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) < ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 >

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2008,16:29    Quote (Lou FCD @ 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. If there is any crackpot it's  FOO Lcd no doubt. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2008,20:09    Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 28 2008,16:29) Quote (Lou FCD @ 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. If there is any crackpot it's  FOO Lcd no doubt. Martin, who did the 'prescribing' you speak of? When did this prescribing happen? Is God dead, like Javison says? -------------- "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. 29 2008,01:06    Allbatrosity2   Quote 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? You are still talking about "mechanism" and "going through process" and I don't know what mechanism and process do you mean. Previously you  asked me the question about "seem to mimic" ad nausea. Then came Henry, reformulated the question and discussion went on.  I will bet you will keep asking me the same question about unspecified "mechanism" and "going through process" again and again. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2008,01:21    Quote (BopDiddy @ 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? I mentioned non-homology of germ cells. Obviously such case doesn't indicate "common ancestor". Your example doesn't indicate it either. But germ cells ar more important for discussion. You must have heard of Weissman's "the protozoa are immortal". You understand that germ cells are necessary in the flow to common ancestor - which is not the case of wings. Different species may theoretically lose and acquire wings in the course of evolution repeatedly and still have a common ancestor. But they cannot lose germ cells. Non-homology in germ cells is a strong argument against "common descent". -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2008,05:43    Martin, who did the 'prescribing' you speak of? When did this prescribing happen? Is God dead, like Javison says? Quote But they cannot lose germ cells. Non-homology in germ cells is a strong argument against "common descent". So do you completely reject common descent for all organisms? -------------- "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

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2008,07:14    Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 29 2008,01:06) You are still talking about "mechanism" and "going through process" and I don't know what mechanism and process do you mean. Previously you  asked me the question about "seem to mimic" ad nausea. Then came Henry, reformulated the question and discussion went on.  I will bet you will keep asking me the same question about unspecified "mechanism" and "going through process" again and again. V Good bet. And I'll bet you never answer it. Let's see if we can get you up to thinking like a scientist. A brief review might help. I asked you to provide an explanation for the observation that some snakes seem to mimic (i.e. look like, resemble in  coloration patterns) coral snakes. You answered that they were "prescribed" that way. I then asked if you could elaborate on this word "prescribed" by telling me how and when this happened. You replied to the first part of that question by telling me HOW; the mechanism for generation of different species (including snakes, I presume) was Davison's     Quote 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 is a mechanism, in case you don't recognize it. Like any mechanistic explanation, it can lead to testable predictions. One of those predictions is that similarly colored snakes should be more closely related on a genetic level than snakes which are differently colored. So I asked. 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? I don't think you would be banned if you merely answered yes or no to this question, or explained how it doesn't logically follow from Davison's notions. I am merely following your argument, and taking it to what I think is a logical conclusion. As an expert on mimicry and Davison, you should be able to tell me if I am right, or where I am going off track. -------------- 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. 29 2008,09:16    Albatrossity2. You are pushing me into the position of making a messenger between professor Davison and you. I don't see reason why you don't ask him.   Quote So I asked. 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? My personal opinion is this: 1) if unrelated snakes do not have common ancestor there is no need to make any predictions how their genes should look like. They might have quite dissimilar genes even if the color patterns on the snakes' bodies are similar. 2) if snakes do have a common ancestor and have also very similar color patterns I would say they express the same gene sets they inherited. In such case we are not witnissing any "mimicry". -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2008,09:36    Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 29 2008,09:16) My personal opinion is this: 1) if unrelated snakes do not have common ancestor there is no need to make any predictions how their genes should look like. They might have quite dissimilar genes even if the color patterns on the snakes' bodies are similar. 2) if snakes do have a common ancestor and have also very similar color patterns I would say they express the same gene sets they inherited. In such case we are not witnissing any "mimicry". Quote if unrelated snakes do not have common ancestor How do you think we can determine if unrelated snakes have a common ancestor? Quote there is no need to make any predictions how their genes should look like. Only if unrelated snakes do not have a common ancestor. As it's generally accepted that all living things, never mind snakes, have a common ancestor the burden is therefore on you to prove that there is no need to make predictions. Quote They might have quite dissimilar genes even if the color patterns on the snakes' bodies are similar. Might they? Perhaps you should examine the sequence data and come to a conclusion based on evidence rather then guesswork. Quote 2) if snakes do have a common ancestor and have also very similar color patterns I would say they express the same gene sets they inherited. In such case we are not witnissing any "mimicry". So you are a creationist eh? You say that snake begat snake begat snake and so on until the end of time? So you think it's not possible that the expression of "the same gene sets they inherited" will continue unchanged forever, as the lord god wanted it to be? Don't these "gene sets" ever vary? Or does each DNA molecule get protected by some force that science has not yet encountered or measured? -------------- 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. 29 2008,10:08    Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 29 2008,09:16) Albatrossity2. You are pushing me into the position of making a messenger between professor Davison and you. I don't see reason why you don't ask him. Why should I ask Davison a simple yes or no question which arises from your own words here?   Quote My personal opinion is this: 1) if unrelated snakes do not have common ancestor there is no need to make any predictions how their genes should look like. They might have quite dissimilar genes even if the color patterns on the snakes' bodies are similar. 2) if snakes do have a common ancestor and have also very similar color patterns I would say they express the same gene sets they inherited. In such case we are not witnissing any "mimicry". #1 is circular - You are simply saying that if snakes are unrelated they are unrelated. #2 fails to take into account your words about the mechanism. If species arise due to "rearrangement of existing genetic material by chromosome inversion followed by first meiotic division", they would be quite highly related, sharing exactly 100% of their genes. Yet you can't seem to take that next step - testing a prediction as any scientist would do. In other words you don't have the courage to test hypotheses that arise from your opinions about how the world works. Are you afraid that the data would not support your hypothesis? Thanks for making my point for me. -------------- 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. 29 2008,15:34    Quote But they cannot lose germ cells. Non-homology in germ cells is a strong argument against "common descent". So do you completely reject common descent for any organisms? For example, do you believe that *no* snake species are related by being descended from an earlier, completely different snake species? That all snakes species 'started out' just the way they are now? -------------- "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

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2008,15:40    Quote I mentioned non-homology of germ cells. Obviously such case doesn't indicate "common ancestor". Perhaps if that was the only evidence available that conclusion might follow. But in the presence of all the other apparent homologies, claiming that birds and mammals don't have a common ancestor would require an incredible amount of coincidental similarities that would no longer have any explanation. (Not to mention the fossils that trace both back to early reptiles and/or amphibians*, which would also be an unlikely coincidence if they weren't ancestrally related.) Besides, is there any reason to supposed it to be impossible for a different type of tissue to start generating germ cells? All the tissues have all the genes, so there's no obvious reason to suppose that the trigger for germ cell development couldn't ever occur in a different tissue type than it had up to that time. (I'd guess that such an occurrence would be quite rare though, especially if it's homologous within each of the bird and mammal classes.) As for these color patterns - if it was established earlier in the thread that similarity can sometimes be coincidental, is there still a point to that argument? Certainly scientists can make mistakes about details; the fact that they often disagree with each other about details proves that, since if/when they disagree at least one of them is wrong. Seeing adaptation where there's only coincidence may be an easy mistake to make. A mistake about a detail is not in itself an argument against the general principles. As I think I said before, given a huge number of species, an occasional coincidence in appearance seems more likely than not for such to never happen. As for predicting similarity of DNA based on similarity of coloration, I doubt that would work. Seems likely that the genes that affect coloration would be a very small portion of the genome. Plus, similar colors could be produced by different chemicals, so coicidental similarity of color could occur without a corresponding similarity of the color-related portion of the DNA. *Which may have tasted like chicken. Henry

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 04 2008,13:23    Henry J Heikertinger ridiculed "natural selection" as the source of aposematism, mimicry and related phenomena. It occurs too often to be explained by "natural selection". Ladybirds are very conspicuous regarding their coloration. Yet neodarwinian school doesn't have any plausible explanation of it. The same for bugs. Who can  exactly tell apart conspicuos coloration - as mimicry or aposematism - of wasps, coral snakes, butterflies, fruiting bodies of mushrooms, bugs, ladybirds and insist on "natural selection" as the only explanation of it? Even the great Darwin solved the problem by these words: "I could not answer, but should maintain my ground ." 1 2 3 4 5 -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

BopDiddy Posts: 71 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 04 2008,15:26    The expressions 'too often to be explained by "natural selection"' and 'very conspicuous' do nothing more than express incredulity. How do you define 'too often'?  Does the coloration you see occur 'too often' compared to all the other 'bugs' that are not 'very conspicuous regarding their coloration'?  If so, how can you call that 'too often'? Oh, speaking of "I could not answer, but should maintain my ground" (pot! kettle!), can I ask you to please answer a question that has been asked of you many times here before: As opposed to simply negative arguments around RM+NS, what alternate explanation for do you propose for what you consider to be 'conspicuous'? (edited to remove stubborn iB Code)

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 04 2008,16:24    It's "natural selection" on the trial here, not me. Try to address my arguments about "natural selection" as the source of varied color patterns of ladybirds. Your attack against me is no way an answer. Or is it the only neodarwinian explanation you are able to produce? A question? He? -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 04 2008,18:08    Quote (VMartin @ April 04 2008,16:24) It's "natural selection" on the trial here, not me. Try to address my arguments about "natural selection" as the source of varied color patterns of ladybirds. Your attack against me is no way an answer. Or is it the only neodarwinian explanation you are able to produce? A question? He? Speaking of not answering... Do you completely reject common descent for any organisms? For example, do you believe that *no* snake species are related by being descended from an earlier, completely different snake species? That all snakes species 'started out' just the way they are now? No one's going to listen to your whines about your questions not being answered as long as you routinely ignore 90% of the questions asked of you. He? -------------- "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

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 04 2008,22:17    Well, given what's been said so far on the subject, I have to conclude that coloration is not always under selection due to predation. For one thing, if coloration doesn't significantly affect success rates then it would be free to drift. After all, a creature that can be seen is going to have some color pattern, whether it's bright or drab, solid or multicolored patterned. So, sometimes a similarity in appearance may be simply a coincidence - a point that was established up thread and afaik it wasn't denied by anybody. So unless there's something new to say I don't see any point continuing to rehash that issue. The presence of unanswered questions does not in itself invalidate general principles that are firmly established by the answering of other questions (such as why are there nested hierarchies - a separate origin model would have to look elsewhere for any explanation of that). I wonder if any of those beetles have good enough eyesight for their color patterns to serve as species recognition and/or mating signals - in that case coloration could be due to social or sexual selection. I also wonder if the males and females of those species have the same color patterns - do any beetles (or other insects) use the strategy that some bird species do, in which one gender is brightly colored and the other one drab? Henry

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 05 2008,07:18    Quote (VMartin @ April 04 2008,17:24) It's "natural selection" on the trial here, not me. You are quite mistaken. The trial for natural selection took place in the peer reviewed scientific literature a very long time ago.  It was vindicated. Your sour grapes and cockamamie rantings on the sidewalk outside the courthouse are irrelevant unless you can go inside and get an alternative to be similarly vindicated. So far, you've got a sandwich board full of lunatic ravings. Quote Protester or Crazy Man, by tbertor1 Edited by Lou FCD on April 05 2008,08:19 -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 05 2008,08:59    Quote Ladybirds are very conspicuous regarding their coloration. Yet neodarwinian school doesn't have any plausible explanation of it. Nonsense. Unpalatability/toxicity to vizually hunting predators (aposematism) is one explanation relying on selection. Or are you saying this is an implausible explanation? Not making much headway here either, are you?

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 05 2008,11:10    This was funny: Quote I introduced myself at another thread here. I am from Slovakia and I have been banned from PZ. Myers' Pharyngula because I am proponent of orthogenesis. Having problems also at AtBC. These are the sockpuppet names VM used at pharyngula: Quote VMartin AKA Huslista, jenik, janko, anodano, Pjetiir, DobzhanskyisInvalidFly, Pjeter, pjotr, FRANK2, SKAS, skuska, deletedtext, John's friend, ForbiddenTruth, anti-darwinians, Peppered-antimoth, CharlatanDarwin, Anti-darwin, skusto, zakazaneovocie, and others Here's what he DID there: Quote A John A. Davison sycophant. Tried reposting Davison screeds after they were deleted; basically talks about nothing but Davison, bringing up his name in irrelevant threads. They belong in the dungeon together, sharing a cell. VMartin has lately increased his activity, morphing at a frantic pace to try and get past the filters—he's exceeded Charlie Wagner's efforts, hard as that may be to believe.He has also done something particularly contemptible: using other people's username and email address to try and sneak past the filters. Saddest, most pathetic part of it all: he's still only doing it to write sycophantic praise of John A. Davison. As for his 'problems' here: "They are so MEAN to me, they demand that I ANSWER QUESTIONS! It's the Neodarwinismus who is on the trial, not ME!" -------------- "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: April 06 2008,01:25    Alan I think this might help clarify VMartin's opinion. -------------- 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: April 10 2008,14:30    Quote (Alan Fox @ April 05 2008,08:59) Quote Ladybirds are very conspicuous regarding their coloration. Yet neodarwinian school doesn't have any plausible explanation of it. Nonsense. Unpalatability/toxicity to vizually hunting predators (aposematism) is one explanation relying on selection. Or are you saying this is an implausible explanation? Not making much headway here either, are you? Nonsense is neodarwinian explanation of it. I addressed the whole topic of ladybirds at the richarddawkins.net few minutes ago. I've addressed it at EVC few months ago as well. If you like to discuss it you are wellcome.   But perhaps you could do some study of the issue before. Otherwise it will be discussion a la "scientist" Erasmus about mimicry of ants. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2008,14:36    Quote But they cannot lose germ cells. Non-homology in germ cells is a strong argument against "common descent". Martin: do you completely reject common descent for any organisms? For example, do you believe that *no* snake species are related by being descended from an earlier, completely different snake species? That all snakes species 'started out' just the way they are now? -------------- "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: April 10 2008,14:54    Quote (Henry J @ April 04 2008,22:17) Well, given what's been said so far on the subject, I have to conclude that coloration is not always under selection due to predation. For one thing, if coloration doesn't significantly affect success rates then it would be free to drift. After all, a creature that can be seen is going to have some color pattern, whether it's bright or drab, solid or multicolored patterned. So, sometimes a similarity in appearance may be simply a coincidence - a point that was established up thread and afaik it wasn't denied by anybody. So unless there's something new to say I don't see any point continuing to rehash that issue. The presence of unanswered questions does not in itself invalidate general principles that are firmly established by the answering of other questions (such as why are there nested hierarchies - a separate origin model would have to look elsewhere for any explanation of that). I wonder if any of those beetles have good enough eyesight for their color patterns to serve as species recognition and/or mating signals - in that case coloration could be due to social or sexual selection. I also wonder if the males and females of those species have the same color patterns - do any beetles (or other insects) use the strategy that some bird species do, in which one gender is brightly colored and the other one drab? Henry But darwinists do not have any clue - except their fantasy of course -  how to tell apart aposematism, mimicry and a coincidence of color patterns. Black-yellow patterns are so common patterns in insect realm that it is hard to imagine  why only some dragonflies should mimic wasps where other conspicuous dragonflies thrive as well in their "struggle for life". I would say we have a pallete of coloration in dragonflies and coincidentally some of them look waspish. The same for many other species or families. Only a prejudiced mind of a selectionist see in all those cases "mimicry".     but what about this one: or this one -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2008,15:01    Classic Marty. Don't want to answer questions? Just post some big bug photos, no one will notice the difference. Quote But they cannot lose germ cells. Non-homology in germ cells is a strong argument against "common descent". Martin: do you completely reject common descent for any organisms? For example, do you believe that *no* snake species are related by being descended from an earlier, completely different snake species? That all snakes species 'started out' just the way they are now? -------------- "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: April 10 2008,16:06    This thread is a case in point. There's just no parody too ridiculous. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2008,16:22    I've noticed that Martin posts huge photos of bugs at pretty much the same moments when Ghost of Paley used to post photos of sweaty, half-naked wrestlers. Make of this what you will. -------------- "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

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2008,16:58    Quote But darwinists do not have any clue - except their fantasy of course -  how to tell apart aposematism, mimicry and a coincidence of color patterns. Black-yellow patterns are so common patterns in insect realm that it is hard to imagine  why only some dragonflies should mimic wasps where other conspicuous dragonflies thrive as well in their "struggle for life". I would say we have a pallete of coloration in dragonflies and coincidentally some of them look waspish. The same for many other species or families. Only a prejudiced mind of a selectionist see in all those cases "mimicry". Never mind whether darwinists (whatever those are) have any clues; the question is whether evolutionary biologists know how to set up tests on particular species to distinguish which of those factors are relevant for that species. Henry

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2008,17:07    Quote Black-yellow patterns are so common patterns in insect realm that it is hard to imagine why only some dragonflies should mimic wasps where other conspicuous dragonflies thrive as well in their "struggle for life". I would say we have a pallete of coloration in dragonflies and coincidentally some of them look waspish. Reality does not care about what VMartin can't understand. -------------- "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: April 10 2008,17:11    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 10 2008,18:07) Quote Black-yellow patterns are so common patterns in insect realm that it is hard to imagine why only some dragonflies should mimic wasps where other conspicuous dragonflies thrive as well in their "struggle for life". I would say we have a pallete of coloration in dragonflies and coincidentally some of them look waspish. Reality does not care about what VMartin can't understand. And VMartin doesn't appear to understand that reality doesn't care about what VMartin can't understand. It's recursive that way. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2008,13:04    Quote (Henry J @ April 10 2008,16:58)     Quote But darwinists do not have any clue - except their fantasy of course -  how to tell apart aposematism, mimicry and a coincidence of color patterns. Black-yellow patterns are so common patterns in insect realm that it is hard to imagine  why only some dragonflies should mimic wasps where other conspicuous dragonflies thrive as well in their "struggle for life". I would say we have a pallete of coloration in dragonflies and coincidentally some of them look waspish. The same for many other species or families. Only a prejudiced mind of a selectionist see in all those cases "mimicry". Never mind whether darwinists (whatever those are) have any clues; the question is whether evolutionary biologists know how to set up tests on particular species to distinguish which of those factors are relevant for that species. Henry If you know something more about modern "evolutionary biologists" who are not "darwinists" and haven't been fired from their Uni yet (except Behe and biologists from Uni Prague hehe) let me know. I quoted Heikertinger, Mc Atee, Portman, Goldschmidt, Neubauer, Komarek, Petr and Davison who are no way orthodox neo-darwinists and who dismissed "natural selection" and "random mutation" as the source of evolution - or mimicry. I would say many of their arguments might be neglected - but not refuted. Let me know who refuted 45 years lasting research of US agriculture department of 80.000 stomach contents of birds and of so called "aposematism" of insects (the same for Csiki conclusion about 2.900 birds stomachs Hungary 1905-1910) . The argument that they didn't base their conclusions on "representative sample" is no sufficient unless modern "evolutionary biologists" do the same "representative research" themselves. I would say some dubious experiments with stressed caged birds are no way "representative research" dismissing voluminous observation of behaviour of birds in free done in past. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Pages: (17) < ... 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