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... > Coloration of animals, mimicry, aposematism

Pages: (13) < ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 >

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2007,14:57    Marty, we're still waiting for the conclusions of your extensive and brutal research. Is the Darwismus bad? Then instead should we what do? -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2007,14:59    Add to my previous post: Quote The data presented in this report are based on records of animals identified in the stomach contents of about 80,000 Nearctic birds. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2007,15:21    Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 09 2007,14:59) Add to my previous post:   Quote The data presented in this report are based on records of animals identified in the stomach contents of about 80,000 Nearctic birds. Martin, since the Darwinismus is bad, please to tell us what instead? I mean. Don't you know?? -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2007,15:53    Quote It seems to me that it is important to know the ratios of indi- viduals eaten to the total population of the species before one uses this as critical evidence one way or the other. from the review (not very favorable review, either, marty).  the argument that prey are taken in proportion to their abundance is pure conjecture.  heikertinger didn't measure the abundance of prey!  he just looked at bird guts.  you should go read Schoener for a better method. here is a take home point as if that review were written JUST FOR YOU MARTIN: Quote The reader should not be misled bv the positive manner in which Mr. McAtee attempts to force his point throughout the paper. He denounces emphatically the theories of protective adaptations and Natural Selection, but offers no alternative explanations in their stead. If we are to discard these theories, as Mr. McAtee would have us do, we should appreciate having him give us substitutes as good or better than the ones discarded. Sounds familiar, huh?  10 pages later and you still can't do it. Now, let's hear it. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2007,16:39    Quote The reader should not be misled bv the positive manner in which Mr. McAtee attempts to force his point throughout the paper. He denounces emphatically the theories of protective adaptations and Natural Selection, but offers no alternative explanations in their stead. If we are to discard these theories, as Mr. McAtee would have us do, we should appreciate having him give us substitutes as good or better than the ones discarded. So whatever the facts and reality is we should hold on neodarwinian explanation of aposematism. Unless brand new theory is proposed, we will hold on, like brave soldiers, even if the reality clearly contradicts our theory . -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2007,16:45    Well I'de like more reactions on Martin's examples too, instead of constantly repeating "Do you have something better?" (I sound like a traitor for some people now :P)

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2007,17:00    Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 09 2007,16:39) Quote The reader should not be misled bv the positive manner in which Mr. McAtee attempts to force his point throughout the paper. He denounces emphatically the theories of protective adaptations and Natural Selection, but offers no alternative explanations in their stead. If we are to discard these theories, as Mr. McAtee would have us do, we should appreciate having him give us substitutes as good or better than the ones discarded. So whatever the facts and reality is we should hold on neodarwinian explanation of aposematism. Unless brand new theory is proposed, we will hold on, like brave soldiers, even if the reality clearly contradicts our theory . Quote So whatever the facts and reality is we should hold on neodarwinian explanation of aposematism. Unless brand new theory is proposed, we will hold on, like brave soldiers, even if the reality clearly contradicts our theory . So what is YOUR explanation of aposematism, Marty? What are the results of your brutal research? Still don't have a theory? No research? Nothing? PS: 'Darwinismus is stupid' is not a theory, Marty. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2007,17:29    your 'facts' aren't what you claim them to be.  that's the whole problem. from what you posted, mcatee collected absolutely no data about the relative abundances of prey items in the bird stomachs.   you can get nowhere from there. now, if you have an alternate theory, let's hear it.  you don't have to accept anything, of course.  you are completely free in this world to be as dumb as you can make yourself.   but you claim things are incorrect for reasons which turn out to be incorrect themselves.  that's a different story from the one you would wish to tell. ***edited 'heikertinger' to 'macatee' -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Nomad Posts: 311 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2007,17:32    Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 09 2007,16:39) So whatever the facts and reality is we should hold on neodarwinian explanation of aposematism. Unless brand new theory is proposed, we will hold on, like brave soldiers, even if the reality clearly contradicts our theory . Yes, that's basically what they're saying.  The "theory" that maggots were spontaneously created on decaying meat was disproven when it was shown that keeping flies off the meat kept them from showing up, and people realized that they were actually fly larva.  It was known that Newtonian physics didn't accurately describe several things, including the orbit of Mercury.  By your method, Newtonian physics should have been discarded, and replaced with.. well.. nothing..  I mean, yes, it described most things quite well.  But what about Mercury? One Einsteinien theory later we find Newtonian physics surviving with a very minor modification.  What's the first example of physics taught to every school child?  Projectile motion, a simple example of Newtonian physics. Or do you feel that we're just holding on to Newtonian physics, like "brave little Newtonian soldiers"?

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2007,17:49    Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 09 2007,17:29) your 'facts' aren't what you claim them to be.  that's the whole problem. from what you posted, mcatee collected absolutely no data about the relative abundances of prey items in the bird stomachs.   you can get nowhere from there. now, if you have an alternate theory, let's hear it.  you don't have to accept anything, of course.  you are completely free in this world to be as dumb as you can make yourself.   but you claim things are incorrect for reasons which turn out to be incorrect themselves.  that's a different story from the one you would wish to tell. ***edited 'heikertinger' to 'macatee' I see. You must be very wise. You must have been stung by a wasp as a child. Because of it ornitologist and entomologist McAtee was wrong and you are right. Sleep well. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2007,17:53    Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 09 2007,17:49) Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 09 2007,17:29) your 'facts' aren't what you claim them to be.  that's the whole problem. from what you posted, mcatee collected absolutely no data about the relative abundances of prey items in the bird stomachs.   you can get nowhere from there. now, if you have an alternate theory, let's hear it.  you don't have to accept anything, of course.  you are completely free in this world to be as dumb as you can make yourself.   but you claim things are incorrect for reasons which turn out to be incorrect themselves.  that's a different story from the one you would wish to tell. ***edited 'heikertinger' to 'macatee' I see. You must be very wise. You must have been stung by a wasp as a child. Because of it ornitologist and entomologist McAtee was wrong and you are right. Sleep well. Marty, do you really think we should throw out the last hundred+ years of evolutionary biology and replace it with nothing? Because, as long as you offer no alternative, that's what you're proposing. I must say, Marty, 'Darwinism' correctly explains far far more than you do. -------------- "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

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2007,18:09    I still wonder about one thing: what does the bird stomach research Marty quoted mean? What is the correct conclusion from it, based on what? (I'm here to learn remember)

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2007,18:12    Martin why can't you deal with the facts? Without knowing the relative abundance of prey, Macatee's assertion were just hand waving about bull shit.   Further, averaging over the entire N America bird fauna doesn't tell you a goddam thing about why things were or weren't eaten. the only thing, from the limited amount of information you have posted about it (I mean, come on, a book review that trashes the book you are claiming destroys Darwinismus?) Macatee could say is that aposematic forms are sometimes eaten.  And that is that.  And no one ever disputed that. Now, I really wish you would tell me more about what these mystical formalists wrote about in your own f***** words and stop evading the point. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2007,18:13    Assassin, it tells you that aposematic forms are sometimes eaten by birds. That's it. All of it. It doesn't tell you anything more than that, and this is a point that we have never disputed. Martin thinks it spells doom for Darwinismus materialist from ATBC.  I will reiterate, this guy is a deep cover troll. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2007,18:26    I've noted his English has improved dramatically (again) over the few weeks I was unplugged. Just sayin'. (Edited to clarify that this is neither the first time, nor the first time I've noted it on this board.) Edited by Lou FCD on Nov. 09 2007,19:27 -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2007,21:39    Quote You are obviously missing the main point. "Unpalatability" is a concept conceived in selectionists heads to support their explanation of aposematism. No such phenomenon as unpalatability of wasps or ladybirds exists in reality (what's more there are predators specialised to mentioned insects). To extend human perceived unpalatability of wasps/ladybirds to other animal species is utterly unscientific. It's pure anthropomorphism. here is a good example of VMartin lapsing into good English. Martin, is there something you want to tell us? tard -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2007,21:51    If Marty is a troll that we've already met before, I vote for Ghost of Paley. I just don't buy Davison as bright or determined enough to pull this off. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2007,00:28    Lou Quote I've noted his English has improved dramatically (again) over the few weeks I was unplugged. Now you are plugged in and you can support Erasmus giving some evidence backing neodarwinian fantasies about protective coloration of aposematic insects. The level of  presented arguments by selectionists here hasn't increased so dramatically as you can see. Some student would like to know  contra arguments regarding the research done by US department of agriculture than those  vague "birds sometimes eat some aposematics, but McAtee was obviously wrong". The poor Arden has got even scared. Instead of asking the same off topic questions like automat he is asking now if he have to dismiss darwinism. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2007,00:33    Do I have to dismiss darwinism too? Even though I provided a really good example of Coloration of animals, mimicry, and aposematism with my octopus? Just wondering. You talk in such advanced scientific language that I can't keep up sometimes VMartin. -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2007,02:02    Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 10 2007,00:28) Lou     Quote I've noted his English has improved dramatically (again) over the few weeks I was unplugged. Now you are plugged in and you can support Erasmus giving some evidence backing neodarwinian fantasies about protective coloration of aposematic insects. The level of  presented arguments by selectionists here hasn't increased so dramatically as you can see. Some student would like to know  contra arguments regarding the research done by US department of agriculture than those  vague "birds sometimes eat some aposematics, but McAtee was obviously wrong". The poor Arden has got even scared. Instead of asking the same off topic questions like automat he is asking now if he have to dismiss darwinism. That's not what I'm asking, tho if having that fantasy makes you feel good, I suppose I can't stop you. I'm asking why anyone should want to give up all that evolutionary biology has accomplished in the past century and replace it with...NOTHING! Since that's what you have. You have no explanations for anything. No predictions. Nichevo. You produce nothing, Marty. You seem to have NO IDEA what explains variation. You somehow think this is better than 'Darwinismus'. Hasn't all your extensive and brutal research given you more that *that*? -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2007,02:04    Quote asking off topic questions Off topic? Asking what will replace 'Darwinismus' is off topic? Silly pitiful little child. -------------- "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

Steviepinhead Posts: 532 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2007,17:49    "We"--well, mostly Arden, but that's not such bad company--keep repeating the same question to Vmaroon because through long association with a long line of creationist maroons of his ilk, "we" have learned that--unless you focus very narrowly and repeat yourself incessantly--you will never get a straightforward answer to a question. Without getting an answer to Q. A, it is very difficult to move, in any kind of rigorous manner, on to Point B. Creationists are past masters--though this is about all of which they are masters--of the Gish Gallop, of the evasive "response" which sounds vaguely like an answer, but which is not, immediately after which the subject is changed to some other stupidity, the problems with which will take much longer to elucidate than it did for the stupidity to be posed, and so on, and so on. So please feel free to discuss wide-ranging matters with Vmaroon all you will.  But, in doing so, please understand why others here take a more tedious, but ultimately more satisfying, approach: while they may never get anything like an actual answer, the maroon's inability or unwillingness to answer becomes undeniably documented.

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2007,00:07    Quote "We"--well, mostly Arden, but that's not such bad company--keep repeating the same question to Vmaroon because through long association with a long line of creationist maroons of his ilk, "we" have learned that--unless you focus very narrowly and repeat yourself incessantly--you will never get a straightforward answer to a question. Without getting an answer to Q. A, it is very difficult to move, in any kind of rigorous manner, on to Point B. Creationists are past masters--though this is about all of which they are masters--of the Gish Gallop, of the evasive "response" which sounds vaguely like an answer, but which is not, immediately after which the subject is changed to some other stupidity, the problems with which will take much longer to elucidate than it did for the stupidity to be posed, and so on, and so on. So please feel free to discuss wide-ranging matters with Vmaroon all you will.  But, in doing so, please understand why others here take a more tedious, but ultimately more satisfying, approach: while they may never get anything like an actual answer, the maroon's inability or unwillingness to answer becomes undeniably documented. I love it so!!! -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2007,07:36    martin the only point you have made is to be able to say that birds sometimes eat aposematic prey.  and we never claimed otherwise. you routinely conflate the origin and maintenance of mimicry when it is convenient for you to play ignorant denier or uber-informed-formalistkiksiditidosorkitiestorthogenetiskeist.  stop it. 'senescence' of races or species is more typological bullshit 'species are individuals' nonsense philosophy.  it doesn't explain the data.  it's based on a simple statistical error, but thanks for the paper (it's a good reference for antiquated and incorrect arguments framed by post-victorian rhetoric and NO DATA.  good choice, it's a caricature of what you do here).  species are not individuals at all, and it is unclear what you think you gain by introducing that idea (for one it denies the vertical aspect of evolution). -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2007,20:36    Re "birds sometimes eat aposematic prey" Something occurs to me about that. A prey species that develops a defense mechaniam (whether mimicry or something else) might cut down on average predation rate over the whole species, but then again it might not. Presumably the ones that a bit easier to see get eaten first, but that doesn't necessarily mean the predator can't see (or otherwise sense) those with the more effective camouflage, just that it takes it a bit longer to do so. (Also of course the predator species may have been counter-evolving over the same time period that the prey species was evolving its defense mechanism.) Henry

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2007,11:00    Erasmus Quote martin the only point you have made is to be able to say that birds sometimes eat aposematic prey.  and we never claimed otherwise. Yes. And birds eat also sometimes cryptic prey and they eat sometimes also prey that isn't cryptic nor aposematic. They eat everything. They eat all of them and they do not distinguish between them (except their size). There is no need to suppose that aposematism arose thanks  "natural selection". -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2007,12:09    Quote There is no need to suppose that aposematism arose thanks  "natural selection". If aposematism didn't arose thanks 'natural selection', why did it arouse? -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2007,12:29    arden roflmao Martin, you haven't shown that birds don't differentiate.  many people have shown that they do in fact differentiate, varying with predator experience, background contrast, etc etc. you're just making shit up.  the only data you have is a bunch of bird guts, and that can't tell you what you need to know in order to make your claim that birds aren't preying selectively.   but you can keep lying.  or you could try to tell us what eimer and the rest of your magical german mysticorskeingakkewiezenss says.  in your own words of course. i bet it's something like 'only in selectionist heads' or some other rhetorical gem. who are you again?  ghost of paley? -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2007,17:48    Quote the only data you have is a bunch of bird guts, and that can't tell you what you need to know in order to make your claim that birds aren't preying selectively.   If you consider 80.000 birds stomachs carefully examined by US Agriculture survey for "bunch of birds guts" I don't take you your opinion. I understand that in order to hold "natural selection" intact you have to dismiss all arguments that do not fit it. Instead of this great research (done btw. also by Csiki in Hungary 1905-1910 in 2.800 birds)  you would inisist that "many people have shown that they do in fact differentiate". Why on the Earth you don't pick up one of those fantastic articles about wasp's aposematism  from JSTOR or PubMed and why don't you put it here? Why don't you defend it like JAM defend his articles and VISTA charts against Daniel? Are you afraid something?   JeaNot done it but it took no more than 5 minutes to find another article in those scientific peer-reviewed journals that claimed opposite. You are probably very well aware of it, so you babbling only something like "many people have shown that they do in fact differentiate". -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2007,19:01    Quote Are you afraid something?   You're a regular laff riot, Marty. Quote Why don't you defend it like JAM defend his articles and VISTA charts against Daniel? Why don't you tell us what really causes mimicry? Are you afraid something? -------------- "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: (13) < ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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