Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > VMartin's cosmology

Pages: (17) < ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 >

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2008,13:26    Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,19:13) Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,13:08) V, read this very carefully. If something seems to mimic something, it means it looks like it. It doesn't mean it "mimics" it for any other than the superficial definition whereby mimic simply means "looks like". Are you sure? "Mimics" = "looks like"? Do you think that marsupial wolfs mimic placental wolfs? Mimics tend to look like things, yes. Admittedly, my comment was poorly written (I'm not entirely on the ball right now) and no, mimics don't simply look like something, but since you failed to understand what "seems" meant, I phrased it badly. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2008,13:58    Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Mar. 27 2008,13:20) snakes and testicles, snakes and testicles, snakes and testicles. marty I'm beginning ti think you're soft in the head or possibly have a hidden desire/fetish you're not sharing with the class. Just when did your obsession begin with snakes and testicles? It has started when I noticed that darwinists are like bulls. If they see a red colored animal they start shouting - look aposematim! Survival advantage! Descent of testicles is another phenomenon that darwinists are lost how to explain. They claim in their text-books that there must have been cooling of spermatozoa behind it  (whatever the facts are). They stick to this nonsense like a leech. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2008,14:00    Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,13:58) Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Mar. 27 2008,13:20) snakes and testicles, snakes and testicles, snakes and testicles. marty I'm beginning ti think you're soft in the head or possibly have a hidden desire/fetish you're not sharing with the class. Just when did your obsession begin with snakes and testicles? It has started when I noticed that darwinists are like bulls. If they see a red colored animal they start shouting - look aposematim! Survival advantage! Descent of testicles is another phenomenon that darwinists are lost how to explain. They claim in their text-books that there must have been cooling of spermatozoa behind it  (whatever the facts are). They stick to this nonsense like a leech. Personally, I thank God every day for my hernia, and the Design of our upright posture. Good work, Big Guy. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2008,14:03    Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,13:26)   Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,19:13)   Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,13:08) V, read this very carefully. If something seems to mimic something, it means it looks like it. It doesn't mean it "mimics" it for any other than the superficial definition whereby mimic simply means "looks like". Are you sure? "Mimics" = "looks like"? Do you think that marsupial wolfs mimic placental wolfs? Mimics tend to look like things, yes. Admittedly, my comment was poorly written (I'm not entirely on the ball right now) and no, mimics don't simply look like something, but since you failed to understand what "seems" meant, I phrased it badly. You "seem" to be lost. Do you realise there is also a crypsis? What do you think what is the difference between mimicry and crypsis? -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2008,14:14    Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,20:03) Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,13:26)   Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,19:13)     Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,13:08) V, read this very carefully. If something seems to mimic something, it means it looks like it. It doesn't mean it "mimics" it for any other than the superficial definition whereby mimic simply means "looks like". Are you sure? "Mimics" = "looks like"? Do you think that marsupial wolfs mimic placental wolfs? Mimics tend to look like things, yes. Admittedly, my comment was poorly written (I'm not entirely on the ball right now) and no, mimics don't simply look like something, but since you failed to understand what "seems" meant, I phrased it badly. You "seem" to be lost. Do you realise there is also a crypsis? What do you think what is the difference between mimicry and crypsis? Guess what Marty? I don't care. Know why? Well, it's because I'm not the one being asked the question. You state that X cannot be true. Great, why can X not be true? In order for you to state this you must know what really IS true. So why do some snakes look like others? Why do some wolves (note: wolVes) look like other wolves? Describe what mechanism causes some animals to look like others. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2008,14:24    Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,13:58) Descent of testicles is another phenomenon that darwinists are lost how to explain. And it appears you are also lost how to explain. So you and darwinism are equal. So it's nil-nil at half time Vmartin. Will you move your players into a new formation or just keep on droning on as you have been. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2008,14:27    Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,13:08)  It means that there was an innate tendency in variation in coloration. This has been set in the past and has nothing to do with natural selection. It can be explained as "self-represenation" of species as proposed by Swiss zoologist professor Adolf Portmann or as frontloading as proposed by professor John Davison in his Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. Also other scientists considered so called "mimicry" as variation of coloration of different animals which happened to resemble each other. Sorry, V, that is not an answer. Saying that it has "nothing to do with natural selection" is not the same as giving us some idea about what you (not Portmann or Davison) think it might have something to do with.  "Set" by whom? Or what?  And when "in the past"? When you say that "The resemblance between marsupial and placental wolfs has been prescribed from the beginning", it implies more than "an innate tendency in variation in coloration". Even the word "innate" hides a mechanism; we're asking you for a mechanism to explain the observation that some snakes seem to mimic coral snakes. So let's back up and try again.   "Prescribed" brings us closer to an explanation, but it is still not a real explanation. Prescribed by who or what? And how was this prescription filled?  And when was this "beginning"? thanks -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2008,14:36    Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,14:14) Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,20:03)   Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,13:26)     Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,19:13)       Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,13:08) V, read this very carefully. If something seems to mimic something, it means it looks like it. It doesn't mean it "mimics" it for any other than the superficial definition whereby mimic simply means "looks like". Are you sure? "Mimics" = "looks like"? Do you think that marsupial wolfs mimic placental wolfs? Mimics tend to look like things, yes. Admittedly, my comment was poorly written (I'm not entirely on the ball right now) and no, mimics don't simply look like something, but since you failed to understand what "seems" meant, I phrased it badly. You "seem" to be lost. Do you realise there is also a crypsis? What do you think what is the difference between mimicry and crypsis? Guess what Marty? I don't care. Know why? Well, it's because I'm not the one being asked the question. You state that X cannot be true. Great, why can X not be true? In order for you to state this you must know what really IS true. So why do some snakes look like others? Why do some wolves (note: wolVes) look like other wolves? Describe what mechanism causes some animals to look like others. Why should I know what is true? If you claim that the fifth root of 15785 is one hundred I am pretty sure you are wrong even thouhg I don't know the result. But your question is much more exact than the babbling questions of Albatrossity2. Anyway it is too general. As regarding the coral snakes I have already answered it. It is "pseudomicry" - the resemblance is pure coincidence and it was no way selection by predators that has led to the similarity of king snakes to coral snakes. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2008,14:44    Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,20:36) Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,14:14)   Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,20:03)   Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,13:26)       Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,19:13)       Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,13:08) V, read this very carefully. If something seems to mimic something, it means it looks like it. It doesn't mean it "mimics" it for any other than the superficial definition whereby mimic simply means "looks like". Are you sure? "Mimics" = "looks like"? Do you think that marsupial wolfs mimic placental wolfs? Mimics tend to look like things, yes. Admittedly, my comment was poorly written (I'm not entirely on the ball right now) and no, mimics don't simply look like something, but since you failed to understand what "seems" meant, I phrased it badly. You "seem" to be lost. Do you realise there is also a crypsis? What do you think what is the difference between mimicry and crypsis? Guess what Marty? I don't care. Know why? Well, it's because I'm not the one being asked the question. You state that X cannot be true. Great, why can X not be true? In order for you to state this you must know what really IS true. So why do some snakes look like others? Why do some wolves (note: wolVes) look like other wolves? Describe what mechanism causes some animals to look like others. Why should I know what is true? If you claim that the fifth root of 15785 is one hundred I am pretty sure you are wrong even thouhg I don't know the result. But your question is much more exact than the babbling questions of Albatrossity2. Anyway it is too general. As regarding the coral snakes I have already answered it. It is "pseudomicry" - the resemblance is pure coincidence and it was no way selection by predators that has led to the similarity of king snakes to coral snakes. Well I'm going to do something strange now Marty. I'm going to thank you for actually supplying an answer. Congratulations, it only took a few pages, but we got an answer. "It just is that way". -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2008,14:46    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 27 2008,14:27)   Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,13:08)  It means that there was an innate tendency in variation in coloration. This has been set in the past and has nothing to do with natural selection. It can be explained as "self-represenation" of species as proposed by Swiss zoologist professor Adolf Portmann or as frontloading as proposed by professor John Davison in his Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. Also other scientists considered so called "mimicry" as variation of coloration of different animals which happened to resemble each other. Sorry, V, that is not an answer. Saying that it has "nothing to do with natural selection" is not the same as giving us some idea about what you (not Portmann or Davison) think it might have something to do with.  "Set" by whom? Or what?  And when "in the past"? When you say that "The resemblance between marsupial and placental wolfs has been prescribed from the beginning", it implies more than "an innate tendency in variation in coloration". Even the word "innate" hides a mechanism; we're asking you for a mechanism to explain the observation that some snakes seem to mimic coral snakes. So let's back up and try again.   "Prescribed" brings us closer to an explanation, but it is still not a real explanation. Prescribed by who or what? And how was this prescription filled?  And when was this "beginning"? thanks Why couldn't I back up my ideas with Portmann's or Davison's arguments? Did you invent "natural selection" or "random mutation" and do you consider them for your own ideas or what? You support your notion by arguments of neodarwinian scientists. So do I. I also don't like your sentences like "So let's back up and try again." I am not here on interrogation and you are not the teacher. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2008,15:02    Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,14:46)   Why couldn't I back up my ideas with Portmann's or Davison's arguments? Did you invented "natural selection" or "random mutation" and do you consider them for your own ideas or what? You support your notion by arguments of neodarwinian scientists. So do I. Because, like you, they had no explanations of HOW these things were "prescribed", or WHEN they were "prescribed", or by WHOM they were "prescribed".  If they did, please point us to those passages in their works, and indicate if you fully agree with these sages.     Quote I also don't like your sentences like "So let's back up and try again." I am not here on interrogation and you are not the teacher. No, I am trying to learn by asking questions. I am the student; you are the teacher. Would you disallow questions by students? Or is it merely the case that you cannot answer them in a scientific manner? Prescribed by who or what? And how was this prescription filled?  And when was this "beginning"? -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2008,15:06    Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,14:44) Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,20:36) Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,14:14)   Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,20:03)     Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,13:26)       Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,19:13)         Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,13:08) V, read this very carefully. If something seems to mimic something, it means it looks like it. It doesn't mean it "mimics" it for any other than the superficial definition whereby mimic simply means "looks like". Are you sure? "Mimics" = "looks like"? Do you think that marsupial wolfs mimic placental wolfs? Mimics tend to look like things, yes. Admittedly, my comment was poorly written (I'm not entirely on the ball right now) and no, mimics don't simply look like something, but since you failed to understand what "seems" meant, I phrased it badly. You "seem" to be lost. Do you realise there is also a crypsis? What do you think what is the difference between mimicry and crypsis? Guess what Marty? I don't care. Know why? Well, it's because I'm not the one being asked the question. You state that X cannot be true. Great, why can X not be true? In order for you to state this you must know what really IS true. So why do some snakes look like others? Why do some wolves (note: wolVes) look like other wolves? Describe what mechanism causes some animals to look like others. Why should I know what is true? If you claim that the fifth root of 15785 is one hundred I am pretty sure you are wrong even thouhg I don't know the result. But your question is much more exact than the babbling questions of Albatrossity2. Anyway it is too general. As regarding the coral snakes I have already answered it. It is "pseudomicry" - the resemblance is pure coincidence and it was no way selection by predators that has led to the similarity of king snakes to coral snakes. Well I'm going to do something strange now Marty. I'm going to thank you for actually supplying an answer. Congratulations, it only took a few pages, but we got an answer. "It just is that way". You are wellcome. Actually I wrote the same thing some pages above. The "pseudomimicry" as explanation of coral snake rings was proposed by professor Grobman. Conspicuous coloration of animals is outcome of relaxed selective pressure and not "aposematism" and "mimicry" as neodarwinian school would like us to believe. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2008,15:43    Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,21:06) Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,14:44) Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,20:36)   Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,14:14)     Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,20:03)     Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,13:26)         Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,19:13)         Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,13:08) V, read this very carefully. If something seems to mimic something, it means it looks like it. It doesn't mean it "mimics" it for any other than the superficial definition whereby mimic simply means "looks like". Are you sure? "Mimics" = "looks like"? Do you think that marsupial wolfs mimic placental wolfs? Mimics tend to look like things, yes. Admittedly, my comment was poorly written (I'm not entirely on the ball right now) and no, mimics don't simply look like something, but since you failed to understand what "seems" meant, I phrased it badly. You "seem" to be lost. Do you realise there is also a crypsis? What do you think what is the difference between mimicry and crypsis? Guess what Marty? I don't care. Know why? Well, it's because I'm not the one being asked the question. You state that X cannot be true. Great, why can X not be true? In order for you to state this you must know what really IS true. So why do some snakes look like others? Why do some wolves (note: wolVes) look like other wolves? Describe what mechanism causes some animals to look like others. Why should I know what is true? If you claim that the fifth root of 15785 is one hundred I am pretty sure you are wrong even thouhg I don't know the result. But your question is much more exact than the babbling questions of Albatrossity2. Anyway it is too general. As regarding the coral snakes I have already answered it. It is "pseudomicry" - the resemblance is pure coincidence and it was no way selection by predators that has led to the similarity of king snakes to coral snakes. Well I'm going to do something strange now Marty. I'm going to thank you for actually supplying an answer. Congratulations, it only took a few pages, but we got an answer. "It just is that way". You are wellcome. Actually I wrote the same thing some pages above. The "pseudomimicry" as explanation of coral snake rings was proposed by professor Grobman. Conspicuous coloration of animals is outcome of relaxed selective pressure and not "aposematism" and "mimicry" as neodarwinian school would like us to believe. But just saying "It's pseudomimicary" isn't an answer. You have to then provide what you think is the explanation, which in this case was "It just is". -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2008,15:49    Albatrossity2:         Quote Because, like you, they had no explanations of HOW these things were "prescribed", or WHEN they were "prescribed", or by WHOM they were "prescribed".  If they did, please point us to those passages in their works, and indicate if you fully agree with these sages. You are wellcome. Professor Davison suggests that new species may occur by rearrangement of existing genetic material by chromosome inversion followed by first meiotic division. Then the oocyte may instantly acquire a new karyotype and "an evolutionary potential as a new kind of diploid organism."   I am not a genetist so I cannot judge it. But what seem to be very interesting and something I would like to  stress is professor Davison's  idea that sexual reproduction prevents evolution.   Professor Davison writes:         Quote The actual facts are as follows. In birds the cells destined to become the germ cells first appear in the extra-embryonic endoderm (germinal crescent) anterior to the head of the developing embryo. Incidentally, this region has no homologue in the hatched bird as the extra-embryonic endoderm is, by definition, resorbed as nutrient for the developing chick. From there the presumptive germ cells enter the circulatory system and, after a period of time in the bloodstream, penetrate the walls of the venous circulation and invade the gonad where they differentiate into the definitive gametes. In mammals the presumptive germ cells first appear in the endoderm of the allantois, a structure destined to become the urinary bladder of the adult. From here they migrate in amoeboid fashion anteriorly and laterally to reach the gonad where they complete their differentiation. Thus, there is no way that the reproductive cells of mammals can be homologized with those of birds as they originate from opposite ends of the embryonic axis and reach the gonads by completely different means. here As I wrote elsewhere this concept has been quoted by Jaroslav Flegr Uni Prague in his "Evolutionary biology" 2005 where he wrote that precursors of sexual cells migrate into gonads from different places. It means that sexual cells in different groups of Vertebrata are non-homologous (page 240). It also means that different groups of Vertebrata has arisen independently. But you can check Davison's Manifesto yourself and discuss with him the issue in more details at his own blog if you like. As to professor Portmann there are no sources available on internet except of his "New paths in biology" which is only in Czech. here Czech -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2008,18:05    Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,15:49) You are wellcome. Professor Davison suggests that new species may occur by rearrangement of existing genetic material by chromosome inversion followed by first meiotic division. Then the oocyte may instantly acquire a new karyotype and "an evolutionary potential as a new kind of diploid organism."   I am not a genetist so I cannot judge it. But what seem to be very interesting and something I would like to  stress is professor Davison's  idea that sexual reproduction prevents evolution. I'm pretty sure that explaining HOW a new species develops is NOT the same thing as explaining WHY some snakes seem to mimic coral snakes. But let's go with that explanation. It seems to me that one prediction from your invocation of Davison's mechanism for species generation would be that snakes that look the most alike are the most closely related genetically. Would you agree with that prediction? -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2008,20:48    Quote It also means that different groups of Vertebrata has arisen independently. The problem with that conclusion is that it would leave us with a huge number of apparently homologous features that couldn't actually be homologous if that conclusion were correct. As for why some snakes (or any type of living thing, for that matter) resemble each other - given the huge number of species out there, it seems to me that it'd be extremely unlikely to not find some that resemble each other, sometimes in the same geographic area. For that matter, such a coincidence as that would be a prerequisite for actual adaptive mimicry. As for the resemblance of marsupial and placental "wolf", as I understand it that's simply a result of having a similar environment, and a similar way of getting food, therefore similar physical abilities would be a direct result of adaptation to that lifestyle. (It's analogous to why dolphins and whales are largely fish-shaped - that shape is advantageous in that environment.) Henry

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2008,21:10    Tread carefully, VMartin. Javison is banned.  You may discuss his ideas, such as they are, but posting as his proxy is in itself a bannable offense. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2008,10:58    Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 27 2008,21:10) Tread carefully, VMartin. Javison is banned.  You may discuss his ideas, such as they are, but posting as his proxy is in itself a bannable offense. I don't know who "Javison" is. I presented my opinions about the work written by professor John A. Davison. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2008,11:20    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 27 2008,18:05)           Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,15:49) You are wellcome. Professor Davison suggests that new species may occur by rearrangement of existing genetic material by chromosome inversion followed by first meiotic division. Then the oocyte may instantly acquire a new karyotype and "an evolutionary potential as a new kind of diploid organism."   I am not a genetist so I cannot judge it. But what seem to be very interesting and something I would like to  stress is professor Davison's  idea that sexual reproduction prevents evolution. I'm pretty sure that explaining HOW a new species develops is NOT the same thing as explaining WHY some snakes seem to mimic coral snakes. But let's go with that explanation. It seems to me that one prediction from your invocation of Davison's mechanism for species generation would be that snakes that look the most alike are the most closely related genetically. Would you agree with that prediction? Actually I don't know the exact opinion of professor John Davison about the coral snakes "mimicry". You'd better  ask him. Otherwise I would be only a messenger between him and you. You probably underestand I will be banned here immediately. He has his own blog where you can discuss it.   As far as I can judge from his Manifesto he would say that the case is similar to the case of resemblance between marsupial and placental wolfs. That would be my personal "prediction". My opinion about some striking resemblances you can see in my following post to Henry. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2008,11:33    Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 27 2008,20:48)         Quote It also means that different groups of Vertebrata has arisen independently. The problem with that conclusion is that it would leave us with a huge number of apparently homologous features that couldn't actually be homologous if that conclusion were correct. As for why some snakes (or any type of living thing, for that matter) resemble each other - given the huge number of species out there, it seems to me that it'd be extremely unlikely to not find some that resemble each other, sometimes in the same geographic area. For that matter, such a coincidence as that would be a prerequisite for actual adaptive mimicry. As for the resemblance of marsupial and placental "wolf", as I understand it that's simply a result of having a similar environment, and a similar way of getting food, therefore similar physical abilities would be a direct result of adaptation to that lifestyle. (It's analogous to why dolphins and whales are largely fish-shaped - that shape is advantageous in that environment.) Henry I don't know if the problem of coral snakes "mimicry" could  (or couldn't) be solved by the systematics more precisely. Heikertinger who dismissed natural selection amongst butteflies didn't adressed the coral snakes "mimicry" specifically. Yet he used systematics in addressing many cases of mimicry in insect realm. Darwinists of the past days called "mimicry" also resemblances between species of the same genera of butterflies! The whole systematics of butterflies is the science of itself and I don't know if coloration patterns on butterfly wings play an unimportant role in it. I did't find on my books and on internet the rules of systematics of butterflies. On the other hand the main proponent of Orthogenesis Theodor Eimer observed some transformational rules in the development of coloration of butterflies wings (and on lizard's skins) in the course of evolution. These transformation rules seem to be independent on "natural selection"  and no wonder if some amazing resemblances of coloration of wing patterns of unrelated butterflies (or lizard's skins) may evoke "mimicry" in a darwinian mind. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2008,11:53    Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 28 2008,11:20) Actually I don't know the exact opinion of professor John Davison about the coral snakes "mimicry". You'd better  ask him. Otherwise I would be only a messenger between him and you. You probably underestand I will be banned here immediately. He has his own blog where you can discuss it.   As far as I can judge from his Manifesto he would say that the case is similar to the case of resemblance between marsupial and placental wolfs. That would be my personal "prediction". My opinion about some striking resemblances you can see be in my following post to Henry. I'm pretty sure you can follow this argument if you try. If you can't follow it, you have no business here acting as if you understand the biology of the things that you are discussing. You wrote     Quote new species may occur by rearrangement of existing genetic material by chromosome inversion followed by first meiotic division. Then the oocyte may instantly acquire a new karyotype and "an evolutionary potential as a new kind of diploid organism." This mechanism generates predictions. One prediction is that if a particular organism (e.g., a snake) with a particular color pattern goes through this process, one could reasonably expect that the "new kind" of snake would have a high probability of having a similar color pattern. It follows that genetic similarity between two snakes should be correlated with the similarity between the color patterns. Do you agree or disagree with this prediction?  If you disagree, what part of it is disagreeable, and why? -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2008,12:36    Albatrossity2 You are obviously an arrogant person.   Quote One prediction is that if a particular organism (e.g., a snake) with a particular color pattern goes through this process, one could reasonably expect that the "new kind" of snake would have a high probability of having a similar color pattern. What "predictions" are you babbling about? You didn't read professor Davison's Manifesto. Otherwise you wouldn't make your bold presuppositions. Professor Davison is a proponent of saltationism and therefore there is no need to make predictions how a new species coloration after "saltus" would look like. Saltationism  is also an idea of Richard Goldschmidt. I will not respond to your post anymore unless you know what you are talking about.   Quote If you can't follow it, you have no business here acting as if you understand the biology of the things that you are discussing. Yes. Why don't you go away to other threads and  spread your wisdom there where it could be appreciated more? I restricted myself to this thread and Bathroom wall. So don't read and respond at these threads.               -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2008,12:39    I said no mayo and extra salad. Geez, just can't get the staff.

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2008,13:00    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 28 2008,12:39) I said no mayo and extra salad. Geez, just can't get the staff. Ask Erasmus and his colleague who don't know how to tell apart spiders and ants on the floor. They are janitors at University. Doing nothing all day. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2008,13:50    Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 28 2008,12:36) Albatrossity2 You are obviously an arrogant person.       Quote One prediction is that if a particular organism (e.g., a snake) with a particular color pattern goes through this process, one could reasonably expect that the "new kind" of snake would have a high probability of having a similar color pattern. What "predictions" are you babbling about? You didn't read professor Davison's Manifesto. Otherwise you wouldn't make your bold presuppositions. Professor Davison is a proponent of saltationism and therefore there is no need to make predictions how a new species coloration after "saltus" would look like. Saltationism  is also an idea of Richard Goldschmidt. I will not respond to your post anymore unless you know what you are talking about.       Quote If you can't follow it, you have no business here acting as if you understand the biology of the things that you are discussing. Yes. Why don't you go away to other threads and  spread your wisdom there where it could be appreciated more? I restricted myself to this thread and Bathroom wall. So don't read and respond at these threads. V Insulting me is not an answer to the question, nor will it dissuade me from asking again. Asking me to go away is also not a valid response. You are here to teach us darwinists how this all works, and you finally, after months of weaseling, gave a mechanistic answer that leads to a testable prediction. It is not a "bold presupposition"; it is a logical outcome of your proposed mechanism. I am trying to understand that mechanism, and I merely asked you if, based on your profound understanding of both Biology and Manifesto, you agreed with that prediction. Do you have a problem with testing your hypotheses?  If so, you need to quit pretending to discuss science. If not, let's hear your thoughts. This mechanism generates predictions. One prediction is that if a particular organism (e.g., a snake) with a particular color pattern goes through this process, one could reasonably expect that the "new kind" of snake would have a high probability of having a similar color pattern. It follows that genetic similarity between two snakes should be correlated with the similarity between the color patterns. Do you agree or disagree with this prediction?  If you disagree, what part of it is disagreeable, and why? -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

BopDiddy Posts: 71 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2008,13:56    Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,15:49) Professor Davison writes:         Quote The actual facts are as follows. In birds the cells destined to become the germ cells first appear in the extra-embryonic endoderm (germinal crescent) anterior to the head of the developing embryo. Incidentally, this region has no homologue in the hatched bird as the extra-embryonic endoderm is, by definition, resorbed as nutrient for the developing chick. From there the presumptive germ cells enter the circulatory system and, after a period of time in the bloodstream, penetrate the walls of the venous circulation and invade the gonad where they differentiate into the definitive gametes. In mammals the presumptive germ cells first appear in the endoderm of the allantois, a structure destined to become the urinary bladder of the adult. From here they migrate in amoeboid fashion anteriorly and laterally to reach the gonad where they complete their differentiation. Thus, there is no way that the reproductive cells of mammals can be homologized with those of birds as they originate from opposite ends of the embryonic axis and reach the gonads by completely different means. What about monotremes?  Why would the designer throw us a curve ball like that? Is your point that a lack of homologues means a lack of common descent?  Then why not just point at bird wings and fly wings and be done with it?

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2008,15:49    Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 28 2008,13:00) Ask Erasmus and his colleague who don't know how to tell apart spiders and ants on the floor. Ask them what? -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2008,16:08    Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 28 2008,10:58) Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 27 2008,21:10) Tread carefully, VMartin. Javison is banned.  You may discuss his ideas, such as they are, but posting as his proxy is in itself a bannable offense. I don't know who "Javison" is. I presented my opinions about the work written by professor John A. Davison. Do you love it so? -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2008,16:12    Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 28 2008,11:58) Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 27 2008,21:10) Tread carefully, VMartin. Javison is banned.  You may discuss his ideas, such as they are, but posting as his proxy is in itself a bannable offense. I don't know who "Javison" is. I presented my opinions about the work written by professor John A. Davison. We of course are referring to the same nutjob, crackpot Dohn A. Javison. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2008,16:18    Quote The resemblance between marsupial and placental wolfs has been prescribed from the beginning. The same for the coloration of coral snakes, wasps and their so-called "mimics". Who did the 'prescribing'? When did this prescribing happen? -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Pages: (17) < ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard