RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (17) < ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... >   
  Topic: VMartin's cosmology, where he will not be off-topic< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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".

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2007,07:05   

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".

Do you have any positive evidence for your position?

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2007,07:07   

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 26 2007,14:08)
The phenomenon of descent of testiclesis is characteristic for males of higher mammalian orders and there is no darwinian explanation of it (and never will be I dare say).

I accept for the sake of argument that there will never be any darwinian explanation for phenomenon of descent of testiclesis  (and never will be I dare say).

What is your non-darwinian explanation please?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2007,07:08   

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".

Marty's argument is much more sophisticated, tho: "the Darwinismus is bad".

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2007,07:10   

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 28 2007,06:52)
Quote (Assassinator @ Dec. 28 2007,05:33)
Did you notice that it's just ONE article (wich I quikly looked up just to give an example to you) from an entire research topic? Just one? How do you know there isn't more hmm? You know how we call that, that's called biased.

In fact I suppose there is no more of them. I had addressed the problem before you joined the party here, you know. And doctor Myers addressed the "research" in June 2004.  

The topic is tricky, no one can say anything meaningful. So neodarwinists rather avoid discussing and exploring it.

Why do you avoid discussing your alternative to the Darwinismus?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2007,07:16   

Quote
In fact I suppose there is no more of them.

And how, Martin, on EARTH do you know that?

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2007,16:54   

Quote (Assassinator @ Dec. 28 2007,07:16)
 
Quote
In fact I suppose there is no more of them.

And how, Martin, on EARTH do you know that?


I suppose doctor Myers who runs Pharyngula would have mentioned them in 2004 if they exist and brought up something new. 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: Dec. 28 2007,18:53   

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 28 2007,16:54)
Quote (Assassinator @ Dec. 28 2007,07:16)
 
Quote
In fact I suppose there is no more of them.

And how, Martin, on EARTH do you know that?


I suppose doctor Myers who runs Pharyngula would have mentioned them in 2004 if they exist and brought up something new. Don't you think so?

Martin, do you use your degrees in bilology in your job at the bank?

--------------
"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: Jan. 01 2008,11:03   

Alan Fox at Evolution of the thorse:

 
Quote

Your assertion led me to google and I came across this. It seems someone is testing the idea that undescended testicles result in sterility in the Florida panther. There is lots more on sperm viability and temperature control of the testes.

It seems to me differential temperatures and sperm viability are measurable, and a resultant hypothesis, (sperm survives better at a slightly lower temperature than normal internal body temperature in mammals) is quite testable


Your article states:
 
Quote

Semen quality and endocrine and reproductive functions have been shown to be adversely affected in some inbred lines of several species, including mice, cats, 2 lion subspecies and cheetahs (Wildt 1994). Comparative reproductive analyses of seminal traits in five feline species, revealed that Florida panther males display some of the poorest seminal quality traits ever recorded for any felid species or subspecies (Barone et al., 1994). Total motile sperm per ejaculate in the Florida panther is 18-38 times lower than in other puma subspecies, 30-270 times lower than in other felids and 30 times lower than in the cheetah. Although cougars and other large felids tend to produce high proportions of morphologically abnormal sperm, the Florida panther has a significantly greater frequency of malformed spermatozoa (average 93.5% per ejaculate) than any other subspecies; particularly noteworthy was a 42% incidence of acrosomal defects, a trait that renders sperm deficient in fertilization potential (Barone et al., 1994). Seventy-five percent of the sperm exhibit severe deformity and are classified as having primary abnormalities (Roelke 1990). Compared to Felis concolor from Texas, Colorado, Latin America, and North American zoos, the Florida panther has lower testicular and semen volumes, poorer sperm progressive motility, and more morphologically abnormal sperm, including a higher incidence of acrosomal defects and abnormal mitochondrial sheaths (Barone, et al. 1994).


Somehow I couldn't find there anything about descended testicles, could you? Yet 93,5 % of malformed spermatazoa obviously do not affect fitness of Florida panther. Much ado about nothing.

I don't know if you have followed the entire discussion here about the issue. The problem is that birds having temperature 42 grad Celsius do not have descended testicles.

And lower temperature of sperms in descended testicles might be the result of descent, adaptation to lower temperature, not the cause of it. This mistake of reasoning is common amongst neodarwinists
(and behavorial ecologists especially).

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

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 01 2008,11:52   

Quote
I don't know if you have followed the entire discussion here about the issue. The problem is that birds having temperature 42 grad Celsius do not have descended testicles.


I was responding to your claim:
Quote
As you can see in "VMartin comsology" scientists admit that explanation of descent of testicles is untestable.


My point is that undescended testes in mammals reduce fertility, and that hypothesis has been tested, so is not "untestable".

I was tempted to speculate about sex determination in crocodilians being temperature dependent, and that maybe the line via dinosaurs through to birds resulted in different problems and solutions to sperm stability, but, being a layman, I am not qualified to comment. I suspect research has been done, and if not, there is no reason why it could not be done.

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 01 2008,12:27   

Alan,

this is again the extract from the scientific article which we have already discussed here :

   
Quote

A plausible, though at present untestable , scenario is that in the course of the evolution of mammalian endothermy, core body temperatures eventually reached levels at which spermatogenesis was disrupted.


If you think that you have hit upon the case where it can be tested write Myers and Werdelin, Nilsonne  who have written the sentence in " The Evolution of the Scrotum and Testicular Descent in Mammals: a Phylogenetic View." J. theor. Biol. 196:61-72.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 01 2008,13:44   

Quote (VMartin @ Jan. 01 2008,12:27)
Alan,

this is again the extract from the scientific article which we have already discussed here :

   
Quote

A plausible, though at present untestable , scenario is that in the course of the evolution of mammalian endothermy, core body temperatures eventually reached levels at which spermatogenesis was disrupted.


If you think that you have hit upon the case where it can be tested write Myers and Werdelin, Nilsonne  who have written the sentence in " The Evolution of the Scrotum and Testicular Descent in Mammals: a Phylogenetic View." J. theor. Biol. 196:61-72.

Certainly is the Darwinismus very stupido, Martin. Please to tell us what we explain the variation in the Natur, uff hehe?

--------------
"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: Jan. 01 2008,15:26   

Marty let's hear the German mysticism thing.

That sounds like a payoff.

The first positive argument for anything you have made.  Why polar opposites and opposing forces etc?  Why do you say this is the best model for anything, much less biological things?

Category error.

--------------
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: Jan. 02 2008,13:15   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 01 2008,15:26)
Marty let's hear the German mysticism thing.

That sounds like a payoff.

The first positive argument for anything you have made.  Why polar opposites and opposing forces etc?  Why do you say this is the best model for anything, much less biological things?

Category error.

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.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,13:19   

Quote (VMartin @ Jan. 02 2008,13:15)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 01 2008,15:26)
Marty let's hear the German mysticism thing.

That sounds like a payoff.

The first positive argument for anything you have made.  Why polar opposites and opposing forces etc?  Why do you say this is the best model for anything, much less biological things?

Category error.

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 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.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2008,15:20   

Quote (VMartin @ Jan. 02 2008,13:15)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 01 2008,15:26)
Marty let's hear the German mysticism thing.

That sounds like a payoff.

The first positive argument for anything you have made.  Why polar opposites and opposing forces etc?  Why do you say this is the best model for anything, much less biological things?

Category error.

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.

Marty, do you realize what a pathetic shithead hypocrite you look like demanding an explanation for something for which you absolutely refuse to offer an explanation yourself?

Are you just making shit up here as a game? Because otherwise, I have no idea how you can have any respect for yourself after keeping up this stupid routine up for all these months.

Go back to your bank window, Marty, there's customers waiting.

--------------
"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: Jan. 02 2008,18:56   

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 27 2007,14:36)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Dec. 27 2007,14:08)
     
Quote
But they are wrong, because descending of testicles has meaning beyond any neodarwinian paradigma.


Well, you've got my attention, now. Please do tell, Martin. The meaning of descending testicles is...

You know, some outdated theory no one cares anymore. Something like German mysticism. Polarity of mammalian bodies, two centres. Head and reproduction organs on the opposite side of the body. Centre of individuality and centre of species proliferation as opposing principles which are now displayed. Maybe not worth of mentioning for you.

But this time darwinists have not better stance with the cooling sperms bullshits.

You're the one that said this, you fool.

--------------
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: Jan. 03 2008,02:44   

I really said that Erasmus. Do you see there also "something like"? Your sense of humor is weak. What's your IQ?

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

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.


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

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2008,17:55   

What...and take time off blogging to do actual research!!!

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2008,18:03   

Nope.

Ain't gonna do it.

I leave to you thread-bearers the deep secret of how in the heck you managed to alight upon this topic.

Oh, wait, did a certain Vsomeone finally confess to the reason he can't find his?

Sometimes you just have to wait for maturity to be thrust upon you, V...

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

Quote (VMartin @ Jan. 05 2008,13:51)
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.

What are those 'evolutionary forces', Marty?

Got anything?

What's your 'nonbabbling' explanation?

Or is having an explanation 'stupido'?

--------------
"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: Jan. 05 2008,18:05   

A thought on the off-topic topic of this thread- having the sperm stored outside would presumably reduce the distance they have to travel during mating. That might be a factor.

(Although, I don't know what any of that has to do with cosomology. :p )

Henry

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 07 2008,18:01   

Plus, it let's the boys have more room for food on the inside, which let's them get bigger than the girls.

Except when they put what's externally stored into the girls, in which case the girls get bigger.  Despite which, they have even less room for food, just when they need it most.

Boy, was that ever intelligently designed!

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 07 2008,18:08   

Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 05 2008,16:05)
(Although, I don't know what any of that has to do with cosomology. :p )

Creationists think cosmology is bollocks. :D

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 07 2008,21:53   

Marty, what reasons do you have for supposing that there are such things as 'poles'?

What is a pole in this context?

How do you see this pole?  

What is the pole made of?

We are now getting somewhere, no?  This is much more than 'darwinismus selectionist hypothetiker'.  Please expound.

--------------
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: Jan. 09 2008,12:27   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 07 2008,21:53)
Marty, what reasons do you have for supposing that there are such things as 'poles'?

What is a pole in this context?

How do you see this pole?  

What is the pole made of?

We are now getting somewhere, no?  This is much more than 'darwinismus selectionist hypothetiker'.  Please expound.

Erasmus,

you have functional eyes I suppose (even though you have no functional brain obviously. But you are not alone here).


Take a picture of a lion and look - there is a head. What do you see on head? Eyes, nose, ears, muzzle. It is the head where the brain is placed too. This is the one pole. This is the pole where individuality of species is best expressed. Even you recognise other people mostly by their faces. Faces are very individual. Where they are? They are on the head, right.

Now look on the opposite side of the lion. Put your sight on parts where the lion has his hind legs. There you can see penis and scrotal testicles. These organs are destined for reproduction, for creating next generations. There are haploid sex cells there from which the next generation after mating arise.

As you can see (at least I hope so) these organs are on  opposite side of the lion's body. When sometning is on opposite sides we sometimes call it poles. You have heard about the earth poles yet?

So this is very similar. Behold - I do not force you, if you do not see it , that's OK too.

And now open - if you like - the discussion about evolution of descent of testicles at EvC thread which I started. You can see there all arguments and also why neodarwinian explanation of "cooling spermatozoa" is wrong. Because neodarwinists at EvC are two levels above neodarwinists here there was also discussions and not only stupid questions from their part. And at last neodarwinists there admitted they were wrong. Something that is impossible here. And do you know why? Because this forum is full of pompous ignorants.

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin....805&m=1

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

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2008,13:06   

vmartian, does JAD or you have a theory on how god died or who killed him?  or where is he hiding and why is he hiding?

just curious if ALL your/his theories are incomplete.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2008,13:20   

Quote (VMartin @ Jan. 09 2008,12:27)
Because this forum is full of pompous ignorants.

There's a saying we have in the reality based community.

Takes one to know one

And don't start sentences with "because". It's poor form.

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

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

Pages: (17) < ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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