove YOU are wrong <insert references>" Davison: "I don't read papers written by darwinists"
Posted by: REC on Nov. 21 2006,14:30
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Whats more - Davison has full access there and he also has some allies there - me too. Davison is right with his conclusion that "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Then you should be well-versed, and fully prepared to rebut my posts. Got anything to say?
I've also posted directly to ISCID. We'll see what happens...
Posted by: VMartin on Nov. 21 2006,16:03
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you think Davison is correct with his PEH, all you have to do is ask him why he, nor ANYBODY else, has EVER attempted to test any prediction resulting from it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Davison named his Manifesto "A NEW HYPOTHESIS FOR ORGANIC CHANGE". 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".
Btw what are the tested prediction of darwinism and communism?
Why not go to Brainstorm where John Davison is not banned and can give you explanation personally?
Posted by: VMartin on Nov. 21 2006,16:11
Jeannot.
That is no argument what is written in darwinian books. If Davison do not read them he might be right. Why to waste time with it? Here in Central and East Europe we were forced to read marxistic bullshits, in every University there was department of marx-leninism and people in Russia were prisoned as insane if they doubted on marx-leninism wordl-view.
Critics of communism were marked as "insane" - just like you marked Davison right now.
Do not forget that marxism and darwinism are similiar outdated naturalistic theories from mid 19 century.
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Nov. 21 2006,16:28
Yo, Vmartin, I gave you the book cite for the info you're going to need to even begin to discuss this mimicry issue intelligently.
And, take a hint, discussing it intelligently is not something that you are currently doing.
Get back to us when you know something. Anything! Until then, weg gehen, bitte sehr!
Posted by: VMartin on Nov. 21 2006,16:49
Steviepinhead.
Do not ridicule yourself with your "holy" book. There is interesting discussion on mimicry on EvC with people who underestand little bit of it and I hope it will be going on Brainstorm as well.
If you speak german (weg gehen) you can also scan book from Andreas Suchantke "Metamorphosen im Insektenreich". You will learn something interesting from modern author who dismissed neodarwinism as explanation of insect mimicry completelly.
If you have something say except of presenting books for reading you are welcome. Try read my answer on Brainstorm to REC and give me some neodarwinistic arguments. Thanks.
< http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi....#000291 >
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Nov. 21 2006,17:16
The arguments are in the book, V.
When you are able to express that you understand them, I'll be happy to talk further with you.
Until then, ta ta.
Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 21 2006,17:36
Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 21 2006,16:11) | Jeannot.
That is no argument what is written in darwinian books. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wow, what an insightful answer.
I'm talking about evidence, facts... observations and results published in scientific journals. Like substitution rates indicating positive selection, fact that Davison willfully ignores.
But I'm not going to discuss anything with him. It's just impossible. He can't take any objection, but resorts to childish insults and cries for persecution. The man is insane. This isn't a metaphore. He's really insane.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Nov. 21 2006,17:55
I say VMartin is JAD in disguise.
Write that down.
Posted by: Lou FCD on 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)
Posted by: Lou FCD on 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". ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Clinches it. If it were DAJ, he'd be screaming about having PROVED whatever it is he's yammering about.
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Nov. 21 2006,18:52
But, seriously, has anyone ever seen apples give birth to horses?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on 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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If they did, then why do we still have apples?
Posted by: VMartin on 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.
---------------------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.
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?
Posted by: REC on 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?
Posted by: Steviepinhead on 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.
Posted by: Shirley Knott on 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
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Nov. 22 2006,18:07
C'mon, VMartin is JAD.
'Fess up.
I like them kumquats.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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 - ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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!
Posted by: Zarquon on Nov. 23 2006,02:14
Is VMartin the same dork who was trolling as "Michael Martin" on the Pandas Thumb?
Posted by: jeannot on 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 - ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on 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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I doubt it. No preaching and no Bible verses.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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 . . . . .
Posted by: VMartin on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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).
---------------------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? 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.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on 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!
Posted by: jeannot on 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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: VMartin on Nov. 23 2006,14:55
Takže mládenci ja Vám nieèo poviem - nie som John Davison, ale vážim si jeho prácu "Evolutionary Manifesto". Je to jedna z najlepších vecí, ktoré som èítal z kritiky darwinizmu, kde cituje popredných vedcov na poli biológie a palentológie. Pod¾a mojej mienky väèšina ¾udí tu nesiaha Johnovi ani po päty a bol by som radšej keby ste kritizovali nieèo z jeho Manifesta , alebo z toho èo 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.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Nov. 23 2006,15:09
Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 23 2006,14:55) | Takže mládenci ja Vám nieèo poviem - nie som John Davison, ale vážim si jeho prácu "Evolutionary Manifesto". Je to jedna z najlepších vecí, ktoré som èítal z kritiky darwinizmu, kde cituje popredných vedcov na poli biológie a palentológie. Pod¾a mojej mienky väèšina ¾udí tu nesiaha Johnovi ani po päty a bol by som radšej keby ste kritizovali nieèo z jeho Manifesta , alebo z toho èo 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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!
Posted by: guthrie on 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?
Posted by: VMartin on Nov. 23 2006,16:57
jeannot
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you think some individuals pop-up, created by the hand of the great Prescriber?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on 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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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?
I love it so!
Posted by: Richardthughes on 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.
Posted by: VMartin on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on 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?
Posted by: Lou FCD on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: VMartin on 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.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: jeannot on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bam!
Better get pen and paper ready. I am sure everyone will be instructed to take notes soon.
Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 24 2006,02:29
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 23 2006,19:48) | Smells more like Paley to me. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It can't be Paley. This one is dead an burried.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Nov. 25 2006,12:56
It looks like Davison is < talking to himself >:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Martin Member Member # 2001
posted 21. November 2006 17:39 REC.
I would say that chance also play no role in polymorphism of Papilio Dardanus.
1) All males look identical, yet there are 14 different female mophs. Most of them are mimetic, but in some races coexist mimetic and non-mimetic forms. Even quote:
The situation is different in Abyssinia where, unlike that in South Africa, 80 per cent of the females are male-like while 20 per cent are entirely distinct from them, being polymorphic and mimetic. < http://www.bulbnrose.com/Heredity/Ford/FORD4.HTM >
On my opinion it is very hard for neodarwinist account for the fact that non-mimetic forms outnumbered better protected mimetic forms.
2) It is accepted theory that butterfly mimicry to be effective first step should be a "great" one to enable enough similarity to unpalatable species to confuse predator (birds with extraordinary good vision). To explain this step Nijhout(2003) proposed that polymorphism of P.dardanus evolved from P.phorcas - it is much more easily for neodarwinists assume this as assume that monomorphic P.dardanus males represent ancestral form. Yet then, why are only females of P.dardanus nowadays polymorphic?
According Darwin the phenomenon that males are rarely polymorphic as females are due the fact of sexual selection by females giving priority to ancestral males patterns. Yet if females polymorphism is advatageous for females it should not represent disatvantage for males if it occurs in males too - at least to say. So sexual preferation is the darwinian explanation of the fact. I would say that Nijhout weird conception of ancestor looking like P.phorcas is in contradiction with Darwin explanation - we should ask, why is it possible that female are polymorphic and males no? Because both of them have to undergone patterns/color changes to their nowadays "look" and females sexual preferention did not hindern males to change color/patterns. So why females admitted such non-mimetic change of males but do not admitted mimetic males change? We know that also male mimics in butterfly realm exist as well.
< http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/modern-science/chapter15.html >
These question are of such importance that neodarwinists are forced use very untraditional explanations like "transvestite evolutionary step", "females to escape 'sexual harrasment' by males" and so on.
It is really hard work to defend darwinism in case of Papilio dardanus.
They should be rather prepare to accept fact that behind some curious phenomenon of mimicry are no random mutation/selection but until today some unknown internal factors. Proposed by Punnet and cited by John Davison in his Manifesto.
Nijhout fancy on Papilio Dardanus evolution via "transvestite evolutionary step" and subsequent "genetic effect of large magnitude":
< http://www.nbb.cornell.edu/neurobio/BioNB420/Dardanus2003.pdf >
[ 21. November 2006, 17:42: Message edited by: Martin ] ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Javison then THANKS HIMSELF:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Martin
Thank you for laying it on the "groupthinkers" over at the saloon. You have them on the run and I don't think they even realize it. "Prescribed" ideologues are like that. Thank you for doing that which they won't permit me to do so I will do it here where I am allowed. I hope they are listening.
ALL of both ontogeny and phylogeny has been the result of "internal factors." The environment has played no role whatsoever in either creative evolution or embryonic development beyond the rather trivial role of allowing a milieu for the expression of those strictly "internal factors" The generation of intraspecific varieties and strains, none of which represent incipient species in any event, are all that the Darwinian model has ever been able to achieve. The experimental laboratory has made this conclusion perfectly plain. Mendelian genetics, natural or artificial selection, allelic mutation and sexual reproduction can only maintain and extend evolutionary dead ends. None of these ever played a role in creative evolution, a phenomenon of the distant past. Trust me but of course no one will. That is fine too. I wouldn't have it any other way.
How does that grab the Darwinian mystics? I imagine it smarts a little. I certainly hope so!
As for asking me to make predictions, I already have. There is little now to predict because it is all over. Creative evolution is finished and has been for millions of years at the genus level and for thousands of years at the species level. That is perfectly obvious to any serious student of the living world, fossil or extant. Today only extinction can be documented.
Darwinism is without question the biggest ideologically driven hoax in the history of science.
I love it so! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We all do, John. We all do.
Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 25 2006,15:06
It ain't chance.
It ain't selection.
It ain't God (because he's dead).
What else, then?
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 26 2006,01:50
Oh man!
JAD and DaveTard have resumed their pissing contest over at ISCID
< ISCID >
They just chase each other around cyberspace, trying to get in the most insults!
It just doesn't get any better that this
Posted by: Alan Fox on Nov. 26 2006,04:37
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 25 2006,20:50) | Oh man!
JAD and DaveTard have resumed their pissing contest over at ISCID
< ISCID >
They just chase each other around cyberspace, trying to get in the most insults!
It just doesn't get any better that this ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And see the last comment on < this > thread.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Oh hi, John. I wonder where you'd slunk off to after mailing that letter to O'Leary. She forwarded it to all the admins at UD. A couple of them, even Dembski, rose up in your defense.
They rose up, that is, until I emailed them a couple dozen choice quotes from your blog "newprescribedevolution" where you'd called Dembski all kinds of unflattering names. They then went from defending you to pitying you but agreeing that me banning you was the right thing to do. I didn't want to expose you in that way but you left me no choice. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by: VMartin on Nov. 26 2006,15:12
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I repeat: what determines the frequences of existing alleles in a population, if not their reproduction rates?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I wouldnt say question stands like that. Because female morphs of Papilio dardanus segregate clearly in given race/population it is necessary to recognize existence of switch-gene. The switch-genes possess dominance hierarchy and determine which morhps in heterozygous female will segregate.
Question stands like this - how and when such switch-gene aroused? Surely it is hard to imagine that the switch-gene aroused after morphs were established. In other case morphs would intermingled.
Second possibility is that such gene with all genes of given morphs sprang up sudenly by saltus hitting off the resemblance of mimetic model.
Third possibility is neodarwinian one - existence of switch-gene preceded existences of morphs.
Yet if such gene aroused then at beginning IMHO it had nothing to switch - or at least to switch between same possibilities of same patterns/colors of ancient monomorphic female. There was no selective pressure to switch-gene to exist and consequently it should cease to exist. Or at least there was no selective advantage having it and to spread over Papilio dardanus population - it was neutral. Such switch-gene at the beginning (where only one morph exist) contradicts in my opinion even to purpose of diploidy. Because the switch gene blocks expressing genes from other set of chromosomes. Subsequently such switch-gene would diminish variability and evolutionary development of wing color/patterns at the beggining when no mimetic forms exist.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Nov. 26 2006,15:27
Hey John, how they hanging?
Thanks for name checking me all over, but I think you kind of hurt Richard Hughes' feelings by leaving him out of that villain list. How about at least one message where you call him 'Hichard Rughes'?
Definitely keep harassing Spravid Dinger, tho. We'd all really miss that if you quit doing it.
Got that? Write it down!
Posted by: VMartin on Nov. 26 2006,15:58
As you know John is banned here. You should better write him an email or go to Brainstorm.
If you folks here think that John and I are the same person you are at great mistake. I suppose anyway that you choose such tactic (to hold me for John even if you clearly see it impossible - I can hardly compare myself with John as to the biological knowledges) to heal your ego that other people can hold John Davisons Manifesto for one of the best antidarwinian work. Interesting and inspiring.
M.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Nov. 26 2006,18:05
Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 26 2006,15:58) | If you folks here think that John and I are the same person ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Don't flatter yourself. No one here CARES who you are. (shrug)
Posted by: VMartin on Nov. 27 2006,14:46
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No one here CARES who you are. (shrug)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No one here cares even what the true is. (shrug) What do you really care of is how to denigrate professor Davison with your adolescent offences.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Nov. 27 2006,14:52
Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 27 2006,14:46) |
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No one here CARES who you are. (shrug)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No one here cares even what the true is. (shrug) What do you really care of is how to denigrate professor Davison with your adolescent offences. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
and?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Nov. 27 2006,14:55
Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 27 2006,14:46) |
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No one here CARES who you are. (shrug)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No one here cares even what the true is. (shrug) What do you really care of is how to denigrate professor Davison with your adolescent offences. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So how's Vermont this time of year, John?
Posted by: Alan Fox on Nov. 27 2006,15:04
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 27 2006,09:55) | Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 27 2006,14:46) |
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No one here CARES who you are. (shrug)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No one here cares even what the true is. (shrug) What do you really care of is how to denigrate professor Davison with your adolescent offences. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So how's Vermont this time of year, John? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm not so sure it's John's hand up the sockpuppet, Arden. John has never to my knowledge been able to post a link, or cut and paste. Just out of curiosity, can't someone (calling Mr Story) check the ISP. Virtual six-pack says you're wrong.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Nov. 27 2006,15:39
Quote (Alan Fox @ Nov. 27 2006,15:04) | Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 27 2006,09:55) | Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 27 2006,14:46) |
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No one here CARES who you are. (shrug)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No one here cares even what the true is. (shrug) What do you really care of is how to denigrate professor Davison with your adolescent offences. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So how's Vermont this time of year, John? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm not so sure it's John's hand up the sockpuppet, Arden. John has never to my knowledge been able to post a link, or cut and paste. Just out of curiosity, can't someone (calling Mr Story) check the ISP. Virtual six-pack says you're wrong. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I already asked Steve whether 'VMartin's' ISP shed any light on this, but haven't heard back. Something smells rotten about his posts, since he can't even stay in character (watch his Borat accent go in and out), tho I agree these posts do seem to be beyond Javison's meager computer skills.
The fact of Javison being banned doesn't impress me as evidence, since, as GoP can tell you, all that means is you have to go down to your nearest library to post.
I don't think these posts are Paley, but I am sort of wondering if the ISP originates from, oh, I dunno, Austin, TX. I think we've seen this person under a different name.
I too want to know what the true is.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Nov. 27 2006,15:44
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I too want to know what the true is. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You unleshead beast, you!
Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 27 2006,15:45
Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 26 2006,15:12) |
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I repeat: what determines the frequences of existing alleles in a population, if not their reproduction rates?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I wouldnt say question stands like that. Because female morphs of Papilio dardanus segregate clearly in given race/population it is necessary to recognize existence of switch-gene. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm not convinced. Would you care to explain precisely why you came to that conclusion? What's a "switch gene" anyway ? I do some population genetics, but I never heard of that.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Because female morphs of Papilio dardanus segregate clearly in given race/population... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm not sure what you mean by that.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Nov. 27 2006,16:17
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No one here cares even what the true is. (shrug) ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Omigod, he's saying "(shrug)"!
Maybe VMartin is actually Lenny Flank!
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Nov. 27 2006,19:49
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 27 2006,16:17) |
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No one here cares even what the true is. (shrug) ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Omigod, he's saying "(shrug)"!
Maybe VMartin is actually Lenny Flank!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm very careful what I (shrug) at.
But it is awfully funny to see, yet again, just how utterly incapable of originality the fundies are. I don't think any of them have had an original thought in thirty years. (shrug)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Nov. 27 2006,19:56
Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 27 2006,14:46) | No one here cares even what the true is. (shrug) What do you really care of is how to denigrate professor Davison with your adolescent offences. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That's right. Neener, neener.
JAD's a poopie-head! JAD's a poopie-head !!!!!
(puts thumbs in ears and wiggles fingers)
Nyah nyah nyah nyah. Pththththttttttttttt.
Posted by: VMartin on Nov. 27 2006,23:54
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Nov. 26 2006,18:05:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Don't flatter yourself. No one here CARES who you are. (shrug)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
and after 20 hours:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
JAD's a poopie-head! JAD's a poopie-head !!!!! (puts thumbs in ears and wiggles fingers) Nyah nyah nyah nyah. Pththththttttttttttt.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Arent such reactions something I would call bipolar?
Btw does bipolarity aroused via random mutation too and was subsequently preferred by natural selection? (shrug).
Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 28 2006,09:38
Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 28 2006,00:54) | Arent such reactions something I would call bipolar?
Btw does bipolarity aroused via random mutation too and was subsequently preferred by natural selection? (shrug). ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Aren't you asking yourself a question? Why don't you answer yourself?
Why don't you get a clue and read a little about bipolar in the first place?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Studies seeking to identify the genetic basis of bipolar disorder indicate that susceptibility stems from multiple genes. Scientists are continuing their search for these genes, using advanced genetic analytic methods and large samples of families affected by the illness. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipolar_disorder >
If you can navigate through the facts and come up with a mechanism for bipolar disorder then please let the scientists know. They are searching too.
In fact, why don't you spend some precious brainpower and propose a new mechanism for this disorder using JAD methodology. The subject is wide open at present since there seems (at least from the Wiki page) to be an opening for new and various ideas.
Put up or stop whining.
Mike PSS
Posted by: VMartin on Nov. 30 2006,15:37
O.K. Air seems to be clear, adolescent darwinists probably move to other forum (linguistic). And we may continue.
jeannot
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What's a "switch gene" anyway ? I do some population genetics, but I never heard of that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You should probably look into evo-devo article that address mimicry of butterflies of Heliconius. Article is from nature.com, 2006:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
From an evo-devo perspective, the major interest lies in linking the loci underlying pattern change in Heliconius, the so-called switch genes, with the pathways involved in wing pattern development.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
They use also "switch locus".I would say problem is important one while such switch gene hardly aroused after morphs were established - morhps patterns and colors would intermingled otherwise. That is also answer to your second question about "segregation". By segregation we means that morphs of given race segregate clearly, its A or B or C and seldom some hybrid between A and B. That means that different phenotyps of morhps of given species (that often mimics other butterfly species) are switched or regulated by "switch gene". Origin of this switch gene is on my view more interesting as origin of regulated pathways and cascades it "switch on".
Problem persist as outlined partly in John Davison E.Manifesto that deals with Punnett view of role of selection on mimicry of butterflies. The problem is 100 years old and until now unresolved by neodawinists. No gradual evolution can account for such phenomenon as mimic morphs of the same species and "macromutaion" is needed. Even in that evo-devo article from nature.com 2006 they seem to admit it partly:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thus, evolution of the H. numata supergene could have involved elements of both the 'macromutationist' and the 'gradualist' positions in this historical debate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v97/n3/full/6800873a.html >
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Nov. 30 2006,18:02
I'm sorry, Martin, did you say something? I, like everyone else, wasn't paying any attention to you. (shrug)
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 30 2006,23:24
Ya know John, er, VMartin - if you'd drop that asinine pseudo-accent, people could at least decipher what you're babbling about.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 01 2006,00:12
So John, were you inspired to do this by the movie Borat? You know, the funny accent, 'care about the true', all that?
Are you using a computer at your local public library, or did you manage to get around your banning somehow, like Dave would do?
So how are you and Dave getting along these days? Better?
Do you love it so?
Posted by: Alan Fox on Dec. 01 2006,01:40
Come on Steve. Spill the beans on the ISP source.
BTW Martin,
I glanced through your linked article. I did not see anything that undermines the theory of evolution there. As you are making the claim, perhaps you could indicate the relevant passages that I must have missed
Posted by: Ved on Dec. 01 2006,12:48
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 01 2006,01:12) | So John, were you inspired to do this by the movie Borat? You know, the funny accent, 'care about the true', all that? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What do you mean? Borat's the real deal, man. I mean, he's as real as Stephen Colbert's balls are big!
Wa wa wee wa!
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 01 2006,13:30
Occam's Aftershave
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ya know John, er, VMartin - if you'd drop that asinine pseudo-accent, people could at least decipher what you're babbling about.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your problem probably consist in fact that you do not understand other language as english. You seems to have problem therefore to distinguish between analytical (e.g. german, english) and syntetical languages (as Latin, Greek and Slavonic languages).
Order of words in a sentence seems to be unsurmountable barrier for your underestanding. No wonder that only theory you are capable to comprehend is outdate darwinism from mid-19 century.
That many of folks here do not underestand any Slavonic language and not even written German is probably a fact. One of you used babelfish translator to translate Nietzsche german text with this curios outcome:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
... Gesammt aspect life is not Nothlage, which which sumptuousness, even the absurd verschwendung, - one fights where, one fights to hunger situation, rather the Reichthum, for power. . . the weak ones become again and again over the strong ones gentleman .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
While Fridriech Nietzsche is promimenet atheist who ridiculed darwinism very I try to modify it for better underestanding:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Anti-Darwin: What concerns the famous struggle for life, then it seems to me meanwhile more stated than proved. It occurs, but as exception; general aspect of life is not dearthe, hunger or starvation but abundance, sumptuousness, even absurd wasting, lavishing - where fight occurs there one fights for power... One should not confound Malthus with nature. - Let us assume however, that this fight happens - and it really happens - then it runs out unfortunately in reverse as the school Darwin's wishes, when perhaps one might wish with it: indeed to detriment of the strong ones, the privileged, the lucky exceptions. The kinds do not grow in the perfection: the weak ones become again and again the masters of strong ones, - they have large numbers, they are also more intelligent... Darwin forgot the spirit (- that is english! ), the weak ones have more spirit... One must to have need for spirit, in order to get spirit, - one loses him, if one does not need him any more. Who has the strength, get rid himself of spirit (- "go away! one thinks today in Germany - wee must keep the Reich"...). I understand as spitit the caution, the patience, the ruse, the adjustment, the large self-control and everything what mimicry is (to the latter a large part of the so-called virtue belongs).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Enjoy.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 01 2006,13:57
Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 01 2006,13:30) | Occam's Aftershave
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ya know John, er, VMartin - if you'd drop that asinine pseudo-accent, people could at least decipher what you're babbling about.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your problem probably consist in fact that you do not understand other language as english. You seems to have problem therefore to distinguish between analytical (e.g. german, english) and syntetical languages (as Latin, Greek and Slavonic languages).
Order of words in a sentence seems to be unsurmountable barrier for your underestanding. No wonder that only theory you are capable to comprehend is outdate darwinism from mid-19 century.
That many of folks here do not underestand any Slavonic language and not even written German is probably a fact. One of you used babelfish translator to translate Nietzsche german text with this curios outcome:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
... Gesammt aspect life is not Nothlage, which which sumptuousness, even the absurd verschwendung, - one fights where, one fights to hunger situation, rather the Reichthum, for power. . . the weak ones become again and again over the strong ones gentleman .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
While Fridriech Nietzsche is promimenet atheist who ridiculed darwinism very I try to modify it for better underestanding:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Anti-Darwin: What concerns the famous struggle for life, then it seems to me meanwhile more stated than proved. It occurs, but as exception; general aspect of life is not dearthe, hunger or starvation but abundance, sumptuousness, even absurd wasting, lavishing - where fight occurs there one fights for power... One should not confound Malthus with nature. - Let us assume however, that this fight happens - and it really happens - then it runs out unfortunately in reverse as the school Darwin's wishes, when perhaps one might wish with it: indeed to detriment of the strong ones, the privileged, the lucky exceptions. The kinds do not grow in the perfection: the weak ones become again and again the masters of strong ones, - they have large numbers, they are also more intelligent... Darwin forgot the spirit (- that is english! ), the weak ones have more spirit... One must to have need for spirit, in order to get spirit, - one loses him, if one does not need him any more. Who has the strength, get rid himself of spirit (- "go away! one thinks today in Germany - wee must keep the Reich"...). I understand as spitit the caution, the patience, the ruse, the adjustment, the large self-control and everything what mimicry is (to the latter a large part of the so-called virtue belongs).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Enjoy. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You never said, John, how's Vermont about now? I mean, I realize it's too late for the leaves to change color and all, but I imagine the snow on the trees and all must be kind of pretty.
As an aside, John, your imitation of incompetent English is kind of iffy. Sometimes you sound like someone whose first English lesson was a month ago, and sometimes just like yourself with the person marking removed from a few verbs just for appearance's sake. (I mean, 'chance worshipper'? Please.) You have to keep up a consistent voice, as they say in literary criticism.
Anyway, I'm glad you found a library not too far from your house to post from.
What are your feelings about Spravid Dinger these days?
How do you like them road apples?
PS: German is not a 'syntetical' language, John.
Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 01 2006,14:02
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 27 2006,16:39) | Quote (Alan Fox @ Nov. 27 2006,15:04) | Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 27 2006,09:55) | Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 27 2006,14:46) |
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No one here CARES who you are. (shrug)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No one here cares even what the true is. (shrug) What do you really care of is how to denigrate professor Davison with your adolescent offences. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So how's Vermont this time of year, John? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm not so sure it's John's hand up the sockpuppet, Arden. John has never to my knowledge been able to post a link, or cut and paste. Just out of curiosity, can't someone (calling Mr Story) check the ISP. Virtual six-pack says you're wrong. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I already asked Steve whether 'VMartin's' ISP shed any light on this, but haven't heard back. Something smells rotten about his posts, since he can't even stay in character (watch his Borat accent go in and out), tho I agree these posts do seem to be beyond Javison's meager computer skills.
The fact of Javison being banned doesn't impress me as evidence, since, as GoP can tell you, all that means is you have to go down to your nearest library to post.
I don't think these posts are Paley, but I am sort of wondering if the ISP originates from, oh, I dunno, Austin, TX. I think we've seen this person under a different name.
I too want to know what the true is. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
VMartin might obviously be Davison or someone, I don't know. I checked the IP and it's somewhere it Europe, which means little. Davison is insane but in a boring way like Larry Falafelman, so I don't read his posts, or this thread, enough to detect if VMartin is him. Or Larry.
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 01 2006,14:22
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Anyway, I'm glad you found a library not too far from your house to post from. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you mean that the mentioned library is connected to inet via slovak-telecom? You seem to be an expert not only in darwinism but also in internet topology.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Dec. 01 2006,15:00
John
I will open a thread for you < here > if you like, on the understanding that profanity and obscenity is not acceptable.
Posted by: REC on Dec. 01 2006,15:11
I was going to post this Nature Review to this website: "Heliconius wing patterns: an evo-devo model for understanding phenotypic diversity" < http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v97/n3/full/6800873a.html >
But Vmartin beat me to the punch!
Which is curious, as is essentiall refutes his use of butterfly mimicry in support of JADs PEH hypothesis.
Some highlights: "A long history of genetic studies has showed that pattern variation is based on allelic combinations at a surprisingly small number of loci"
(note small number-far from the "genetic change of large magnitude" that Vmartin seems to stumble on)
"Fine-scale genetic mapping studies have shown that a shared toolkit of genes is used to produce both convergent and divergent phenotypes. These exciting results and the development of new genomic resources make Heliconius a very promising evo-devo model for the study of adaptive change."
So, Vmartin, where in this paper is the arguement against standard evolution? How does it defend your position? Your precious mimics are becoming model organisms for the evo-devo crowd....
Posted by: Alan Fox on Dec. 01 2006,15:26
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I checked the IP and it's somewhere it Europe, which means little. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It might mean little to you colonials, but some people live here!
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Dec. 01 2006,15:28
On the one hand, it's really not appropriate for us to make fun of you simply because English is not your native language. Assuming you aren't Old Horseapples and that you really are a non-native speaker trying to conduct a debate about evolutionary science on an English-speaking forum, then we can say:
1. You certainly write better English than I do Slavonian (or German, or whatever your native language may be).
2. Despite your commendable confidence in your ability, however, your written English is simply not good enough to conduct this debate in a fashion understandable to native English, non-Slavonian speakers.
Here's a recent quote from you, followed by my best attempt to render it into "good enough" written English:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Your problem probably consist in fact that you do not understand other language as english. You seems to have problem therefore to distinguish between analytical (e.g. german, english) and syntetical languages (as Latin, Greek and Slavonic languages).
Order of words in a sentence seems to be unsurmountable barrier for your underestanding. No wonder that only theory you are capable to comprehend is outdate darwinism from mid-19 century.
That many of folks here do not underestand any Slavonic language and not even written German is probably a fact. One of you used babelfish translator to translate Nietzsche german text with this curios outcome. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your problem probably consists in the fact that you do not understand other languages as well as you do English. You seems to be having problems, therefore, in distinguishing between analytical (e.g., German or English) and syntetical (as Latin, Greek and Slavonic languages) languages.
The order of words in a sentence seems to be an insurmountable barrier for your underestanding. No wonder that [b/the[/b] only theory you are capable of comprehending is outdated Darwinism from the Mid-19th Century.
That many of the folks here do not underestand any Slavonic language and do not even understand written German is probably a fact. One of you used the Babelfish translator to translate Nietzsche's German text with this curious outcome:
What we see, therefore, is that "word order" is not really your problem. Your problems are multiple, but include your failure to use necessary articles and connectives, your failure to appropriately capitalize and punctuate, your uncertain grasp of word endings, your misspellings, your mishandling of the possessive, your failure to use parallel construction, and your numerous other minor-but-cumulative errors.
I could have similarly "corrected" your attempt to "improve" on Babelfish's translation of Nietzsche, which was notably unsuccessful.
Nobody here claimed to understand written German or whatever Slavonic language you are operating from.
You apparently believe, however, that your slightly-broken English--which might well be adequate for picking up girls in a bar--is sufficient for a technical-scientific debate of this kind.
I'm sorry to inform you that it's simply not, although with further practice--which I encourage you to obtain in some less-demanding forum--it may well become adequate before very much longer.
You inability to efffectively deploy logic and evidence in scientific debate, however, is not so easily addressed, but I wish you luck with that as well.
Sincerely, Stevie
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 01 2006,17:15
Hey "VMartin":
Next time you see John A. Davison, ask him why he pussed out and ran away fron defending his PEH over at TheologyWeb - one of the few places still left where his obnoxious personality hasn't gotten him banned yet.
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 02 2006,16:42
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your problems are multiple, but include your failure to use necessary articles and connectives, your failure to appropriately capitalize and punctuate, your uncertain grasp of word endings, your misspellings, your mishandling of the possessive, your failure to use parallel construction, and your numerous other minor-but-cumulative errors.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sorry. Going home from the bar yesterday I lost somewhere all of my english articles and connectives and also some capital letters. I still cannot find them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You apparently believe, however, that your slightly-broken English--which might well be adequate for picking up girls in a bar--is sufficient for a technical-scientific debate of this kind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You wouldnot believe me but females in bar preffered rednecks with oxford english yesterday. Females wanted to hear story how Mankind aroused via random mutation from ancient fish. So I had no chance yesterday at all.
And how I was scared when arriving at home I found that one neodarwinist checked my post for grammar mistakes - so much I am scared of english language teachers still.
Anyway thanks for your acute remark, that " JAD was banned again from UD..., " in the -After the bar closes- is a challenging technical-scientific debate.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Dec. 02 2006,19:07
Geez, is Martin STILL blithering . . . .?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 02 2006,20:39
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Dec. 02 2006,19:07) | Geez, is Martin STILL blithering . . . .? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yeah, and he still can't stay in character.
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Dec. 02 2006,20:40
Eh, blithering or not, I detect the glimmerings of a sense of humor.
Which, even if it leaves Davisonsout of the equation, still brings Vmartin no closer to an understanding of how scientific explanations work.
Posted by: Ichthyic on Dec. 03 2006,01:24
---------------------QUOTE------------------- From an evo-devo perspective, the major interest lies in linking the loci underlying pattern change in Heliconius, the so-called switch genes, with the pathways involved in wing pattern development.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is he trying for Hox genes by chance? typically Hox gene complexes are involved in limb development.
It's pretty clear whoever it is hasn't the slightest clue what they are on about, in any case, so I guess the question isn't even worth asking.
forget it.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- So I had no chance yesterday at all. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
or the day before that...
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 03 2006,03:55
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...still brings Vmartin no closer to an understanding of how scientific explanations work.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What "technical-scientific debate" in this "high-demanding forum" are you still raving about? If somebody uses sentences like:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm not so sure it's John's hand up the sockpuppet, Arden.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I now think you're Bulgarian. Now please to translate that into Bulgarian. Using Cyrillic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't think you've be hoisted by your own Davetard, but you do smell of urine and old folks homes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
and you hold them to be fit for this high "demanding forum" just because you found the english articles and connectives placed in the right positions! It might be (as you seem to occupy yourself with medieval english literature predominantly) that it is enough for you to consider such bullshits for "evidence in scientific debate".
Most of you have not even slightest anticipation of the complex phenomenon of the mimicry. I have given you an example (discovered by Poulton) of two butterflies living in the different areas where mimicry should be established and maintained by the migratory birds(!. Thats the "effectively deployed logic" as neodarwists presents us. But as latest researches showed it would probably be not the correct explanation - birds taste and check unpalatable butterflies from time to time regularly.
Mimicry of butterflies and other insects is far too complex problem to be "explained" away by darwinistic natural selection. Such opinion held for instatnce prominent Austrian entomologist Freinz Heikertinger or also by Davison mentioned Punnet. I found out that even Goldschmidt was of the same opinion. From modern scientist it is Andreas Suchantke.
So it is not as clear as you here would like to see it and ridicule over.
That 14 morphs of P.Dardanus and other aroused via natural selection is hardly to believe. There should be at least some predispostion of the process in some species - be it switch genes that enabled such development of morphs. Process is unthinkable without switch genes that aroused and started do their job long before any differences (especially mimic ones) in wing patterns/colors evolved.
You should be aware also that many morhphs are Mullerian mimics. It means that evolution should happened relatively fast and by no way using darwinistic-gradual step by step process. If we are talking about genotypic mutation with large phenotypic effect (evo-devo) we should have always in mind that such "random mutation" of regulatory genes somehow succeeded exactly hitting the existing wing appearence of unpalatable model! For the mind that is not preoccupied with neodarwinism it is hardly an acceptable explanation (considering all of existing uncountable wing patterns and colors).
And do not forget that Papilio dardanus is also according Punnet (2003) "one of the most puzzling cases of evolution in animal world.". If it is not puzzling for you should be accounted more for your conceit as for your wisdom. I would say.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Dec. 03 2006,05:21
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Hey "VMartin":
Next time you see John A. Davison, ask him why he pussed out and ran away fron defending his PEH over at TheologyWeb - one of the few places still left where his obnoxious personality hasn't gotten him banned yet. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Occam's Aftershave,
Professor Davison is currently visiting < here >, so you could ask him yourself.
(Tumbleweed, crows, my foot, Arden & Rich)
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 03 2006,05:41
Alan FoX wrote to Professor Davison on his own forum:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
allows idiots such as Walter ReMine, Peter Borger, Bruce Fast, Sal Cordova, David Hagen (and yourself)...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
instructed yesterday John Davison that:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I would ask that you remain civil to any posters that choose to engage with you, and that anyone else posting here do the same...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Would you beleive it?
Posted by: jeannot on Dec. 03 2006,05:55
Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 03 2006,05:41) | Would you beleive it? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's hard to believe, isn't it?
Posted by: Alan Fox on Dec. 03 2006,06:04
Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 03 2006,00:41) | Alan FoX wrote to Professor Davison on his own forum:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
allows idiots such as Walter ReMine, Peter Borger, Bruce Fast, Sal Cordova, David Hagen (and yourself)...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
instructed yesterday John Davison that:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I would ask that you remain civil to any posters that choose to engage with you, and that anyone else posting here do the same...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Would you beleive it? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You're welcome to add your 2 cents, Martin. The context of that remark was the draconian moderation policy at ISCID, which incidentally, John has not been too flattering about recently.
I am an optimist, I think I can restrain myself, and hope others do, because...
I love it so!
So, < Sock it to me! >
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 03 2006,11:42
---------------------QUOTE------------------- and you hold them to be fit for this high "demanding forum" just because you found the english articles and connectives placed in the right positions! It might be (asyou seem to occupy yourself with medieval english literature predominantly) that it is enough for you to consider such bullshits for "evidence in scientific debate". ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Um, John Martin, WHO supposedly "occupies himself with medieval english literature"? I have no idea who you're referring to, and if it's me you're WAY off base.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- That 14 morphs of P.Dardanus and other aroused via natural selection is hardly to believe. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's hard to believe, isn't it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
allows idiots such as Walter ReMine, Peter Borger, Bruce Fast, Sal Cordova, David Hagen (and yourself)...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't know about the rest of those names, but Sal Cordova really is an idiot. That's a simple statement of fact, not an opinion.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 03 2006,11:48
I thought this was quite stylish:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now where is the biggest cowardly blowhard in cyberspace, the creep that bans people at the drop of the hat? I want a piece of Dembski's nasty, degenerate, foul-mouthed two-faced lying Chihuahua. You know, the one who signed off at me at "brainstorms," the most civilized forum in the internet, with "GFY" - that one. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'd make this my sig, but I'm still really fond of the one I already have...
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Dec. 03 2006,11:55
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 03 2006,11:48) | I thought this was quite stylish:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now where is the biggest cowardly blowhard in cyberspace, the creep that bans people at the drop of the hat? I want a piece of Dembski's nasty, degenerate, foul-mouthed two-faced lying Chihuahua. You know, the one who signed off at me at "brainstorms," the most civilized forum in the internet, with "GFY" - that one. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'd make this my sig, but I'm still really fond of the one I already have... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Close but the siggy you have now is best. It was Springers last salvo before getting banned and resorting to anonymous posting. It's historical
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 03 2006,12:11
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|