RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (17) < ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... >   
  Topic: VMartin's cosmology, where he will not be off-topic< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2008,00:00   

Any other neodarwinian explanation (e.g. abuses) of descent of desticles?

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2008,02:51   

Why, are you having a raffle or something?

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

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2008,05:11   

Quote (VMartin @ Jan. 14 2008,00:00)
Any other neodarwinian explanation (e.g. abuses) of descent of desticles?

What exactly is YOUR explanation? Ofcourse, we admit that the current explanation is not necceraly true, but the only think YOU can do is flame it. Do you have any better explanation to offer then the current one? Do you even know on wich observations etc the current explanation is based?

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2008,05:59   

I think VMartin might be afraid of commitment!

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

  
Nomad



Posts: 311
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2008,01:48   

For those that want greater detail on the mystical poles theory, I found it at the EvC forum where he's arguing the same thing and frankly doing a lot worse because the people there are still actually taking him up on the issues and responding rather than teasing him and waiting for him to respond to one of the many previous points that he's run away from.


Quote
. It is a simple idea that during evolution the reproductive organs moved towards opposite end of that of the head, which represents individuality at most. So the head and reproductive organs in mammals are on the opposite ends of their bodies


link

So.. in other words.. his theory is that testicles moved down (or back) over time.  Except for the species in which it didn't.

You know, that's right, Martin.  The same species that you point out as problems with the cooling issues (I notice no response to the idea that internal testicle mammals have elaborate internal cooling mechanisms.. could it be that the group you listed also has specialized internal cooling that the other mammals are lacking?  Why would you suggest that the cooling issue doesn't exist if the only way that mammals can keep internal testicles is to have specialized cooling mechanisms for them?) are problems to your pole theory.  Why would small mammals and birds not demonstrate this effect?  Are Aardvarks not in need of representing individuality, while rats are?


It's really irrelevant in any case, that doesn't explain why they go external in any event.  Away from the head does not specify outside the body.  There are plenty of areas in the human body that are farther from the head, hanging between our legs is hardly an ideal position in terms of distance.  For mammals that walk on all fours it's even less useful in that regard, since hanging outside of the body in that layout means below but not farther back from the head.

So, Martin, care to try again, only this time perhaps you can take observed reality into account in your next attempt?

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2008,03:31   

Quote
. It is a simple idea that during evolution the reproductive organs moved towards opposite end of that of the head, which represents individuality at most. So the head and reproductive organs in mammals are on the opposite ends of their bodies.


It may be a simple idea, but is it a good idea? What information do we have that may help us in drawing an intelligent, informed inference about how the basic body plan that we observe throughout the animal kingdom evolved?

I am still only an amateur in all aspects of both life and science, after a long time on this planet, so I am just stating my opinion. But after having read Sean Carroll's
"Endless Forms Most Beautiful", i tend to believe that our body plan simply reflects the present stand of the evolutionary process.

That means the reproductive apparatus being located at the rear; can anyone think of a more suitable position? I can't. So what about the testicles? So what? Keeping them in a cooling bag seems like a most economical solution. As long as that solution is reasonably well functioning without excessive detrimental costs, it will persist once it has been established.

Or something like that. I have a problem selecting and knitting English words. Hope I am not too far off target.

WRT this character VMartin; to me, his refusal to reveal his 'beliefs', 'opinions' or whatever suggests that he really doesn't know what to think. Maybe he just enjoys being in opposition? And that is no attempt at psychoanalysis; it is just a speculation about what his motives might be.

BTW, he seems to be making a lot of fuss about being on or off topic. As far as i can tell, the stated topic of this thread had nothing with paint mixing to do?

Which reminds me - since the thread anyway seems to lead nowhere. Back in the 1950's sometime, an American warship visited my home town in Norway. In a conversation with one of the crew I happened to ask what his job on the ship was. He answered "paint mixer". "Paint mixer?" I replied, but had guessed that he didn't want to tell, I might after all be a Soviet spy...

If I may pursue the subject further, since VMartin refuses to voice an opinion about the age of the Earth: Does he accept the fundamentals of science, like physics, chemistry et cetera as used in our attempts at determining the age of our planet and the rest of the universe? And if not, why?  
But I fear I am asking too much. If however he should ask me, I wouldn't mind trying to answer as truthfully as I could.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Darth Robo



Posts: 148
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2008,07:51   

The TRUTH is that we'd all look pretty silly with our dangly bits around our heads, PROOF that we were Intelligently Designed!

--------------
"Commentary: How would you like to be the wholly-owned servant to an organic meatbag? It's demeaning! If, uh, you weren't one yourself, I mean..."

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2008,07:55   

Naughty bits on the head, like female dragonflies?

or that shitty SNL sketch from the 70s-80s.

Har Har this is you Martin




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

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2008,15:25   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 15 2008,07:55)
Naughty bits on the head, like female dragonflies?

or that shitty SNL sketch from the 70s-80s.

Har Har this is you Martin




We are from France Slovakia!  :D

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2008,13:16   

Natural selection bless American beautiful girls!




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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2008,13:19   

Quote (VMartin @ Jan. 16 2008,13:16)
Natural selection bless American beautiful girls!



Now THAT is hot.

Marty, here is a good example of things that selection just fails to predict.  How could these girls be so hot?  Stepwise adding one beautiful fat molecule at a time, they could never get to be so hot.

Neodarwinismus fail to explainismus thismus, all hypothetiker in selectionismus headismus.

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

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2008,13:40   

Erasmus FCD:
Quote
Har Har this is you Martin...


I resemble that remark.   Though the coneheads are only distant cousins of the pinheads, I can double-darn guarantee you that MaroonV is NOT a member of either lineage.

Such loose usage may be understandable, even excusable, but will not be encouraged.

--Sincerely, Stevie

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2008,11:09   

You haven't given coherent neodarwinian account of the descent of testicles yet (unless using abuses of me and Slovakian people).

Your only way of discussion is to "google out" some neodarwinian article, put the result here and pretend that the problem has been already solved by someone. The problem has been solved so the abuses follow freely.

One of you mentioned the paper from Werdelin and Nilsonne (1999) "The evolution of the scrotum and testicular descent in mammals: a phylogenetic view."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9892556

The very same paper has been used by doctor Myers at his blog "Descent of the testicle"

http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/descent_of_the_testicle/

Unfortunatelly the problem has not been solved. Werdelin and Nilsonne used an outdated phylogeny of mammals. Authors using the outdated tree came to the conclusion that the most parsimonious explanation is that descended testicles represent the ancestral condition. The phylogeny tree they used can be found also at the previous link.

It was Conrad Knauer there who noticed doctor Myers that both authors based their "parsimonious explanation" on wrong assumptions. Using modern phylogeny tree their conclusions are invalid.

So we are back where we had been before the paper was published.

But putting the problem under the carpet is not a solution of it. The problem - as many others which are unexplainable by neodarwinian paradigma - is still here.
You may pretend it doesn't exist if you like.

Your lost questions like "and what is your account of it Marty?" aren't any valid neodarwinian explanation of it.

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

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2008,11:15   

vmartin, what if you asked a question here and no one cared?

You seem to be frustrated that no one is taking your questions seriously, no one is jumping out of their chair to provide you the answers about human testicles you so desperately want.

Have you considered the lack of an answer suggests no one gives a rats ass about your retarded understanding of biology and evolution?

Have you considered no one cares if you have a retarded understanding of "darwinism"?

I kind of enjoy your ignorance and hope no one helps you overcome it.

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

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2008,11:50   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 25 2008,12:15)
vmartin, what if you asked a question here and no one cared?

You seem to be frustrated that no one is taking your questions seriously, no one is jumping out of their chair to provide you the answers about human testicles you so desperately want.

Have you considered the lack of an answer suggests no one gives a rats ass about your retarded understanding of biology and evolution?

Have you considered no one cares if you have a retarded understanding of "darwinism"?

I kind of enjoy your ignorance and hope no one helps you overcome it.

Obviously, if Darwinismus wasn't such an irretrievably flawed theorismus, the Evolutionist poopyheads who read this thread would be able to provide a comprehensive Darwinoidical explanismus for any biological phenomenismus VM might care to cite.  The fact that you obviously cannot do this clearly demonstrates that VM's favored explanismus, which he does not have to provide*, must be correct by default.  Don't you get it?

__

*According to his buddy JAD, the explanismus in this case would be "god made descending testicles, then he died".  I love it so!

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2008,10:49   

vmartin, I think it's obvious Darwinism has no theory regarding the development of testicles.  However, as a budding ID Theorist *I* have developed a theory from an ID perspective.

When He created man, the Christian God* knew he'd need something to do while drinking beer and watching football.  So...He gave man testicles that he could scratch while enjoying his favorite NFL team.

I mean you tell me, as a man what is more satisfying than sitting there scratching your balls while you drink beer and watch the NFL?  Nothing!  So we IDists must pause from time to time and give thanks to the "Intelligent Designer"* for our manly "low hanging fruit".

After the Christian God* created testicles He died.  

I love it so and you're welcome!

Chris




*You may substitute reptilian space alien

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

  
metoni



Posts: 3
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2008,11:08   

CAVEAT #1: AS — CAVEAT#2: Evolve

Only mankind’s ego could misinterpret 2 Peter 3:8 affixing the number 1,000 to the ratio equivalent in the passage  “...day to the (Judeo-Christian) Lord . . .” by leaving out the word ‘As’. This one word by all known logic methodology means the word ‘Day’ in Genesis 1:5 has no fixed equivalent to man’s calculation of time but rather uses 1,000 to emphasize day represents a much longer length of time than man could fathom. If the ratio was intended to be exact then the sentence would have omitted the word As or been translated using only the word Is — “. . . a day is 1,000 years. . , ”  if you simply ask a human whose life-span is 76 years then 1,000 is a very large number. Only ego would bind that which is called Creator and not admit that the actual time of this difference or ratio could easily have been 65 billion years (the word billion not yet having appeared in language and not yet fathomed by logicians as infinity.)

In like manors, only the scientific  ego could misinterpret the truth that all earth fossil-life is constituted and reconstituted from the same shale clay. Gasoline engines and plastic sandwich bags are realities from crude, yet, how often has anyone called them relatives or given the word evolve preeminence in scientific discussion, although admittedly they share a few common molecular structures? If we were in fact to claim this information as basis for truth then we must claim the original or 1st Oxygen-based one cell life-form, the euglena (both plant and animal,) as our forefather, having evolved therefrom.
It is our understanding, our ability to think through, our acquisition tools of discovery, our technology that has evolved. That is to say a thing may be derived from, yet not be evolved from. The discovery of shale-rock and quartz crystals should have eliminated use of the word evolve with regard to organized education.

My premise is and the assertions are that in the ego’s effort to be right we have generated a division that is false, never existed, and unnecessary with regard to any discussion on teaching (our young) the subject matters of geology, anthropology, paleontology, and/or the recycling nature of Earth-Nature from inception to end.

These assertions have additional proof:
1. Scientist agree the Earth began as a void

2. The continental drift supports the second day
 

3. The order of appearance of beasts agrees    

4. Common sense confirms fact that before man is (environs, Genesis day 5) earth must be rid of dinosaurs, change climates, change terrain, be provided with several smaller beast-inhabitants.
Yes, this is an oversimplification of terminology, but what greater oversimplifications of scientific data than to conclude that because one thing shares similar molecular structures, a few (DNA) strains or that one appeared prior to the other places either in the position of forefather. Likewise what an oversimplification to assume that which is called Intelligent (Creator) has less common sense or can’t tell time or is limited in being the potter molding the shale-clay.

Our solution is not as daring as an admission the earth is elliptical. The Compromise Textbooks will stop leaving out the word “As” in correlating the scriptural creation time-lines, eliminate the word “Evolve” from science, replacing its bank of information as what it is — the factual detailing of known existence past, present, future, coupled with the detailed descriptions of intra-relationships or interdependencies derived by-way-of logical methods of investigation. This allows the ‘faith-based’ family to assert truth within an intelligent design but does not deny the evidence of how long or the interconnectivity presented. This also frees the scientific community to claim science bares neither responsibility nor need to answer what started the original void, leaving source definition to the trust/faith of each individual query and/or theory.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2008,06:56   

Too bad the topic about mimicry is closed. Since our expert is VMartin, I'm posting this here, from the current issue of Nature.


 
Quote
Selection overrides gene flow to break down maladaptive mimicry

George R. Harper Jr, & David W. Pfennig


Top of pageAbstract
Predators typically avoid dangerous species, and batesian mimicry evolves when a palatable species (the 'mimic') co-opts a warning signal from a dangerous species (the 'model') and thereby deceives its potential predators. Because predators would not be under selection to avoid the model and any of its look-alikes in areas where the model is absent (that is, allopatry) batesian mimics should occur only in sympatry with their model. However, contrary to this expectation, batesian mimics often occur in allopatry. Here we focus on one such example—a coral snake mimic. Using indirect DNA-based methods, we provide evidence suggesting that mimics migrate from sympatry, where mimicry is favoured to allopatry, where it is disfavoured. Such gene flow is much stronger in nuclear genes than in maternally inherited mitochondrial genes, indicating that dispersal by males may explain the presence of mimetic phenotypes in allopatry. Despite this gene flow, however, individuals from allopatry resemble the model less than do individuals from sympatry. We show that this breakdown of mimicry probably reflects predator-mediated selection acting against individuals expressing the more conspicuous mimetic phenotype in allopatry. Thus, although gene flow may explain why batesian mimics occur in allopatry, natural selection may often override such gene flow and promote the evolution of non-mimetic phenotypes in such areas.

Do I spy the term "Natural selection" in this abstract? Gasp! :O

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2008,07:28   

Unfortunately,Jeannot, it may be a while before VMartin can respond, as I heard there may have been problems over time spent on internet discussion forums in the workplace.

Added in edit: Mea culpa! VMartin is between home internet providers and is prohibited from using his work connection for personal blogging.

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2008,10:32   

Quote (jeannot @ Mar. 01 2008,06:56)
Too bad the topic about mimicry is closed. Since our expert is VMartin, I'm posting this here, from the current issue of Nature.


   
Quote
Selection overrides gene flow to break down maladaptive mimicry

George R. Harper Jr, & David W. Pfennig


Top of pageAbstract
Predators typically avoid dangerous species, and batesian mimicry evolves when a palatable species (the 'mimic') co-opts a warning signal from a dangerous species (the 'model') and thereby deceives its potential predators. Because predators would not be under selection to avoid the model and any of its look-alikes in areas where the model is absent (that is, allopatry) batesian mimics should occur only in sympatry with their model. However, contrary to this expectation, batesian mimics often occur in allopatry. Here we focus on one such example—a coral snake mimic. Using indirect DNA-based methods, we provide evidence suggesting that mimics migrate from sympatry, where mimicry is favoured to allopatry, where it is disfavoured. Such gene flow is much stronger in nuclear genes than in maternally inherited mitochondrial genes, indicating that dispersal by males may explain the presence of mimetic phenotypes in allopatry. Despite this gene flow, however, individuals from allopatry resemble the model less than do individuals from sympatry. We show that this breakdown of mimicry probably reflects predator-mediated selection acting against individuals expressing the more conspicuous mimetic phenotype in allopatry. Thus, although gene flow may explain why batesian mimics occur in allopatry, natural selection may often override such gene flow and promote the evolution of non-mimetic phenotypes in such areas.

Do I spy the term "Natural selection" in this abstract? Gasp! :O

Perhaps you could tell us what kind of aposematic "model" authors are dealing with. You know  poisonous coral snakes are nocturnal. What predators   are performing selective pressure  for diurnal harmless snakes to look like poisonous nocturnal ones?

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2008,10:41   

Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 04 2008,10:32)
Quote (jeannot @ Mar. 01 2008,06:56)
Too bad the topic about mimicry is closed. Since our expert is VMartin, I'm posting this here, from the current issue of Nature.


     
Quote
Selection overrides gene flow to break down maladaptive mimicry

George R. Harper Jr, & David W. Pfennig


Top of pageAbstract
Predators typically avoid dangerous species, and batesian mimicry evolves when a palatable species (the 'mimic') co-opts a warning signal from a dangerous species (the 'model') and thereby deceives its potential predators. Because predators would not be under selection to avoid the model and any of its look-alikes in areas where the model is absent (that is, allopatry) batesian mimics should occur only in sympatry with their model. However, contrary to this expectation, batesian mimics often occur in allopatry. Here we focus on one such example—a coral snake mimic. Using indirect DNA-based methods, we provide evidence suggesting that mimics migrate from sympatry, where mimicry is favoured to allopatry, where it is disfavoured. Such gene flow is much stronger in nuclear genes than in maternally inherited mitochondrial genes, indicating that dispersal by males may explain the presence of mimetic phenotypes in allopatry. Despite this gene flow, however, individuals from allopatry resemble the model less than do individuals from sympatry. We show that this breakdown of mimicry probably reflects predator-mediated selection acting against individuals expressing the more conspicuous mimetic phenotype in allopatry. Thus, although gene flow may explain why batesian mimics occur in allopatry, natural selection may often override such gene flow and promote the evolution of non-mimetic phenotypes in such areas.

Do I spy the term "Natural selection" in this abstract? Gasp! :O

Perhaps you could tell us what kind of aposematic "model" authors are dealing with. You know  poisonous coral snakes are nocturnal. What predators   are performing selective pressure  for diurnal harmless snakes to look like poisonous nocturnal ones?

The red ones.

--------------
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. 04 2008,11:06   

Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 04 2008,10:32)
Perhaps you could tell us what kind of aposematic "model" authors are dealing with. You know  poisonous coral snakes are nocturnal. What predators   are performing selective pressure  for diurnal harmless snakes to look like poisonous nocturnal ones?

Actually, Martin, if you did your homework before shooting off your mouth, you would know that most species of coral snake are not nocturnal, but merely secretive or fossorial, typically hiding under leaf litter and logs etc.  I don't know much about the Old World species, but among the New World species, strictly nocturnal behavior is rare. Most of these (e.g. the Eastern Coral Snake) do get out in the open regularly. The Western Coral Snake, which lives in the Sonoran Desert, is nocturnal, like most animals that live in the Sonoran Desert. But most of the other members of the dozens of species in this group are not nocturnal; some are even aquatic. Do your damn homework first next time.

I'd point you to the links that would help you understand these facts, but since facts have never made a difference to you in previous conversations, I won't bother.

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

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2008,11:53   

Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 04 2008,10:32)
Perhaps you could tell us what kind of aposematic "model" authors are dealing with. You know  poisonous coral snakes are nocturnal. What predators   are performing selective pressure  for diurnal harmless snakes to look like poisonous nocturnal ones?

Careful, Marty, we'll tell your boss you're goofing off at work again and get your ass in trouble.  :angry:

--------------
"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. 04 2008,11:58   

The English has improved again, I notice.

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2008,11:59   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 04 2008,11:58)
The English has improved again, I notice.

It's like tides, or maybe sunspots.

--------------
"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. 04 2008,12:01   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 04 2008,12:59)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 04 2008,11:58)
The English has improved again, I notice.

It's like tides, or maybe sunspots.

or the vapours...

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2008,09:52   

Get back to work and quit goofing off, Marty. Your boss'll fire your dumb ass.   :angry:

--------------
"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: Mar. 07 2008,10:01   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 04 2008,11:06)
   
Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 04 2008,10:32)
Perhaps you could tell us what kind of aposematic "model" authors are dealing with. You know  poisonous coral snakes are nocturnal. What predators   are performing selective pressure  for diurnal harmless snakes to look like poisonous nocturnal ones?

Actually, Martin, if you did your homework before shooting off your mouth, you would know that most species of coral snake are not nocturnal, but merely secretive or fossorial, typically hiding under leaf litter and logs etc.  I don't know much about the Old World species, but among the New World species, strictly nocturnal behavior is rare. Most of these (e.g. the Eastern Coral Snake) do get out in the open regularly. The Western Coral Snake, which lives in the Sonoran Desert, is nocturnal, like most animals that live in the Sonoran Desert. But most of the other members of the dozens of species in this group are not nocturnal; some are even aquatic. Do your damn homework first next time.

I'd point you to the links that would help you understand these facts, but since facts have never made a difference to you in previous conversations, I won't bother.


Really? Are you speaking about Micrurus fulvius or Micruroides euryxanthus?

Both species are slender and tend to be nocturnal.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C007974/2_3cor.htm


or


The coral snake (Micrurus fulvius tenere)  is likely the most gaudy of North American venomous snakes... Typically very small by comparison, averaging only 20 inches or so, this snake is seldom seen and tends to be very nocturnal.


or


Micrurus tener tener is a largely nocturnal species but occasionally may be seen out during the early morning hours


Perhaps you or Jeanot - or some other selectionist - could specify more precisely what species do you have in your mind.

Because it is somehow strange that some diurnal snakes are mimicking some nocturnal ones, don´t you think so?

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2008,10:06   

MARTIN!!! ARE YOU PLAYING AT THE COMPUTER AGAIN?? GET BACK TO WORK RIGHT NOW, THERE'S CUSTOMERS WAITING!:angry:



--------------
"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: Mar. 07 2008,10:09   

Ooooh, I can play that game!!!

Typically, the coral snakes in the genus Micrurus are only found on the dark side of the moon, where they are then by default nocturnal.  Since selection is the fantasy of the atheismus, we can only discern that the nocturnal habit of the coral snakes on the Earth are also a function of other forces but certainly not selection.

oh yeah and this one

Micrurus species of coral snakes are likely the most gossipy of all snakes, but this excludes certain species that populate deep sea vents and also the Micrurus lucifugus only known from sketches of 16th century monks that saw visions of this snake, active in the darkness of the center of the earth with Teh Devil.  Micrurus lucifugus is probably not a gossipy coral snake

How is that MArty?

If you are going to be fucking off at work you could at least be googling for scat porn or something worthwhile.  Because you are convincing no one here that you even know what you are talking about.  

But to your credit, laughing at your silly fake ass is a pleasure indeed.  You too crazy.

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

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

Pages: (17) < ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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