RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (17) < ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... >   
  Topic: VMartin's cosmology, where he will not be off-topic< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2008,13:21   

Quote (VMartin @ Jan. 05 2008,13:51)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 03 2008,06:55)
     
Quote (VMartin @ Jan. 03 2008,03:44)
I really said that Erasmus. Do you see there also "something like"? Your sense of humor is weak. What's your IQ?

Rather irrelevant to the discussion, VMartin.

An old wise man once said:

         
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 02 2008,14:19)
So let's hear your testable explanation of testicles descent in mammals. If you claim that other explanations are "mystic" you surely have some scientific and testable one. You are wellcome to present it.

So again:

The descent of testicles is observable in many mammalian species. The problem cannot be solved by "cooling spermatozoa" neodarwinian explanation, because:

1) some mammalin species have testicles inside their bodies and obviously haven't "cooling spermatozoa" problems.

2) birds having often temperatures 42 grad Celsius do not have "cooling spermatozoa" problems either.

3) even darwinists themselves admit that their "cooling" explanation is  "untestable".

We should take into the consideration that having testicles outside body is a very dangerous place.

The whole phenomenon can be observed in females too - descent of ovaries during evolution. But of course it is not so aparent and manifest as in males.

What we observe is increasing structuring of mammalin functions and bodies in the two poles. The head pole - responsible for individual orientation towards the world and the opposite pole responsible for reproduction.

So the evolution of the descent of testicles into dangerous places outside of the body is directed by evolutionary forces that stand above random mutation and natural selection.

This can be observed by anyone whose reasoning is not restricted by neodarwinian preconceptions like "form follows function" and other neodarwinian babbling.

Sorry, I missed the part where you were going to show how your idea can be tested?

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2008,14:56   

so, my cock at one end and my face at the other means that there are mystical poles?  seems like that is only one pole, there.  and it is kinda limber these days.

and this has what, exactly, do to with biology?

what about starfish?  where are their poles?  are you the type that likes to stab starfish with a pole?  I'm guessing Yah.

This makes less sense to me than you usually do.  I'd love to hear more, perhaps with a bit more detail and a bit less 'darwinismus est stupido' stuff.  especially since Arden is gaying the archipelago and isn't around to get the jokes.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2008,15:04   

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 28 2007,07:00)
youngadolescentbabling
 
Quote

As opposed to *nothing* which is what you appear to be offering. Don't you get it yet VMartin? A educated guess is always better then "well, god did it", or in your case "                       " did it. Do I need to change the font to make it clearer?


Your posts - as usually - do not bring anything to the ongoing discussion about descent of testicles. You can shake your hands with Arden whose dictionary is reduced to "and what is the explanation of it?".
You are the same medical case: "God did it not that's all I can tell you guys".

Your posts - as usually - do not bring anything to the ongoing discussion about descent of testicles. You can shake your hands with Daniel whose dictionary is reduced to "goddit".

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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2008,02:37   

Erasmus
Quote

what about starfish?  where are their poles?  


And starfish are mammals too? What's your education?

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2008,03:01   

Quote (VMartin @ Jan. 10 2008,02:37)
Erasmus
 
Quote

what about starfish?  where are their poles?  


And starfish are mammals too? What's your education?

Why do only mammals have "poles" VMartin?

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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2008,07:22   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 10 2008,03:01)
 
Quote (VMartin @ Jan. 10 2008,02:37)
Erasmus
     
Quote

what about starfish?  where are their poles?  


And starfish are mammals too? What's your education?

Why do only mammals have "poles" VMartin?

Because reptiles and birds somehow do not have scrotal testicles outside their bodies. And that's why mammals are "only" Vertebrata having them. Just don't be afraid to use your logic.

Any other off-topic questions? I underestand that poor Arden is on vacation and someone has to play fool here instead. So go on!

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2008,07:32   

Quote (VMartin @ Jan. 10 2008,07:22)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 10 2008,03:01)
   
Quote (VMartin @ Jan. 10 2008,02:37)
Erasmus
     
Quote

what about starfish?  where are their poles?  


And starfish are mammals too? What's your education?

Why do only mammals have "poles" VMartin?

Because reptiles and birds somehow do not have scrotal testicles outside their bodies. And that's why mammals are "only" Vertebrata having them. Just don't be afraid to use your logic.

Any other off-topic questions? I underestand that poor Arden is on vacation and someone has to play fool here instead. So go on!

Very well.

How does this "poles" data point support your hypothesis (whatever it is)?

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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2008,08:12   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 10 2008,07:32)
Quote (VMartin @ Jan. 10 2008,07:22)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 10 2008,03:01)
   
Quote (VMartin @ Jan. 10 2008,02:37)
Erasmus
       
Quote

what about starfish?  where are their poles?  


And starfish are mammals too? What's your education?

Why do only mammals have "poles" VMartin?

Because reptiles and birds somehow do not have scrotal testicles outside their bodies. And that's why mammals are "only" Vertebrata having them. Just don't be afraid to use your logic.

Any other off-topic questions? I underestand that poor Arden is on vacation and someone has to play fool here instead. So go on!

Very well.

How does this "poles" data point support your hypothesis (whatever it is)?

Take it from another end. How scrotal testicles support neodarwinian hypothesis? Are they predicted to occur in mammals using neodarwinian paradigma?

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

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2008,08:21   

Answer the question, then we will answer yours. Don't turn things around.

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2008,08:27   

Calm down student. This is normal scientific procedure. I specified a  problem. Let us solve the problem using neodarwinian paradigma. If we succeeded there is no reason to ask your questions. I may be wrong. So I am waiting for your answers.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2008,11:16   

Quote (VMartin @ Jan. 10 2008,08:12)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 10 2008,07:32)
 
Quote (VMartin @ Jan. 10 2008,07:22)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 10 2008,03:01)
     
Quote (VMartin @ Jan. 10 2008,02:37)
Erasmus
         
Quote

what about starfish?  where are their poles?  


And starfish are mammals too? What's your education?

Why do only mammals have "poles" VMartin?

Because reptiles and birds somehow do not have scrotal testicles outside their bodies. And that's why mammals are "only" Vertebrata having them. Just don't be afraid to use your logic.

Any other off-topic questions? I underestand that poor Arden is on vacation and someone has to play fool here instead. So go on!

Very well.

How does this "poles" data point support your hypothesis (whatever it is)?

Take it from another end. How scrotal testicles support neodarwinian hypothesis? Are they predicted to occur in mammals using neodarwinian paradigma?

So, you think the "neodarwinian hypothesis" is capable of predicting the appearance of scrotal testicles starting from a single celled organism?

VMartin, we can predict the weather but can't predict the temperature in 1000 years on the north pole to 1deg accuracy.

Does that mean that we cannot predict the weather?

So, IMHO, scrotal testicles are explained by "neodarwinian hypothesis" but not necessarily predicted from first principles. If we ran the tape of life again, it would be different.

Now if a real scientist who actually knows something about these issues cares to comment, so be it. I've answered your question (it can't be predicted as a standalone entity) , now you answer mine.

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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2008,12:30   

Quote

So, IMHO, scrotal testicles are explained by "neodarwinian hypothesis" but not necessarily predicted from first principles.


Can you be more specific? There are several neodarwinian hypothesis of descent of testicles. Which one of them do you have on your mind?

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2008,13:23   

Quote (VMartin @ Jan. 10 2008,12:30)
Quote

So, IMHO, scrotal testicles are explained by "neodarwinian hypothesis" but not necessarily predicted from first principles.


Can you be more specific? There are several neodarwinian hypothesis of descent of testicles. Which one of them do you have on your mind?

The seventh one.

No, I've answered one of yours, now it's your turn. As above.

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

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2008,19:43   

Quote (VMartin @ Jan. 05 2008 @ 13:51)
What we observe is increasing structuring of mammalin functions and bodies in the two poles. The head pole - responsible for individual orientation towards the world and the opposite pole responsible for reproduction.

So the evolution of the descent of testicles into dangerous places outside of the body is directed by evolutionary forces that stand above random mutation and natural selection.

 
Quote (VMartin @ Jan. 10 2008,07:22)
   
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 10 2008,03:01)
       
Quote (VMartin @ Jan. 10 2008,02:37)
Erasmus
           
Quote

what about starfish?  where are their poles?  


And starfish are mammals too? What's your education?

Why do only mammals have "poles" VMartin?

Because reptiles and birds somehow do not have scrotal testicles outside their bodies. And that's why mammals are "only" Vertebrata having them. Just don't be afraid to use your logic.

Have I understood this correctly? Mammals have descended testicles because they have poles. Meanwhile, mammals are claimed to have poles because they have descended testicles.

Which comes first and why?

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2008,22:43   

If I were to guess, I'd guess that the travel time of the sperm (during mating, that is) would be a likely suspect as to why the storage location became external in the first place. That the sperm wound up (sometimes) adapted to lower temperaturs may have simply a result of that. (In birds, I'd expect that streamlining would be likely to be more important than it is in mammals.)

Henry

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2008,23:35   

Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 10 2008,22:43)
If I were to guess, I'd guess that the travel time of the sperm (during mating, that is) would be a likely suspect as to why the storage location became external in the first place. That the sperm wound up (sometimes) adapted to lower temperaturs may have simply a result of that. (In birds, I'd expect that streamlining would be likely to be more important than it is in mammals.)

Henry

Here again is the article by doctor Myers.

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

There are enumeration of all neodarwinian explanations of the phenomena. At the beginning there is a picture of a shrew with testicles on the upper side of the body.

Take into consideration the fact that an elephant has penis 1 meter long and I suppose sperma has to travel all the journey, because testicles are not descended in elephant either. These two examples as well as the fact that your explanation is not mentioned there is perhaps sufficient evidence that your explanation is another hypothesis with no backing.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 11 2008,02:47   

Quote (VMartin @ Jan. 10 2008,23:35)
sufficient evidence that your explanation is another hypothesis with no backing.

And who would know better then you VMartin about that?

Care to answer my question now?

If you insist on a answer from me, my answer is "none of them".

Now you have no excuse (except you don't really need one anyway)

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

  
Darth Robo



Posts: 148
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 11 2008,08:42   

Okay, now we KNOW VMartin is talking bollocks.   :p


Hey, somebody had to make that joke.    ???

--------------
"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..."

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 11 2008,12:15   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 11 2008,02:47)
 
Quote (VMartin @ Jan. 10 2008,23:35)
sufficient evidence that your explanation is another hypothesis with no backing.

And who would know better then you VMartin about that?

Care to answer my question now?

If you insist on a answer from me, my answer is "none of them".

Now you have no excuse (except you don't really need one anyway)

So you don't have any explanation od descent of testicles? None?

But you still believe it was a natural selection responsible for their descent, right?

Something like Darwin: I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.

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

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 11 2008,12:25   

Quote (VMartin @ Jan. 11 2008,12:15)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 11 2008,02:47)
   
Quote (VMartin @ Jan. 10 2008,23:35)
sufficient evidence that your explanation is another hypothesis with no backing.

And who would know better then you VMartin about that?

Care to answer my question now?

If you insist on a answer from me, my answer is "none of them".

Now you have no excuse (except you don't really need one anyway)

So you don't have any explanation od descent of testicles? None?

But you still believe it was a natural selection responsible for their descent, right?

Something like Darwin: I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.

My testicles "descend" (hang low they do)  because they are farking huge and gravity won't leave them alone.

I can send you some pictures of them if that will help with your testicle research, vmartin.  

I'm always "up" for advancing scientific knowledge.  

ps: You should see my Johnson.  THAT sucker is huge too and gravity won't turn him loose either!

Chris

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 11 2008,13:30   

Maybe the problem is that V seems to be asking for one factor that would explain the question for all species. I really doubt that reality is anywhere near that simple - there's bound to be lots of factors that affect whether or not "descent" is advantageous to any one species, and the result would then be some kind of balance among those factors. Factors would include temperature, travel distance of the sperm, vulnerability to injury, compatability with other anatomical features of the particular species, streamlining in the case of flying or swimming creatures, mating practices of the species, and probably others that a biologist would think of.

Henry

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

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

Quote (VMartin @ Jan. 11 2008,12:15)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 11 2008,02:47)
   
Quote (VMartin @ Jan. 10 2008,23:35)
sufficient evidence that your explanation is another hypothesis with no backing.

And who would know better then you VMartin about that?

Care to answer my question now?

If you insist on a answer from me, my answer is "none of them".

Now you have no excuse (except you don't really need one anyway)

So you don't have any explanation od descent of testicles? None?

But you still believe it was a natural selection responsible for their descent, right?

Something like Darwin: I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.

No,

Your original question was something like "does neodarwinism predict for external testes". I can't even be bothered to go back and look and I've dug deep in the tard mines before now.

Perhaps it's your poor English that precludes a constructive discussion.

--------------
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. 11 2008,18:33   

I don't know about a prediction for testicles swinging in the breeze instead of being safely confined within, but I just encountered something from this link in another thread.  It's a fascinating article about the evolutionary baggage we carry in the form of all the ad hoc improvisations and imperfect solutions piled on top of each other.  I was most interested in the explanation for hiccups, but it touches on our gonad layout as well, in particular a problem caused by the route the sperm has to travel before getting back to the penis.  The short version is that, no, it appears that the layout doesn't shorten the route the sperm has to travel at all.
   
Quote
The disadvantage is that the plumbing that carries sperm to the penis is circuitous. Sperm travel from the testes in the scrotum through the sperm cord. The cord leaves the scrotum, travels up toward the waist, loops over the pelvis, then goes through the pelvis to travel through the penis and out. Along this complex path, the sperm gain seminal fluids from a number of glands that connect to the tube.

Now, Vmartin, what explanation does your mystical poles theory have for this setup?  Does your version of the invisible designer favor overly elaborate plumbing?  It turns out that the Darwinismus has an explanation.
   
Quote
The reason for this absurd route lies in our developmental and evolutionary history. Our gonads begin their development in much the same place as a shark’s: up near our livers. As they grow and develop, our gonads descend. In females the ovaries descend from the midsection to lie near the uterus and fallopian tubes. This ensures that the egg does not have far to travel to be fertilized. In males the descent goes farther.


Now then, since by your understanding of things we didn't evolve from creatures that kept their gonads by their livers, what is the reason for this overly elaborate journey?  Are our testicles simply created with a sense of wanderlust?  Do they get tired of the liver, perhaps they pack their bags and decide to head South to see the world?  Yes, we all know that they need cooler climes, but if they were designed that way why not just start them off down there, why the epic journey?

Perhaps you can also explain the reason that this arrangement makes men vulnerable to developing hernias.  I assume that's also an intentional part of the design, since this wasn't all a crude improvisation, right?  So what is the function of hernias?  Perhaps alongside your mystical pole theory you could develop a mystical hole theory?

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 11 2008,19:35   

Do your balls hang low
Do they waggle to and fro
Can you tie them in a knot
Can you tie them in a bow
Can you throw them o'er your shoulder
like a Continental Soldier
Do your Ballllllls Haaaaaaaang Low

Hey V, tell us more about the Mystical Hole Theory.  You seem to be fascinated with testicles.

The same wise indian once told me (while smoking an absolutely humongous joint) "There's more to life than a big dick and a hairy set of balls"

I don't know what the hell he meant.

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

  
Darth Robo



Posts: 148
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 11 2008,21:29   

Quote
So you don't have any explanation od descent of testicles? None?

But you still believe it was a natural selection responsible for their descent, right?


Translation:  "Darwinists can't explain ho my balls dropped, so GODDIDIT!"

:angry:

--------------
"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..."

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2008,02:32   

Nomad

 
Quote

Yes, we all know that they need cooler climes, but if they were designed that way why not just start them off down there, why the epic journey?


No. Only ignorants think they need cooler climes. Elephants have their testicles inside their bodies. Birds  have their testicles inside their bodies as well. According Britannica:


Whereas mammalian temperatures normally range between 36° and 39° C (97° and 102° F), avian temperatures range between 37.7° and 43.5° C (99.9° and 110.3° F), with the majority between 40° and 42° C (104° and 108° F).

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-48535/dormancy

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

  
Nomad



Posts: 311
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2008,03:33   

Quote (VMartin @ Jan. 12 2008,02:32)
No. Only ignorants think they need cooler climes. Elephants have their testicles inside their bodies. Birds  have their testicles inside their bodies as well. According Britannica:


Whereas mammalian temperatures normally range between 36° and 39° C (97° and 102° F), avian temperatures range between 37.7° and 43.5° C (99.9° and 110.3° F), with the majority between 40° and 42° C (104° and 108° F).

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-48535/dormancy

Hmm.. and of course there couldn't be anything different about those creatures, now could there?

The results of my googling on the issue seems to suggest that for mammals, internal testicles is an aquatic adaptation.  Yes,even for elephants.  Some sources have suggested for streamlining purposes, and while I can believe that I suspect for the testicles it has more to do with temperature regulation.  If they want to be roughly three degrees cooler, than basking in water is going to keep them too cold.

I can't find handy links to it now, but what sources I could find on cetaceans said that they have elaborate cooling mechanisms that allow them to keep their wedding tackle indoors.

Do you suppose there might be something different about birds as well?  I really can't be bothered to look up anymore, because you couldn't be bothered to reply to 99% of my post either.  You have no answers, you have no theories, you have no understanding.  You simply have a desire to throw stones at a theory you fear but don't even understand.


Eh.. normally I would have ignored this, I know everyone else has gotten tired of your crazy Slovakian routine and has moved on.  But I ran into that story on our piscine origins and just had to mention it here, just to see if you might be able to explain.. er.. ANY of it, in terms that match whatever it is that your preferred alternative to evolution is.


But no.. it's the same old broken record routine.  No explanations, no ideas, just "but what about THIS thing over here?"

No, I'm not surprised.  Just add hernias to your list of things that you can't explain in the slightest, but are certain have nothing to do with evolution.

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2008,14:08   

Nomad.

Perhaps you omitted the fact that internal testicles (testicondy) are to be found in many species of mammalian superorder Afrotheria

It is on my opinion utterly implausible explanation that testicondy by elephant shrew (a) has been caused by any aquatic or streamline adaptation (T = testicles, K = kidney)



   
Quote

You have no answers, you have no theories, you have no understanding.  You simply have a desire to throw stones at a theory you fear but don't even understand.


But your answers is only "cooling spermatozoa" neodarwinian nonsense. That mammalian species of Afrotheria or birds (often having temperature 43 Celsius) do not have "cooling" problems is no argument for you. You still consider your explanation as scientific and valid.

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

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2008,16:42   

Quote (VMartin @ Jan. 12 2008,14:08)
But your answers is only "cooling spermatozoa" neodarwinian nonsense.

Can you please correct this summary of your answer to the question?
 
Quote
blah blah blah poles resulting from descended testicles blah blah blah blah blah descended testicles resulting from poles blah blah blah


--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2008,17:26   

Heyyyyyyyy viiiiiiiiiiicky


Quote
It is on my opinion utterly implausible explanation


Why should we give a rat's ass what in your ignorant 'opinion' is an explanation?

You are famous for not having an explanation, only 'darwinsmus est stupido'.  a few comments back you feinted at an explanation, the poles and urge to becoming and all that.  but you can't even keep that up.

MArtin why should anyone give a damn because YOU are unable to understand or process scientific arguments?

Why can't you tell us more about the Pole-ismus?  Me thinks it is hypothetiker and all in heads of Pole-ectionists.  Great scientist Paul Rubens once say 'Pole-ismus est stupido Pole-ectionists head'

--------------
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) < ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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