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... > Frontloading--Dumbest Idea Evar?

Pages: (16) < ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 >

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2007,13:32    Quote ?   Quote About what I expected. Coward. Strong words. I suppose that you account yourself to be a fearless knight. Especially when you are repeating darwinian mantras like a parrot. You feel like a Rambo. Not really. You feel like a coward, tho. ?   Quote (Btw. is it not interesting that parrot can reproduce human speech very good but our relatives - primates are unanble to do so? Obviously voice is another deep puzzle of evolution of humans). Your point being? Or is that another one of your nonsequitors? ?   Quote ?   Quote Do you HAVE an alternative to 'Darwinism', or is it just that you're afraid to say what it is? Farnkly speaking I am still seeking. John Davison's Manifesto is very good and incentive source (btw John Davison makes some interesting comments about discussion here at ISCID). That's a partial answer that doesn't really tell us anything we didn't know. ?   Quote He is not only critic but proposed his own mechanism of semi-meiosis which is very original. The most scientists I know about propose nothing. ? ? Do you agree with John that evolution has stopped? If so, why did it stop? Who stopped it? Do you also agree with John that God is dead? ?   Quote Read it yourself instead of asking me. ? You aren't even capable of explaining what you yourself believe? Out of curiosity, let me ask you this: 1) do you believe in common descent? 2) how old do you think the earth is? A yes/no and rough number would be fine. -------------- "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: Aug. 24 2007,13:43    Quote Do you agree with John that evolution has stopped? If so, why did it stop? Who stopped it? Yes, I agree with him. But again - why are you interrogating me? I am here not at police station, don't you think so? Quote Do you also agree with John that God is dead? Do you disagree with him? Quote Your point being? Or is that another one of your nonsequitors? And your point here? Any darwinian explanation? Quote You aren't even capable of explaining what you yourself believe? And you? Are you able of explaining what you ?believe? Quote 1) do you believe in common descent? And you? Do you believe in common descent? Is it your credo, your belief? Do you know that common decent is a fact or you just belive it? Quote 2) how old do you think the earth is? And you? How old do you think the earth is? Do you think it or do you believe it? Is it your credo? Another cross examination? -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2007,14:01    Wow, VM continues to dodge questions.   Quote   Quote Do you agree with John that evolution has stopped? If so, why did it stop? Who stopped it? Yes, I agree with him. But again - why are you interrogating me? I am here not at police station, don't you think so? Well, V, it's just that you're quite confident in your beliefs that Darwinism is horrible, natural selection doesn't explain anything, and evolutionists are just like communists, etc., all of them ideas that no one here really agrees with, so the burden of proof is on you to defend your rather bizarre ideas. I wouldn't give you a very high grade so far. Quote   Quote Do you also agree with John that God is dead? Do you disagree with him? I neither agree nor disagree. Are YOU afraid to answer that question? Really, it's okay if you disagree with Davison. Nothing bad will happen to you. It's quite a good idea, really. Quote ? Quote Your point being? Or is that another one of your nonsequitors? And your point here? Any darwinian explanation? Well, V, it's just that you have this habit of saying "Oh, X is very bad problem for Darwinian evolution", and it turns out you have no alternate solution, or no larger point. You're just trying to look profound by saying "Oh, Darwinismus cannot explain so-and-so", while having nothing to offer yourself. I wanted to confirm that this was again the case. I'd say 'yes'. Quote Quote You aren't even capable of explaining what you yourself believe? And you? Are you able of explaining what you believe? Sure. Quote Quote 1) do you believe in common descent? And you? Do you believe in common descent? ? Oops, did I hit another question you're afraid to answer? ? ? Quote Is it your credo, your belief? Do you know that common decent is a fact or you just belive it? I believe it has overwhelming scientific evidence in support of it and see no reason to doubt it. It appears to be the only explanation for the observed evidence with any empirical support. Your answer? Here, I'll reword it: do YOU believe common descent is correct? Quote Quote 2) how old do you think the earth is? And you? How old do you think the earth is? Do you think it or do you believe it? Is it your credo? ? Oops, looks like I hit another question that VM is afraid to answer. I believe there is a vast amount of scientific evidence to support an earth that is around 4 billion years old and have no religious predisposition to doubt this. YOUR answer? -------------- "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: Aug. 24 2007,14:23    VMartin, stop what you are doing. Take a look around you.  What do you see? That big squishy thing over there is your lower intestine.  It's all coiled up and maybe choking off your air a bit. That little lump of reddish brown stuff is your liver (I know, I know, what is the darwinian explanation for its color.  Yah Yah Yah). If you pull your head back just a bit, you will feel some tightening around your ears.  Yes, this is your O-Ring. Just a bit further.  Now, see that piece of skin with the large piercing that has JADavison's smiling mug on it?  That is your duodenum. Keep pulling your head back.   POP! Now, go wash your face and we can continue the discussion. -------------- 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

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2007,15:16    Quote (VMartin @ Aug. 24 2007,12:05) I would say that blithering is more on the part of "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank and the others, who do not contribute to discussion anything except nonsenses. Awwww, you didn't call me a commie, V. I'm disappointed. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2007,17:51    Is there any support for the idea of a thread consisting of nothing but Lenny and VMartin battling it out over the pros and cons of Marxism? Somehow I know that would be immensely entertaining if it really took off. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,01:06    Re "the pros and cons of Marxism?" Once while on safari in Africa, I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How it got in my pajamas, I'll never know. Oops, wrong Marx. Never mind. Henry

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,01:17    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 24 2007,17:51) Is there any support for the idea of a thread consisting of nothing but Lenny and VMartin battling it out over the pros and cons of Marxism? Somehow I know that would be immensely entertaining if it really took off. Damn, why the hell would you want to inflict THAT on me . . . . ? -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,10:56    Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 25 2007,01:17) ? Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 24 2007,17:51) Is there any support for the idea of a thread consisting of nothing but Lenny and VMartin battling it out over the pros and cons of Marxism? Somehow I know that would be immensely entertaining if it really took off. Damn, why the hell would you want to inflict THAT on me . . . . ? Why, Lenny, for our entertainment! Yeesh, I can't believe you had to ask... PS: C'mon, Lenny, compared to other opponents you've had over the years, VMartin would be nothing... -------------- "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

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,11:15    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 25 2007,10:56) Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 25 2007,01:17) ?   Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 24 2007,17:51) Is there any support for the idea of a thread consisting of nothing but Lenny and VMartin battling it out over the pros and cons of Marxism? Somehow I know that would be immensely entertaining if it really took off. Damn, why the hell would you want to inflict THAT on me . . . . ? Why, Lenny, for our entertainment! Yeesh, I can't believe you had to ask... PS: C'mon, Lenny, compared to other opponents you've had over the years, VMartin would be nothing... Why not just stick hot pokers up my bungee? -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,11:22    Now THAT might be entertaining *runs and hides behind Louis* -------------- The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,11:32    Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 25 2007,11:15) Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 25 2007,10:56)   Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 25 2007,01:17) ? ?   Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 24 2007,17:51) Is there any support for the idea of a thread consisting of nothing but Lenny and VMartin battling it out over the pros and cons of Marxism? Somehow I know that would be immensely entertaining if it really took off. Damn, why the hell would you want to inflict THAT on me . . . . ? Why, Lenny, for our entertainment! Yeesh, I can't believe you had to ask... PS: C'mon, Lenny, compared to other opponents you've had over the years, VMartin would be nothing... Why not just stick hot pokers up my bungee? No, no, no, the idea is to do that to VMartin... ('Bungee'??) -------------- "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

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,11:48    Quote ('Bungee'??) Sorry Freudian slip. If I can just save Lenny some embarrasment here. What he had in mind was being dropped from the ceiling of an abandoned warehouse while in a state of extreme testosterone induced wangerzepplinesque extenditude lasting longer than a whole packet of cigarrettes by a whole lot of latex gloves. Needless to say it took more than a gross of rubber gloves to pull that off. *....bows and leaves stage...* -------------- The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,14:10    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 25 2007,11:32) Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 25 2007,11:15)   Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 25 2007,10:56) ? Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 25 2007,01:17) ? ? ? Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 24 2007,17:51) Is there any support for the idea of a thread consisting of nothing but Lenny and VMartin battling it out over the pros and cons of Marxism? Somehow I know that would be immensely entertaining if it really took off. Damn, why the hell would you want to inflict THAT on me . . . . ? Why, Lenny, for our entertainment! Yeesh, I can't believe you had to ask... PS: C'mon, Lenny, compared to other opponents you've had over the years, VMartin would be nothing... Why not just stick hot pokers up my bungee? No, no, no, the idea is to do that to VMartin... But dude, that would mean that *I* have to interact with him during the entire process. I'd rather be marooned on an island full of Greek sailors. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,14:15    Quote Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 25 2007,11:32) ? Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 25 2007,11:15) ? ? Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 25 2007,10:56) ? ? Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 25 2007,01:17) ? ? ? ? Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 24 2007,17:51) Is there any support for the idea of a thread consisting of nothing but Lenny and VMartin battling it out over the pros and cons of Marxism? Somehow I know that would be immensely entertaining if it really took off. Damn, why the hell would you want to inflict THAT on me . . . . ? Why, Lenny, for our entertainment! Yeesh, I can't believe you had to ask... PS: C'mon, Lenny, compared to other opponents you've had over the years, VMartin would be nothing... Why not just stick hot pokers up my bungee? No, no, no, the idea is to do that to VMartin... But dude, that would mean that *I* have to interact with him during the entire process. I'd rather be marooned on an island full of Greek sailors. Louis? Are you listening? -------------- "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

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,14:35    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 24 2007,14:01) Wow, VM continues to dodge questions... ? Well, what a shock! Has VMartin answered a single difficult question? I iust admire some peoples patience here, the willingness to continue to engage (what seems to me to be) a troll is awesome. I hope that the undecided lurkers are taking note.

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2007,02:57    There was no response for one week on this thread. No one adressed either slugs or shift of reproductive organs of mammalian males. So I would like to adress mimicry now. Maybe someone wants to discuss it? Of course my point view of evolution of mimicry is non-darwinian one. So the frontloading thread is maybe fit for it (considering all nonsensse you wrote here I am not waiting any intelligent response btw.). Franz Heikertinger wrote in 1954 an interesting book where he dismissed neodarwinian explanation of mimicry either: "Das Ratsel der Mimikry und seine Losung". I am afraid the work has never been translated into English. I would like to put here some thoughts from the chapter "Wespen als Mimikrymodelle". First I would like to emphasize Heikertinger no way dismissed evolution - something John Davison and me have common - but saw another forces behind it and not natural selection. He dismissed natural selection as source of any wasp-mimicry. The example considered is Trochilium apiforme in which darwinists see wasp-mimics. http://www.sumfak.hr/~forbug/fotke/trochiliumapiforme.htm Anyway we should be aware that family Sessidae is ?characterised as clearwing moths and involves more than 600 different species. Some of them is to be found at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sesiidae See especially Bambecia chrysidiformis. I would say even having transparent wings and yellow band there is no way resemblance to wasps. So the point is this: How is it possible that 600 different Sessidaes species are often more common and outnumber would-be wasp mimic Trochilium? Are we to accept an implausible idea that all of them are imperfect mimic of wasps? Or was there only strong selective pressure on Trochylium to look like wasp, but the other species of the family have other protection? What? So the outcome should be this one - the range, extent of different colors and forms of Sessidae is so distributed that Trochylium apiforme would exists in the same coloration and shape even if there were no wasps on the Earth. The resemblance is due chance or by convergence. There is no mimicry in the case. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2007,04:49    Quote There was no response for one week on this thread. No one adressed either slugs or shift of reproductive organs of mammalian males. You need to make your points more clearly. We all understand that you have an innate aversion to Darwinian ideas, but you really need to be a little more objective. Your personal preferences cut no ice here. Saying Quote I would say even having transparent wings and yellow band there is no way resemblance to wasps. is not adequate as an argument.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2007,11:55    Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 02 2007,02:57) There was no response for one week on this thread. No one adressed either slugs or shift of reproductive organs of mammalian males. So I would like to adress mimicry now. Maybe someone wants to discuss it? No, V, you have too many questions you avoided from last time. Now that you're rested of course you can answer them. Since we all know you have the courage of your convictions it should be easy. Here they are again: 1) do you believe common descent is correct? 2) how old do you believe the Earth is? A yes/no on the first would be fine. Some kind of rough number on the second would be fine. We eagerly await your answers! -------------- "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: Sep. 02 2007,13:31    Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 02 2007,04:49)   Quote There was no response for one week on this thread. No one adressed either slugs or shift of reproductive organs of mammalian males. You need to make your points more clearly. We all understand that you have an innate aversion to Darwinian ideas, but you really need to be a little more objective. Your personal preferences cut no ice here. Saying ?   Quote I would say even having transparent wings and yellow band there is no way resemblance to wasps. is not adequate as an argument. Do you think I have innate aversion to darwinism? I would say darwinism is wrong, that's all. Btw. it is not my personnal preference. I quoted many prominent scientists of the past. No one of them saw darwinism as plausible explanation of evolution. I don't see your point in saying "is not adequate as an argument". Do you consider all 600 species of Sessidaes as wasp-mimics or what? ?I quoted Heikertinger who dismissed mimicry in the case. I am afraid there is no such an expert on insect mimicry nowadays. Heikertinger spent 40 years studying insects and so-called mimicry, his correspodence with Wassmann was once closely followed by entomologists in Europe. ?You and yours alike see often mimicry everywhere. One should be more cautios reading about darwinian unfounded assertions about mimicry. It was you who gave me notice that eye spots on butterfly wings do not deter predators. Oddly enough Heiketinger devoted almost 4 pages to experiments that disprove wasp mimicry as protective device. Why such experiments was not reproduced anymore? Because it doesnot fit into preconceived darwinian schema of protection? Dlussky made some experiments in 80ties that proves birds can tell apart model and mimics very well. All the theory of mimicry was preconceived in heads of Bateson, Wallace and Darwin agreed with it. They made no experiments. It is no science you know, it is only preconceived ideas into which all facts should fit. Heikertinger had gone into depths of many cases and had shown that natural selection is implausible explanation of the phenomenon. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2007,13:34    Quote Do you think I have innate aversion to darwinism? I would say darwinism is wrong, that's all. Btw. it is not my personnal preference. Right. I use 'Darwinist' as an insult and call them Communists and Nazis, but that doesn't mean I have an 'innate aversion'. Anyway, Martin, the "la la la I can't hear you!" routine isn't really very impressive. I'll ask again: 1) do you believe common descent is correct? 2) how old do you believe the Earth is? Answers, please? -------------- "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

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2007,13:41    Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 02 2007,13:31) Do you think I have innate aversion to darwinism? I would say darwinism is wrong, that's all. Btw. it is not my personnal preference. I quoted many prominent scientists of the past. No one of them saw darwinism as plausible explanation of evolution. I don't see your point in saying "is not adequate as an argument". Do you consider all 600 species of Sessidaes as wasp-mimics or what? ?I quoted Heikertinger who dismissed mimicry in the case. I am afraid there is no such an expert on insect mimicry nowadays. Heikertinger spent 40 years studying insects and so-called mimicry, his correspodence with Wassmann was once closely followed by entomologists in Europe. ?You and yours alike see often mimicry everywhere. One should be more cautios reading about darwinian unfounded assertions about mimicry. It was you who gave me notice that eye spots on butterfly wings do not deter predators. Oddly enough Heiketinger devoted almost 4 pages to experiments that disprove wasp mimicry as protective device. Why such experiments was not reproduced anymore? Because it doesnot fit into preconceived darwinian schema of protection? Dlussky made some experiments in 80ties that proves birds can tell apart model and mimics very well. All the theory of mimicry was preconceived in heads of Bateson, Wallace and Darwin agreed with it. They made no experiments. It is no science you know, it is only preconceived ideas into which all facts should fit. Heikertinger had gone into depths of many cases and had shown that natural selection is implausible explanation of the phenomenon. Why would anyone that is qualified to answer your questions bother to do so given your record here of refusing to reciprocate?

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2007,14:00    Well, Martin's run away again: Quote 18 guests, 12 Public Members and 1 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ] >Arden Chatfield >Venus Mousetrap >Stephen Elliott >Kristian Andersen >Crimifata >Leonides >incorygible >Richardthughes >Erasmus, FCD >someotherguy >Albatrossity2 >zagnik -------------- "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: Sep. 02 2007,15:44    Stephen Elliot. I am afraid you cannot refute my positions easily. All you can do is - like in mushroom's coloration - open a new thread and probaly only agree with my sources at last. That's why I first checked internet if there is anything new about topic I put here. In the case of shift of reproductive organs of mammals no new plausible hypothesis has arisen last 50 years when Portmann adressed it. There is only a neodarwinian mess in it as the article from doctor Myers clearly showed. The same mess is in wasp-mimicry explanation and observation as clearly shows this modern summary: http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/archive....cry.pdf Heikertinger claimed that butterlies that mimic wasps ? are due to hereditary "frontloading" - "durch die Auswirkungen eines alten gemeinsamen Erbguts" and not due natural selection. I dont know if the meaning of Erbgut is to be translated as genotype or inheritance. Anyway some of his critics agreed with him at last - F.Steiniger for instance. I would say Heikertinger made from Darwin, Wallace and Bates perfect fools. Especially nice is the case when Darwin asked Bates in 1867 how to explain bright coloration of larvae. Bateson (who invented explanation of butterfly mimicry 6 years before) went to ask Wallace who hypothesized it is due warning predators that they are unpalatable. So the great men reinvented the theory Bates proposed in 1861 as source of mimicry. Heikertinger openly attacked Mullerian explanation of mimicry that even Darwin considered as "too speculative to be introduced into my book". Heikertinger gave an example of polymorphic mimicry where females of butterfly species mimic more than one unpalatable species. The loss and disatvantage is greater than mimiking only one unpalatable species - the predator hav to taste and learn all of them. Details that neodarwinists selectively miss to hold their theory of natural selection supposedly perfect. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2007,15:50    Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 02 2007,15:44) Stephen Elliot. I am afraid you cannot refute my positions easily... Quite right. Or at least I cannot do so with scientific answers. Then again, there isn't much need is there? What I can do is observe you ducking and running from people that can refute your positions. Do you think I can't see that?

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2007,15:52    Martin, why are you acting so frightened? I'll ask again: 1) do you believe common descent is correct? 2) how old do you believe the Earth is? Don't expect anyone here to indulge your meandering if you ignore everyone else's questions. -------------- "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

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2007,16:11    Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 02 2007,15:44) Stephen Elliot. I am afraid you cannot refute my positions easily. All you can do is - like in mushroom's coloration - open a new thread and probaly only agree with my sources at last. That's why I first checked internet if there is anything new about topic I put here. In the case of shift of reproductive organs of mammals no new plausible hypothesis has arisen last 50 years when Portmann adressed it. There is only a neodarwinian mess in it as the article from doctor Myers clearly showed. The same mess is in wasp-mimicry explanation and observation as clearly shows this modern summary: http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/archive....cry.pdf Heikertinger claimed that butterlies that mimic wasps ? are due to hereditary "frontloading" - "durch die Auswirkungen eines alten gemeinsamen Erbguts" and not due natural selection. I dont know if the meaning of Erbgut is to be translated as genotype or inheritance. Anyway some of his critics agreed with him at last - F.Steiniger for instance. I would say Heikertinger made from Darwin, Wallace and Bates perfect fools. Especially nice is the case when Darwin asked Bates in 1867 how to explain bright coloration of larvae. Bateson (who invented explanation of butterfly mimicry 6 years before) went to ask Wallace who hypothesized it is due warning predators that they are unpalatable. So the great men reinvented the theory Bates proposed in 1861 as source of mimicry. Heikertinger openly attacked Mullerian explanation of mimicry that even Darwin considered as "too speculative to be introduced into my book". Heikertinger gave an example of polymorphic mimicry where females of butterfly species mimic more than one unpalatable species. The loss and disatvantage is greater than mimiking only one unpalatable species - the predator hav to taste and learn all of them. Details that neodarwinists selectively miss to hold their theory of natural selection supposedly perfect. Oh BTW. I can also see that your entire post is mostly about old arguments rather than new evidence. Do you expect anyone to take that seriously? Now I freely admit that I am no scientist but I can smell bullshit. You sir, smell full of it. Look at yourself. You come here with crazy accusations. Refuse to answer sensible questions (and I admit that they are not mine). Claim authority and expect people to accept it. Maybe just maybe you are the one that needs help. Now I am pretty much just an observer but I can see who has evidence.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2007,16:38    Well, VM's run off again: Quote 24 guests, 6 Public Members and 1 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ] >Arden Chatfield >stevestory >Lufeld >mitschlag >Stephen Elliott >Albatrossity2 That didn't take long. -------------- "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: Sep. 03 2007,00:14    Quote 15 guests, 5 Public Members and 0 Anonymous Members ? [ View Complete List ] >Arden Chatfield >Bob O'H >bdelloid >VMartin >oiuu;hrft Hey, Martin, I see you're back, ready to answer questions 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: Sep. 04 2007,14:16    Obviously here is nobobody to discuss issues I have addressed. Stephen excuses himself not to be a scientist (as though natural selection has something common with real science) but neverthenless he is pretty sure darwinism is right. Arden continues to ask his monomanical questions. Probably Arden supposes Natural selection to be a valid scientific concept - his teacher in primary school might has teach him so - ? and those who challenge it he considers for medieval obscurantists (as his teacher told him). Anyway he has innovated darwinian questionary from primary school - he don't ask if the Earth is flat or spheric but how old it is. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Pages: (16) < ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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