Printable Version of Topic

-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: VMartin's cosmology started by Arden Chatfield


Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 06 2007,12:29

As almost everyone here must know by now, I have been trying with spectacular lack of success to get VMartin to answer two simple questions:

1) do you believe common descent is correct?

2) how old is the earth?

I even rephrased the second question as a multiple choice question, and he still refuses to answer either question.

Now, I've seen several creationists repeatedly refuse to answer these questions, and I have my own hunch as to why VM won't answer them, but VM has finally made a claim as to WHY he won't answer them:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We are here not at a geological forum and we are not here even on a geological thread. That's why your question is off-topic. I will never answer your off-topic questions at these threads.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Okay, evidently he won't answer these questions if he thinks they're off-topic. So here's a thread devoted ENTIRELY to him and these questions. These questions are totally on-topic here.

So then, *ahem*.

To repeat, V:

1) do you believe common descent is correct?

2) the Earth is:

a) 4.5 billion years old
b) around 12,000 years old
c) around 6,000 years old
d) probably a couple million years old
e) none of the above.

Since I have now fulfilled Martin's standards of relevancy, I'm sure he'll answer now.
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 06 2007,13:49

What makes you think VMartin will be more likely to answer your questions here?
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 06 2007,13:51

But the new dodge may be funnier.  I have popcorn.
Posted by: slpage on Sep. 06 2007,13:53

So, is VMartin really an eastern european, or is he someone else pretending to be?

I refer to his on-again-off-again typed broken english.  I understand that such things happen in spoken language, but I have a hard time accepting that you can exhibit 'broken english' when you type... sometimes...
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 06 2007,14:23

Quote (blipey @ Sep. 06 2007,13:51)
But the new dodge may be funnier. ?I have popcorn.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's the right attitude.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 06 2007,14:30

Quote (slpage @ Sep. 06 2007,13:53)
So, is VMartin really an eastern european, or is he someone else pretending to be?

I refer to his on-again-off-again typed broken english. ?I understand that such things happen in spoken language, but I have a hard time accepting that you can exhibit 'broken english' when you type... sometimes...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I had my suspicions at first, too, but there seems to be solid evidence that he's Slovakian. He wrote a passage of Czech (I don't think it was Slovak) that convinced David Marjanovic of his authenticity.

I suspect that VM first started studying English rather recently, so sometimes his English kind of goes in and out. I gather that in that part of Europe people haven't been studying English for very long.
Posted by: VMartin on Sep. 06 2007,15:03

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 06 2007,14:30)
Quote (slpage @ Sep. 06 2007,13:53)
So, is VMartin really an eastern european, or is he someone else pretending to be?

I refer to his on-again-off-again typed broken english. ?I understand that such things happen in spoken language, but I have a hard time accepting that you can exhibit 'broken english' when you type... sometimes...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I had my suspicions at first, too, but there seems to be solid evidence that he's Slovakian. He wrote a passage of Czech (I don't think it was Slovak) that convinced David Marjanovic of his authenticity.

I suspect that VM first started studying English rather recently, so sometimes his English kind of goes in and out. I gather that in that part of Europe people haven't been studying English for very long.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yah. Marjanovic is a pharyngulist who doesn't know how to tell apart Russian and Czech. I don't know how you came to the idea that he was able to determine my nationality.

Marjanovic is also a "knowledgeable evolutionist" as doctor Myers calls all his sycophants. Neverthenless he knows nothing about color perception. He has never heard about red-green perception canals and so he ?invented ad hoc brand new theory after 5 minutes of thinking: green = white - red. Everybody can check his "arguments" at One blog a day where we (John Davison predominanly) made fools of pharyngulists.

As to your stupid question I wrote that no new mammalian Order has aroused since Eocene.

If you were more clever you might have deduce that I at least presume the Earth is older than the time of beginning of Eocene. Go to Wikipedia for time scaling of Eocene.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 06 2007,15:12

Martin. How lovely to have you join us!

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

If you were more clever you might have deduce that I at least presume the Earth is older than the time of beginning of Eocene. Go to Wikipedia for time scaling of Eocene.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And if you were less of a coward you would simply *tell* us how old you think the world is.

Anyway, Wikipedia says the Eocene ran from around 33.9 to 55.8 million years ago. Is 55.8 million years the most you'll concede for the age of the earth? Or are you willing to crank it all the way back to 4.5 billion?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

As to your stupid question I wrote that no new mammalian Order has aroused since Eocene.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



('arisen', not 'aroused'. check the meaning of the latter, V.)

Be more explicit, Martin, does that mean you reject common descent for humans or no?

BTW, why is it a stupid question? Seems a *lot* of creationists get very hot and bothered about those very questions.

?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Everybody can check his "arguments" at One blog a day where we (John Davison predominanly) made fools of pharyngulists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The pinnacle of Martin's scientific career, right there.

BTW, Martin, you're not in the best position to be accusing others of being sycophants.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 06 2007,15:16

Re "He has never heard about red-green perception canals and so he ?invented ad hoc brand new theory after 5 minutes of thinking: green = white - red."

That agrees with what I remember learning in school on that subject. Which means it isn't ad hoc.
Posted by: VMartin on Sep. 06 2007,15:24

Henry,

maybe you were in the same school that Marjanovic attended.
As far as I remember he was at school only 12 years. It means the guy finished his education at secondary school. No wonder he became darwinian scientist at Pharyngula.

Check the basic rules about adding and subtraction of colors. These rules are very important in printing plants. Or ask some artist.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 06 2007,15:29

Martin? Please? Back on topic?

Do you reject common descent for humans or not?

Earth / 4.5 billion -- yes/no?

Answer the questions please and you can get back to Davison.
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 06 2007,16:16

Damn!!!  Can we please keep just one stinking thread on topic!

I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH VMARTIN!!!!

Information that is not relevant to the thread should not be allowed on!

So, what was this thread about?

Oh yeah, carry on VMARTIN, I want to know all about artists and the color wheel--unless those artists never went to university.

PLEASE, LET'S KEEP TO THE SPIRIT OF THE OPENING POST AND TALK ABOUT ARTISTS!

cripes, darwiniacs have the attention span of a two year old (who also never started college)...damn.
Posted by: Kristine on Sep. 06 2007,16:18

Quote (slpage @ Sep. 06 2007,12:53)
So, is VMartin really an eastern european, or is he someone else pretending to be?

I refer to his on-again-off-again typed broken english. ?I understand that such things happen in spoken language, but I have a hard time accepting that you can exhibit 'broken english' when you type... sometimes...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


His IP, when he graced my blog with his presence, originated in Slovakia.
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Sep. 06 2007,16:24

Vmartin:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
no new mammalian Order has aroused since Eocene.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That'll surprise the heck out of my girlfriend...

Or maybe Vmartin would rather be Eocene and not heard.
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Sep. 06 2007,16:25

With Vmartin's Anglo-linguistic facility, he'll probably finally be forced to admit, felicitously, that "Common decency is, indeed, correct."
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 06 2007,17:20

Quote (Steviepinhead @ Sep. 06 2007,17:24)
Vmartin:
?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
no new mammalian Order has aroused since Eocene.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That'll surprise the heck out of my girlfriend...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is downright obseocene.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 06 2007,22:14

V,
Re "Check the basic rules about adding and subtraction of colors. These rules are very important in printing plants. Or ask some artist."

Ah. You're talking about mixing pigments. I was thinking about mixing frequencies of light.

Henry
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 06 2007,23:05

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 07 2007,06:14)
V,
Re "Check the basic rules about adding and subtraction of colors. These rules are very important in printing plants. Or ask some artist."

Ah. You're talking about mixing pigments. I was thinking about mixing frequencies of light.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Autodidacts hate being corrected.
Posted by: VMartin on Sep. 07 2007,00:13

Quote (Kristine @ Sep. 06 2007,16:18)
 
Quote (slpage @ Sep. 06 2007,12:53)
So, is VMartin really an eastern european, or is he someone else pretending to be?

I refer to his on-again-off-again typed broken english. ?I understand that such things happen in spoken language, but I have a hard time accepting that you can exhibit 'broken english' when you type... sometimes...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


His IP, when he graced my blog with his presence, originated in Slovakia.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi Kristine.

There is some good habit here makinkg psychonalysis for gratis. I have passed out here two psycholalysis - the one ?from Arden and the second from Alan Fox. Btw. both guys pursue me with their monomaniacal questions whatever I wrote. Arden even created this thread to give vent his urge.

Alan even logged at ISCID where his annoying question disturbs our discussions there.

But both of them are perfect  psychoanalysts.


And now me:

I think your surrealism compensate your liking in darwinism. You as an poet feel more clearly than many folks here that this teaching is not correct answer to problems of evolution. Your psyche revolt. Thats why your psyche seek compensation in surrealism.

More cultivated thoughts about the problem of surrealism and biology can be find in the book of professor ?Adolf Portmann "Biologie und Geist".
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 07 2007,02:51

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 06 2007,15:29)
Martin? Please? Back on topic?

Do you reject common descent for humans or not?

Earth / 4.5 billion -- yes/no?

Answer the questions please and you can get back to Davison.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


VMartin, 2 simple questions. Answer them you coward!
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 07 2007,04:22



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Alan even logged at ISCID where his annoying question disturbs our discussions there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Disturb your discussions?
What discussions?
Surely you jest!
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 07 2007,08:54

Oh boy. Martin thinks because he's a 'man' he can patronize Kristine. This should have lots of potential.

Maaaaaaartiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnn..... oh Maaaaaaartiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnn..... answer our questions!!!!!!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There is some good habit here makinkg psychonalysis for gratis. I have passed out here two psycholalysis - the one ?from Arden and the second from Alan Fox. Btw. both guys pursue me with their monomaniacal questions whatever I wrote. Arden even created this thread to give vent his urge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Martin, you can make me quit asking you by giving clear answers. Whine all you want, but if you stick around here babbling about ladybirds and toadstools but dodging questions, I'll continue to ask you over and over. If you don't like this situation, you're more than welcome to go away and hide under Davison's skirts. But remember, it'll be waiting for you when you get back.
Posted by: Kristine on Sep. 07 2007,10:43

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 06 2007,23:13)
?  
Quote (Kristine @ Sep. 06 2007,16:18)
? ? ?
Quote (slpage @ Sep. 06 2007,12:53)
So, is VMartin really an eastern european, or is he someone else pretending to be?

I refer to his on-again-off-again typed broken english. ?I understand that such things happen in spoken language, but I have a hard time accepting that you can exhibit 'broken english' when you type... sometimes...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


His IP, when he graced my blog with his presence, originated in Slovakia.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi Kristine.

There is some good habit here makinkg psychonalysis for gratis. I have passed out here two psycholalysis - the one ?from Arden and the second from Alan Fox. Btw. both guys pursue me with their monomaniacal questions whatever I wrote. Arden even created this thread to give vent his urge.

Alan even logged at ISCID where his annoying question disturbs our discussions there.

But both of them are perfect ?psychoanalysts.


And now me:

I think your surrealism compensate your liking in darwinism. You as an poet feel more clearly than many folks here that this teaching is not correct answer to problems of evolution. Your psyche revolt. Thats why your psyche seek compensation in surrealism.

More cultivated thoughts about the problem of surrealism and biology can be find in the book of professor ?Adolf Portmann "Biologie und Geist".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My "psyche seek compensation in surrealism" because I am flower of the orient, can love Darwinism longtime, everyone. :D

VMartin, as a philosophy surrealism is a crock. As an attitude and an aesthetic (which it was never intended to be), it gives a certain playfulness to life, like Cocteau films and punning over the heads of clueless twits. Hint. Lighten up.

Get out of your closet with that psychoanalysis and those pigments and live a little, or you?ll continue to play the straight man in Alan?s and Arden?s comedy routine.

*Braces for predictable protestation re misunderstanding of meaning of "straight"*
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Sep. 07 2007,10:44

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 07 2007,04:13)
There is some good habit here makinkg psychonalysis for gratis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Correct me if I'm wrong, but you aren't qualified to do that, are you?

Judging by your efforts I would say you've never studied psychology in your life, since they are the worst kind of cod psychological nonsense favoured by simpering morons who try to act all cool and intellectual.

Coincidence? I think not.
Posted by: VMartin on Sep. 07 2007,10:47

Quote (k.e @ Sep. 06 2007,23:05)
? ? ?
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 07 2007,06:14)
V,
Re "Check the basic rules about adding and subtraction of colors. These rules are very important in printing plants. Or ask some artist."

Ah. You're talking about mixing pigments. I was thinking about mixing frequencies of light.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Autodidacts hate being corrected.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Pigments? Autodidacts?

Do you mean that removing red frequency from the light spectrum will cause that the light entering the eye should be perceived as green?

Do you think that spectum colors violet, blue, yellow, orange and green (without red) should be perceived in their totality as green?

Have you ever heard about Hering's red-green channel
or you are again explaing the complicated problem of color perception ad hoc using only your phantasy?
(But no wonder, because you often use your phantasy as the only scientific method for explaining of evolutionary processes too.)
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 07 2007,10:53

Welcome back, Martin, got answers for us?
Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 07 2007,11:15

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 07 2007,10:53)
Welcome back, Martin, got answers for us?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps he won't answer because he takes a very wide stance on the issue.
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 07 2007,11:35

Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 07 2007,19:15)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 07 2007,10:53)
Welcome back, Martin, got answers for us?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps he won't answer because he takes a very wide stance on the issue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are a cruel, cruel man.

Although I noticed you didn't mention shopping bags.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 07 2007,12:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
*Braces for predictable protestation re misunderstanding of meaning of "straight"*
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, as I had to google "wide stance" to find out about alternative uses of shopping bags, I guess I don't need to protest.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 07 2007,12:27

I was looking over portions of this and the previous thread, and I began to wonder, "How old does VMartin think the earth is? Does he accept common descent?"

It appears that nobody has thought to ask him.

Hey, VMartin, why is everybody beating around the bush on such simple questions?

How old do you think the earth is? I've heard and accept the figure 4.5 billion years, with 13.7 billion years the current best estimate of the age of the universe (based on WMAP data and a number of assumptions).

Do you accept common descent? I do.

Just wondering. Thanks,

R-Bill
Posted by: Doc Bill on Sep. 07 2007,12:28

I'm sorry, I lost my train of thought.

Is this thread for VMartin or Paul Nelson?

Something about not answering questions...
Posted by: Kristine on Sep. 07 2007,12:37

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 07 2007,09:47)
?
Quote (k.e @ Sep. 06 2007,23:05)
 
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 07 2007,06:14)
V,
Re "Check the basic rules about adding and subtraction of colors. These rules are very important in printing plants. Or ask some artist."

Ah. You're talking about mixing pigments. I was thinking about mixing frequencies of light.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Autodidacts hate being corrected.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Pigments? Autodidacts?

Do you mean that removing red frequency from the light spectrum will cause that the light entering the eye should be perceived as green?

Do you think that spectum colors violet, blue, yellow, orange and green (without red) should be perceived in their totality as green?

Have you ever heard about Hering's red-green channel
or you are again explaing the complicated problem of color perception ad hoc using only your phantasy?
(But no wonder, because you often use your phantasy as the only scientific method for explaining of evolutionary processes too.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


*Brainfahrt* You know, Vman, lets start with an appetizer. How old are you?

Then add how many more years it would take for you to be as old as the earth, however old you think it to be.

Do want answers this time! K start now. Bai.
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 07 2007,14:33

Why HARD the questions so here?  Very mad the mind of me go to lengths to answer simple the posed thoughts here.

Too HARD understand the wants of Darwinists.

How olde the earth not ever been to me askedd, this why I never any answer to you.

I always simply to answer you, but you clearly no ask of me these things.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 07 2007,16:05

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 07 2007,10:47)
Do you mean that removing red frequency from the light spectrum will cause that the light entering the eye should be perceived as green?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes. When talking about mixing of light frequencies:

White light = red + yellow + blue.

Green = yellow + blue.

Remove red from white, what's left?

Oh, and to avoid being totally off topic - how old is the Earth?
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Sep. 07 2007,16:27

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 07 2007,20:05)
Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 07 2007,10:47)
Do you mean that removing red frequency from the light spectrum will cause that the light entering the eye should be perceived as green?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes. When talking about mixing of light frequencies:

White light = red + yellow + blue.

Green = yellow + blue.

Remove red from white, what's left?

Oh, and to avoid being totally off topic - how old is the Earth?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Errr....I thought the primary colours of light were red green and blue. Yellow is a derivative of blue and green, isn't it?

[EDIT] < This guy > thinks I'm half right at least.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 07 2007,16:40

Well, what I recall from school was primary = blue, yellow, red. So which three colors correspond to having only one of our three types of color sense cells reacting to it at one time?
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Sep. 07 2007,16:53

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 07 2007,20:40)
Well, what I recall from school was primary = blue, yellow, red.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, they are the primary colours in terms of paint, apparently because blue is roughly comparative with cyan and red with magenta.

I learnt in secondary school the primary colours of light are red green and blue, and that they are the primary derivatives of white.
Posted by: Nerull on Sep. 07 2007,19:19

Paint and light have diffrent sets of primary colors. In light it is Red, Green, Blue. Computers use these three colors for everything too.

In astronomy we use red, green, and blue filters in separate exposures to produce a color image, because our CCDs don't have dedicated color pixels, unlike the CCDs in most digital cameras. This makes the CCD more sensitive, which we consider more important than easy color photos.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Sep. 08 2007,01:41



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh, and to avoid being totally off topic - how old is the Earth?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And when's its birthday?

Bob
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 08 2007,15:11

Re "And when's its birthday?"

Just imagine all the complications that'd be involved in trying to actually answer that... :p

Henry
Posted by: Doc Bill on Sep. 09 2007,17:58

I guess a larger question is why are YEC's so reticent to stand behind their claims of a young earth?

Why the "don't ask, don't tell?"

I've seen this behavior for decades and it's the same over and over.

Where's the conviction?
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 10 2007,06:26

Gosh, I was just wondering how old the earth is, and whether common ancestry is true. Should I ask VMartin for his thoughts on these matters? He's always been an upfront guy.
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 10 2007,10:14

Yeah.  I've always been curious about that too.  I don't think anyone has ever told me the truth about that.  It's a good thing that VMartin is here to do just that: tell the truth.
Posted by: VMartin on Sep. 10 2007,11:42

Before adressing nonsenses about the color perception (Why "knowledgeable evolutionists" do not read more about the complicated problem of the perception of colors and always try to defend completely nonsense green = white - red?) some words on topic.

According Buffon <<Histoire de la Terre>> from the midst 18 century the Earth was 75.000 years old. Charles Lyell in 1830 estimated the time of rocks to 230 millions years. Helmholtz and Kelvin estimated 100 millions years of the Earth as exaggerated.

I don't know if the nowadays estimation 5,4 mrd years is the final one and no other changes are possible.

But preliminary scientific dating of Cambrian explosion or mammalian "radiation" in Eocene is something I take for granted.

Because Darwin himself didn't suppose the Earth to be 5,4 mrd years old the question of the exact age of the Earth has no relation to mechanisms that govern evolution of life.

What I disagree is the neodarwinian explanation of evolution of organisms. On my view natural selection play no role in it.
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 10 2007,11:59

There's a progress, Martin but you're still not answering the question about common descent, which is separate from natural selection (we already knew you deny it).
And among all the estimations of the age of the Earth you provided, which one do you think is the most accurate?

BTW, the current estimation is 4.5 billion years, not 5.4.
Posted by: VMartin on Sep. 10 2007,12:21

Common descent is a complicated problem considering saltationism as a process of evolution. If a reptile hatched a bird there is no ancestor in common view, you know.

Btw. John Davison considered possibility that there were as many independent ancestors in Mammalia as there are mammalian Orders. There might have been many creation.
Posted by: Nerull on Sep. 10 2007,12:22

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 10 2007,11:42)
Before adressing nonsenses about the color perception (Why "knowledgeable evolutionists" do not read more about the complicated problem of the perception of colors and always try to defend completely nonsense green = white - red?) some words on topic.

According Buffon <<Histoire de la Terre>> from the midst 18 century the Earth was 75.000 years old. Charles Lyell in 1830 estimated the time of rocks to 230 millions years. Helmholtz and Kelvin estimated 100 millions years of the Earth as exaggerated.

I don't know if the nowadays estimation 5,4 mrd years is the final one and no other changes are possible.

But preliminary scientific dating of Cambrian explosion or mammalian "radiation" in Eocene is something I take for granted.

Because Darwin himself didn't suppose the Earth to be 5,4 mrd years old the question of the exact age of the Earth has no relation to mechanisms that govern evolution of life.

What I disagree is the neodarwinian explanation of evolution of organisms. On my view natural selection play no role in it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, white - red is a light blueish color.

Hey VMartin, that monitor your using, do you know how it creates those "complex colors"? By combining red, green, and blue.

Ever used a digital camera? Know how it perceives those "complex colors"? By using pixels sensitive to red, green, and blue and combining them.

Know how all color images on a PC store that complex color data? As red, green, and blue channels. They are combined when the image is displayed.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 10 2007,12:27

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 10 2007,12:21)
Common descent is a complicated problem considering saltationism as a process of evolution. If a reptile hatched a bird there is no ancestor in common view, you know.

Btw. John Davison considered possibility that there were as many independent ancestors in Mammalia as there are mammalian Orders. There might have been many creation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Martin, it's amazing how many things you can say 'in response' to a question without actually answering it. I'd love to see you in a grad school program if only to have you do this in response to your Masters Orals, or whatever the Slovakian equivalent is. I'm also dazzled by your ability to invoke Davison no matter what the subject is.

Anyway, let's get back on topic:

1) Do you believe common descent for humans and other primates is correct? True, or wicked Darwinist lie?

2) what figure for the age of the earth do you find most plausible?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 10 2007,13:16

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 10 2007,12:21)
There might have been
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh?
< "Results 1 - 10 of about 951,000 for "There might have been". >
According to google, there are almost a million hits for the exact phrase "there might have been".

Apparently there might have been almost a million things?

At least?

The point is, you gotta narrow it down y'know?

Fer'instance:

"There might have been a billion earths, each one with only one animal, and they all merged and there was 1 earth and a billion animals. And that."

No? Yet you say

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There might have been many creation
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Might there of? How illuminating! Well worth the price of entrance.

VMartin, 3 questions.

1: How old is the earth (and whens it's birthday?)
2: Do you believe common descent for humans and other primates is correct?
3: What do you do for a day job? B'coz I hope it's something well paid and satisfying as you're achieving bugger all here.

And an extra one for bonus points, before I hit submit...

Can you tell me a few hundred words about this "many creation" you mention? I presume you mean something like there was not just a single instance of creation, but many instances, in fact no species now extant could be here without a direct intervention by the "intelligent designer"

Can you do that VMartin? Only, no changing the subject if you give it a go. Stick to the topic  :p
Posted by: VMartin on Sep. 10 2007,13:42

Quote (Nerull @ Sep. 10 2007,12:22)
 
Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 10 2007,11:42)
Before adressing nonsenses about the color perception (Why "knowledgeable evolutionists" do not read more about the complicated problem of the perception of colors and always try to defend completely nonsense green = white - red?) some words on topic.

According Buffon <<Histoire de la Terre>> from the midst 18 century the Earth was 75.000 years old. Charles Lyell in 1830 estimated the time of rocks to 230 millions years. Helmholtz and Kelvin estimated 100 millions years of the Earth as exaggerated.

I don't know if the nowadays estimation 5,4 mrd years is the final one and no other changes are possible.

But preliminary scientific dating of Cambrian explosion or mammalian "radiation" in Eocene is something I take for granted.

Because Darwin himself didn't suppose the Earth to be 5,4 mrd years old the question of the exact age of the Earth has no relation to mechanisms that govern evolution of life.

What I disagree is the neodarwinian explanation of evolution of organisms. On my view natural selection play no role in it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, white - red is a light blueish color.

Hey VMartin, that monitor your using, do you know how it creates those "complex colors"? By combining red, green, and blue.

Ever used a digital camera? Know how it perceives those "complex colors"? By using pixels sensitive to red, green, and blue and combining them.

Know how all color images on a PC store that complex color data? As red, green, and blue channels. They are combined when the image is displayed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you place grey piece of paper to red backgound you will see the margin of the paper as green or bluegreen (Woodworth, Schlosberg 1959). You will see the opponent color. Obviously you see a color the spectrum frequency of which is not entering your eye.

Do you ever heard about Hering red-green channel? Do you ever heard about Opponent Process Colour Theory?

I am speaking about color perception which is much more complicated process as your mixing of simple colors in camera or printed journal.
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 10 2007,14:00

Thank God VMartin answered the simple question, "How old do you think the Earth is?"  Look, I'll just point it out here:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Before adressing nonsenses about the color perception (Why "knowledgeable evolutionists" do not read more about the complicated problem of the perception of colors and always try to defend completely nonsense green = white - red?) some words on topic.

Uh, hmmm.  Must be in the next paragraph

According Buffon <<Histoire de la Terre>> from the midst 18 century the Earth was 75.000 years old. Charles Lyell in 1830 estimated the time of rocks to 230 millions years. Helmholtz and Kelvin estimated 100 millions years of the Earth as exaggerated.

Nope, sorry.  The next one is the money paragraph

I don't know if the nowadays estimation 5,4 mrd years is the final one and no other changes are possible.

uh.....

But preliminary scientific dating of Cambrian explosion or mammalian "radiation" in Eocene is something I take for granted.

Teh stupid, it burns

Because Darwin himself didn't suppose the Earth to be 5,4 mrd years old the question of the exact age of the Earth has no relation to mechanisms that govern evolution of life.

What I disagree is the neodarwinian explanation of evolution of organisms. On my view natural selection play no role in it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I would like to apologize for the previous statement implying that there was an answer in the previous load of crap.

Come on, VMartin, if you're just going to be jaw-droppingly stupid, leave.  If you're going to stay, please be funny or interesting--wheichever floats your boat.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 10 2007,16:29

Blipey, you're unaccountably omitting this vtardian gem:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If a reptile hatched a bird there is no ancestor in common view, you know.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's made all the better by the fact that V fails to give us any hint as to what it has to do with anything.
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Sep. 11 2007,18:10

Arden:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Masters Orals, or whatever the Slovakian equivalent is
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, that would be the Blovius Juris, often translated from the Slovlatinskien as "verbose legalese," but which might more accurately be rendered as "orally fixated."  

This critical step in the Slovlatinskien educational system is abbreviated B.J., though that would not be a good reason to conflate Veemeron with a downtrodden worker of the red*-light district.

_
*Realizing that Vm has difficulty parsing color descriptors, let's just say that this is the color of the substance most often inserted into lipstick tubes.  At least, outside of Lower Slovlatinskia...
Posted by: hereoisreal on Sep. 11 2007,19:46

V:

If you place grey piece of paper to red backgound you will see the margin of the paper as green or bluegreen (Woodworth, Schlosberg 1959). You will see the opponent color. Obviously you see a color the spectrum frequency of which is not entering your eye.

Do you ever heard about Hering red-green channel? Do you ever heard about Opponent Process Colour Theory?

I am speaking about color perception which is much more complicated process as your mixing of simple colors in camera or printed journal.

******************************************

V, 'color perception' is a miracle in it's self... sorta like watching a live event on TV or a good movie re-run.  Also you can just close your eyes and fantasize or dream......4 choices.

1. Reality
2. Memory
3. Imagination
4. Dream (sleeping)

Zero
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Sep. 11 2007,19:49

Quote (hereoisreal @ Sep. 11 2007,23:46)
V:

If you place grey piece of paper to red backgound you will see the margin of the paper as green or bluegreen (Woodworth, Schlosberg 1959). You will see the opponent color. Obviously you see a color the spectrum frequency of which is not entering your eye.

Do you ever heard about Hering red-green channel? Do you ever heard about Opponent Process Colour Theory?

I am speaking about color perception which is much more complicated process as your mixing of simple colors in camera or printed journal.

******************************************

V, 'color perception' is a miracle in it's self... sorta like watching a live event on TV or a good movie re-run.  Also you can just close your eyes and fantasize or dream......4 choices.

1. Reality
2. Memory
3. Imagination
4. Dream (sleeping)

Zero
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought zero was....well I'm not sure, but I didn't think (s)he was coming back.

I'm equally unsure what the hell that was about.
Posted by: hereoisreal on Sep. 11 2007,20:46

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 11 2007,19:49)
I'm equally unsure what the hell that was about.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Think about it Ian.  Without # 1, you can't see
the other 3.

How light reaches you and me is much more
complex than how the super bowl reaches our
living rooms.  It might have been designed.

Zero
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 11 2007,21:05

Quote (hereoisreal @ Sep. 11 2007,20:46)
 
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 11 2007,19:49)
I'm equally unsure what the hell that was about.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Think about it Ian.  Without # 1, you can't see
the other 3.

How light reaches you and me is much more
complex than how the super bowl reaches our
living rooms.  It might have been designed.

Zero
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What, the Superbowl? Of course that was designed...
Posted by: hereoisreal on Sep. 11 2007,21:17

The following is story # 123 on my web site
at hereoisreal.com

SUPER BOWL
         One morning about five or six years ago, on a Superbowl Sunday, I had to go to the bathroom.  I had this terrible, terrible diarrhea - one of the worst that I had ever had - and I was thinking to myself, "Wow, this is a Super Bowl Sunday - I'll remember this one!"  I had in mind a huge toilet bowl.  I walked out of the bathroom and out into the yard to pick up the Sunday paper.  When I opened it up there was just one big picture on the front of the paper - a huge toilet bowl.

Zero
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 11 2007,22:41

HIR

Are you saying god...er the designer imagined the universe before he found a facsimile of his thoughts on a lawn and only found it memorable because he had "diarrhea".

Somehow I had in mind something more intelligent
Posted by: hereoisreal on Sep. 12 2007,04:28

k e, no, I'm saying nothing can be seen without light.

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

That's 'God' with a capital G.

Zero
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 12 2007,05:04

Quote (hereoisreal @ Sep. 12 2007,04:28)
k e, no, I'm saying nothing can be seen without light.

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

That's 'God' with a capital G.

Zero
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


no, it didn't.
Posted by: hereoisreal on Sep. 12 2007,05:37

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 12 2007,05:04)
Quote (hereoisreal @ Sep. 12 2007,04:28)
k e, no, I'm saying nothing can be seen without light.

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

That's 'God' with a capital G.

Zero
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


no, it didn't.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, what didn't what?

Zero
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 12 2007,05:39

Quote (hereoisreal @ Sep. 12 2007,05:37)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 12 2007,05:04)
Quote (hereoisreal @ Sep. 12 2007,04:28)
k e, no, I'm saying nothing can be seen without light.

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

That's 'God' with a capital G.

Zero
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


no, it didn't.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, what didn't what?

Zero
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

No, it didn't.

You might think it did, but that cuts no ice with me.
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 12 2007,05:59

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 12 2007,13:39)
Quote (hereoisreal @ Sep. 12 2007,05:37)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 12 2007,05:04)
 
Quote (hereoisreal @ Sep. 12 2007,04:28)
k e, no, I'm saying nothing can be seen without light.

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

That's 'God' with a capital G.

Zero
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


no, it didn't.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, what didn't what?

Zero
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

No, it didn't.

You might think it did, but that cuts no ice with me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah HIR while you now have our undivided tard-tention
You can clear up a few things for me.

1. Those womanly waters g-boy saw his face in....who created those? There is nothing in Genesis saying who created them.

Is that anything to do with the gender of the writers of Genesis? That they were all male and water is feminine?
You can bet if females wrote Genesis, water and the moon would have been created before anything else. Men would have been created to look after goats. All the prior mythologies were from goddess based agrarian cultures, those creation myths involve birth of a different nature. It was only when the semetic cattle herding warrior cults of the levant introduced a suitable god that supported polygamy,rape and pillage as a way of life that we are blessed with its end product the Bible.

2.
How could the writers make the simple mistake that god did everything in the dark? Or was the dark a semiotic reference to before dawn and therefore the void was a claustrophobic nightmare, an existential dilemma.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 12 2007,09:11

Quote (hereoisreal @ Sep. 12 2007,04:28)
k e, no, I'm saying nothing can be seen without light.

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

That's 'God' with a capital G.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was thinking more along the lines of 'gOd' with a capital "O".
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 12 2007,10:16

HAR HAR, CAPITAL NULL
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Sep. 12 2007,10:50

Quote (hereoisreal @ Sep. 12 2007,00:46)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 11 2007,19:49)
I'm equally unsure what the hell that was about.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How light reaches you and me is much more
complex than how the super bowl reaches our
living rooms.  It might have been designed.

Zero
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes. It also might have been created when some pirates stole gods treasure and needed some way of examining it.

Or when an elephant fell onto the eternal light switch or....

Absolutely anything is possible zero, without evidence, why is your concept better than my one? At least mine has pirates.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 12 2007,10:54

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 12 2007,10:50)
Quote (hereoisreal @ Sep. 12 2007,00:46)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 11 2007,19:49)
I'm equally unsure what the hell that was about.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How light reaches you and me is much more
complex than how the super bowl reaches our
living rooms.  It might have been designed.

Zero
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes. It also might have been created when some pirates stole gods treasure and needed some way of examining it.

Or when an elephant fell onto the eternal light switch or....

Absolutely anything is possible zero, without evidence, why is your concept better than my one? At least mine has pirates.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mine has ponies.
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 12 2007,11:06

Is this worth a new thread?  I mean, I'm really just trying to find out HOW OLD THE F*#@ING EARTH IS!!!

SOMEONE,  ANYONE (VMartin) JUST TELL ME!
Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 12 2007,11:53

Quote (blipey @ Sep. 12 2007,11:06)
Is this worth a new thread?  I mean, I'm really just trying to find out HOW OLD THE F*#@ING EARTH IS!!!

SOMEONE,  ANYONE (VMartin) JUST TELL ME!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, if thats all you need, FTK has the answer... anywhere between 6,000 and 6 billion years old.  

HTH :)
Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 12 2007,11:57

Quote (hereoisreal @ Sep. 11 2007,21:17)
The following is story # 123 on my web site
at hereoisreal.com

SUPER BOWL
         One morning about five or six years ago, on a Superbowl Sunday, I had to go to the bathroom.  I had this terrible, terrible diarrhea - one of the worst that I had ever had - and I was thinking to myself, "Wow, this is a Super Bowl Sunday - I'll remember this one!"  I had in mind a huge toilet bowl.  I walked out of the bathroom and out into the yard to pick up the Sunday paper.  When I opened it up there was just one big picture on the front of the paper - a huge toilet bowl.

Zero
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your story clearly this idicates that your god thinks you are a stupid piece of shit that should be flushed away immediately.

HTH, and Have a Nice day.

And so as it is written, so shall it be.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Sep. 12 2007,13:07

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 12 2007,14:54)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 12 2007,10:50)
 
Quote (hereoisreal @ Sep. 12 2007,00:46)
 
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 11 2007,19:49)
I'm equally unsure what the hell that was about.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How light reaches you and me is much more
complex than how the super bowl reaches our
living rooms.  It might have been designed.

Zero
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes. It also might have been created when some pirates stole gods treasure and needed some way of examining it.

Or when an elephant fell onto the eternal light switch or....

Absolutely anything is possible zero, without evidence, why is your concept better than my one? At least mine has pirates.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mine has ponies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Pirates RULE.


Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 12 2007,13:47

Bite me. Ponies rock. :angry:


Posted by: Kristine on Sep. 12 2007,15:04

Quote (blipey @ Sep. 12 2007,10:06)
Is this worth a new thread?  I mean, I'm really just trying to find out HOW OLD THE F*#@ING EARTH IS!!!

SOMEONE,  ANYONE (VMartin) JUST TELL ME!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think we need the radioactive half-life of VMartin's nonanswer...that would give us a clue. :p
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Sep. 12 2007,15:12

I don't think the half-life of Retardium has been reliably measured yet.

Maybe Vroomie could be enticed to volunteer a sample?
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 12 2007,15:51

Quote (Steviepinhead @ Sep. 12 2007,15:12)
I don't think the half-life of Retardium has been reliably measured yet.

Maybe Vroomie could be enticed to volunteer a sample?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, it's got to be less than 3,000 years, right?
Posted by: VMartin on Sep. 13 2007,00:07

There was a selectionist here who pursued me here and at Pharyngula. The  selectionist claimed that I am Davison. The poor selectionist made his weird conclusion analyzing of dating my and John posts at Brainstorm.

No wonder that studying of dating of evolutionary processes the poor selectionist came to the conclusion that there must have been a common descent.

Wasn't he Steviepinhead?
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Sep. 13 2007,07:42

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 13 2007,04:07)
There was a selectionist here who pursued me here and at Pharyngula. The  selectionist claimed that I am Davison. The poor selectionist made his weird conclusion analyzing of dating my and John posts at Brainstorm.

No wonder that studying of dating of evolutionary processes the poor selectionist came to the conclusion that there must have been a common descent.

Wasn't he Steviepinhead?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Be fair, you do pretty much repeat what JAD says without adding anything of your own.

I mean, you're willing to tell us what JAD says about things, but when asked yourself you turn into a coward and just run away and shout insults. It's pathetic really.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 13 2007,08:33


Ah, that takes me back. Captain Pugwash and his innocent adventures with seaman Staines and Master Bates...

Happy days!

< I must be suffering from false memory syndrome. >
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 13 2007,08:52

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 13 2007,00:07)
There was a selectionist here who pursued me here and at Pharyngula. The  selectionist claimed that I am Davison. The poor selectionist made his weird conclusion analyzing of dating my and John posts at Brainstorm.

No wonder that studying of dating of evolutionary processes the poor selectionist came to the conclusion that there must have been a common descent.

Wasn't he Steviepinhead?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


HOW OLD IS THE BLEEPING, GOD#%&*@!, F(@#^$* EARTH,YOU RETARD?

(Considerately all in caps because of your obvious blindness)
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 13 2007,09:24

Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 13 2007,16:33)

Ah, that takes me back. Captain Pugwash and his innocent adventures with seaman Staines and Master Bates...

Happy days!

< I must be suffering from false memory syndrome. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cripes that stuff was camp. Almost as bad as < Round the Horne > which amongst others featured the old English folk singer Rambling Syd Rumpo.

Edit: Just checked link to urban myth on Pugwash.... false memory indeed.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 13 2007,10:27

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 13 2007,07:42)
Be fair, you do pretty much repeat what JAD says without adding anything of your own.

I mean, you're willing to tell us what JAD says about things, but when asked yourself you turn into a coward and just run away and shout insults. It's pathetic really.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


C'mon V.

How old is the earth?

If Ian's correct (and he's got plenty of evidence), then you're just posting for a banned commenter which is in itself a bannable offense.

I would encourage you to say something original.  For instance, you might tell us how old you believe the earth to be, and do it without simply quoting or paraphrasing DAJ.
Posted by: Kristine on Sep. 13 2007,11:45

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 12 2007,23:07)
There was a selectionist here who pursued me here and at Pharyngula. The  selectionist claimed that I am Davison. The poor selectionist made his weird conclusion analyzing of dating my and John posts at Brainstorm.

No wonder that studying of dating of evolutionary processes the poor selectionist came to the conclusion that there must have been a common descent.

Wasn't he Steviepinhead?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That was how long ago? Almost a year? Let that = x.

x + y = z (age of the earth)

Plug in x and z and solve for y, VMartini. Or be a weenie.

I think the sun will go supernova before you answer.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 13 2007,12:03

Hey, Martin, now that you're back, are you ready to answer those two simple questions? I'm sure you are!

a) how old do you think the Earth is?
b) do you believe common descent between apes and humans is true?

No Davison quotes, please.
Posted by: VMartin on Sep. 13 2007,12:20

I thought that the age of the Earth is 5,4 billion years. But somebody corrected me it is only 4,5 billion years.

Anyway if you have some kind of darwininian credo about the age of the Earth and about about Natural selection , let me know. I see it is very important for you to know how old exactly the Earth is.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

HOW OLD IS THE BLEEPING, GOD#%&*@!, F(@#^$* EARTH,YOU RETARD?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




The mental got seizure.
It is recommended  to avoid reading books like "Selfish gene" and "Extended phenotype". Hot tea, walk in counryside without darwinian friends. Avoid thinking to "Natural selection" seeing various colors of insects.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 13 2007,13:18



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I thought that the age of the Earth is 5,4 billion years. But somebody corrected me it is only 4,5 billion years.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, why didn't you just say so in the first place. I suspect people were badgering you because the major opponents to evolution are Young Earth creationists who claim the Earth is 6.000 years old (sometimes 10,000). This eliminates you from that group.

I just wonder if your objection to TOE is religious. I did hear that there has been a revival of "fundamentalist" Catholicism in the wake of the emergence of Eastern Europe from the dominance of the former USSR. Your abhorrence of communism seems to tally here.
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 13 2007,14:39

Spectacular!

Let it be known throughout the world that VMartin thinks the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Sep. 13 2007,15:16

Vmareenie, you poor wiitle thing.

Have you been "pursued" by the bad old "selectionists" (which side of the Civil War were they on, anyway?)?

Gosh, and here I don't even recall getting up out of my chair (well, except for potty breaks).

To feel "pursued" by such as me, you must not be very swift.

Ah, but then, we knew that already.
Posted by: Kristine on Sep. 13 2007,15:51

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 13 2007,11:20)
I thought that the age of the Earth is 5,4 billion years. But somebody corrected me it is only 4,5 billion years.

Anyway if you have some kind of darwininian credo about the age of the Earth and about about Natural selection , let me know. I see it is very important for you to know how old exactly the Earth is.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

HOW OLD IS THE BLEEPING, GOD#%&*@!, F(@#^$* EARTH,YOU RETARD?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The mental got seizure.
It is recommended  to avoid reading books like "Selfish gene" and "Extended phenotype". Hot tea, walk in counryside without darwinian friends. Avoid thinking to "Natural selection" seeing various colors of insects.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just wondering - how has cavorting with your Darwinian “friends” here and at LIMPSID or whatever it’s called, and playing Look-I-have-ID (pun!;) to Pharyngula’s keg party, and banging on my door as you did previously (only to tell me you would “run away at every chance” even though I ultimately had to kick you off my blog) not affected you at all? Hm? Do you sip tea with any nonDarwinian companions? I mean, do you have any friends? Or are you like those right-wing fundy “anti-porn” activists who watch a lot of porn “but it’s okay because we watch it in twos—NEVER ALONE!” Just wondering. ;)

Also—may I rework your surrealist remarks into song lyrics to be set to music? “The mental got seizure” is priceless! (Kind of like “Baby got back.”) :)
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 13 2007,16:04

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 13 2007,12:20)
I thought that the age of the Earth is 5,4 billion years. But somebody corrected me it is only 4,5 billion years.

Anyway if you have some kind of darwininian credo about the age of the Earth and about about Natural selection , let me know. I see it is very important for you to know how old exactly the Earth is.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

HOW OLD IS THE BLEEPING, GOD#%&*@!, F(@#^$* EARTH,YOU RETARD?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




The mental got seizure.
It is recommended  to avoid reading books like "Selfish gene" and "Extended phenotype". Hot tea, walk in counryside without darwinian friends. Avoid thinking to "Natural selection" seeing various colors of insects.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Splendid, Martin. Now we're getting somewhere. And it only took 2 months to get you to say that!

BUT: We're only halfway there. You ignored the other question.

*ahem*

Martin:

Do you believe that the idea of common descent between man and primates is true?

Not what Davison thinks, not some irrelevant insult about 'Darwininian phantasys', what YOU think.

Go.
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Sep. 13 2007,16:41

With the "Go" part of that, certainly all of us would agree...

Sort of along the same lines, what did ana ever do to get everybody to ban her, anyway?

Hint: maybe it was her vivid, neon coloration, which certainly could never have been selected...
Posted by: BWE on Sep. 13 2007,18:35

Quote (k.e @ Sep. 12 2007,05:59)
How could the writers make the simple mistake that god did everything in the dark? Or was the dark a semiotic reference to before dawn and therefore the void was a claustrophobic nightmare, an existential dilemma.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like being stuck in a waiting room with a horny member of a different sexual persuasion? (read that gay for all you straight folks and vice-versa pc and all y'know)

For ever?
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 13 2007,19:46

Quote (BWE @ Sep. 14 2007,02:35)
Quote (k.e @ Sep. 12 2007,05:59)
How could the writers make the simple mistake that god did everything in the dark? Or was the dark a semiotic reference to before dawn and therefore the void was a claustrophobic nightmare, an existential dilemma.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like being stuck in a waiting room with a horny member of a different sexual persuasion? (read that gay for all you straight folks and vice-versa pc and all y'know)

For ever?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sounds more like hell, unless you dreamt it  :)

Do you have an uncontrollable desire to shave your legs?

Are you saying the male writers of Genesis were homo erotic?
Posted by: VMartin on Sep. 14 2007,14:52

There was a time when we had a colourless common ancestor. But "natural selection" gave us different coloration. Those who had not such coloration didn't survive. "Struggle for life" you know. We are "aposematics". We are now perfectly adapted to our "niches".


1

2

3
4

5


Enjoy the power of "natural selection"!
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 14 2007,15:14

Are you saying you're a ladybird beetle, VMartin?  Or an albino?
Posted by: Nerull on Sep. 14 2007,15:24

VMartin is very afraid of giving his own opinions on anything. The reason is JAD.

Much like VMartin is JADs only friend, JAD is VMartins only friend - but he's not completely braindead. He knows how JAD is. He knows that if he gives an opinion JAD doesn't like, he will throw him in with everyone else he hates. Then he will be all alone.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 14 2007,16:20

I just found a photo of Vmartin and JAD.  Anyone care to use the EF to determine which is which?


Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 14 2007,17:12

Marty, no one cares about your damn ladybugs. It's off topic anyway, and I thought you didn't like to get off topic.

Answer the question, Marty:

Do you believe that common descent between apes and humans is true?

Not some burbling from Davison, not some ESL snarl about 'Darwininian orthodoxy'. What YOU believe.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 14 2007,17:45

I didn't descent from no beetle!
:p
Posted by: VMartin on Sep. 14 2007,23:11



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Answer the question, Marty:

Do you believe that common descent between apes and humans is true?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I have answered many of your questions. It's your turn now. Some simple questions:


1) Are ladybirds aposematic?

2) What was the coloration of the ladybirds ancestor? Was it dull, cryptic or bright, aposematic?

If you think it is off topic here answer it at "coloration of fungi". Reading all nonsensses from "knowledgeable evolutionists" at this thread I am afraid nothing is off topic anymore.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Marty, no one cares about your damn ladybugs.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yo are wrong as usually. Darwinists continue in research of poisonous qualities of ladybirds (1994):


The defensive mechanisms which protect ladybird beetles (Coccinellidae) against predators are reviewed. Besides behavioural mechanisms, such as thanatosis and reflex bleeding, chemical defence mechanisms are playing a prevalent role.


< http://www.springerlink.com/content/q466422173wh8457/ >

But birds did not read the darwinian article and knew nothing of "chemical defence" of ladybirds. Birds still eat ladybirds like other beetles. They are not even scared by "reflex bleeding".
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 14 2007,23:26

No, seriously, Marty, no one here gives a fuck about your ladybugs. Quit changing the subject, you sillyass coward.

I will repeat:

Do you believe that common descent between apes and humans is true?

C'mon, Marty, you can do it! Davison won't punish you!

PS: It would also be nice to get your reply to < this > message.
Posted by: VMartin on Sep. 15 2007,00:20

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 14 2007,23:26)
No, seriously, Marty, no one here gives a fuck about your ladybugs. Quit changing the subject, you sillyass coward.

I will repeat:

Do you believe that common descent between apes and humans is true?

C'mon, Marty, you can do it! Davison won't punish you!

PS: It would also be nice to get your reply to < this > message.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


First you. No one cares of your f... apes you stupidos singleton.

1) Are ladybirds aposematic?

2) What was the coloration of the ladybirds ancestor? Was it dull, cryptic or bright, aposematic?


Mentioning  John Davison - he made a perfect fool of you at Brainstorm:

< http://www.iscid.org/ubb....70;p=62 >
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 15 2007,02:37

Martin

Why not repost on the appropriate thread?

Others

Before engaging this topic with Martin, you may wish to review < this EvC thread > and judge whether it is worth the effort.
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 15 2007,09:15

Oh, I think we knew going in it wasn't really the best use of time.  But as I've said before, the situation is somewhat mitigated by getting crackpots on record as crackpots.  That turns out to be useful from time to time.

Really, VMartin, you don't even have to answer the very simple question that my 6 year old nephew could form an answer to.  You just have to tell me WHY YOU WON'T ANSWER IT.

That may be as entertaining as anything else you could possibly do.

Just so you feel good:

1.  I'm an actor, so I may not be the best authority on aposematism, but I'll go with yeah, they are.  Most ladybird beetles are very brightly colored.  I would guess that this is beneficial because a large percentage of the other really brightly colored things in the world are poisonous.

2.  I have no idea what the color of their ancestors was.  And really, your question makes no sense as "aposematic" is not a color scheme, nor does the term necessarily refer to color.

See how easy that was.  Now, this is VERY IMPORTANT.  Don't take this as an excuse to continue off-topic with beetles.  I answered your questions in my own words (as I often tell Creationists to do themselves) to show you the value of doing such.

So, PLEASE ANSWER YOUR OWN ON-TOPIC QUESTION:

Do you believe in the common ancestory of apes and humans?

(Try not to be a dodging dolt anymore--it puts you in rather unsavory company.)
Posted by: VMartin on Sep. 15 2007,09:23

Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 15 2007,02:37)
Martin

Why not repost on the appropriate thread?

Others

Before engaging this topic with Martin, you may wish to review < this EvC thread > and judge whether it is worth the effort.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Alan, it is ridiculous. I quoted Heikertinger who disputed with E. Wasmann many years ago about supposedly mimicry coloration. The first was anti-selectionist, the second one selectionist. They were brilliant scientists and their dispute was followed by many European scientists. I quoted some Heikertinger opinions about the issue.

No one here have those knowledges of the mentioned men (including me).  It is utterly ridiculous to suppose that "knowledgeable evolutionists" here are able to follow the discussion or make judgment "it is worth the effort". You are funny, really.

You are also unable discuss anything about mimicry and  you only instruct me to go to another thread. Which thread?
With this stupid advice you make your useless and annoying entries at Brainstorm.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 15 2007,10:14

Martin, why are you afraid to answer that question about common descent?
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 15 2007,10:17

It was my understanding that this thread concerned VMartin's notions of the age of the earth, and the reality of common descent. Posts vis coloration seem wildly off topic.

VMartin, given that you acknowledge an ancient earth (4.5 billion years), I was wondering if you accept common descent. More narrowly, do you believe that other extant great apes and human beings share a common ancestor?

I certainly do. What are your thoughts on this crucially important matter? Just asking.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 15 2007,11:21



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You are also unable discuss anything about mimicry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Make a case for what you think is a better explanation for the observations and there may be something to discuss. So far, all we have had are variations on the theme of "This (insert appropriate example of mushrooms, slugs, ladybirds etc) is a problem for Darwinism.

You have to produce something  for discussion if you really want a discussion to take place.

(Hint: You could start with "this is a problem because (insert reason) and a better explanation is (insert hypothesis) because (cite evidence).)
Posted by: VMartin on Sep. 15 2007,14:25

Alan Fox:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So far, all we have had are variations on the theme of "This (insert appropriate example of mushrooms, slugs, ladybirds etc) is a problem for Darwinism.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's not my fault that above mentioned facts are problem for darwinism. Many scientists considered it same way. I quoted them.

But I can adress it elsewhere, you suggested me a thread about mimicry. Is there a thread on mimicry here at AtBC?

As to common ancestor of man and ape: I am surprised that people here are unable to address evolution of coloration of ladybirds, mushrooms etc... but they are obviously able to address such complicated problems as evolution of human speech, etc...

Why do you want to discuss the most compliacted phenomenon of the evolution (the evolution of man), when you cannot address simple evolutionary problems like coloration of insects or fungi? Unbelievable.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 15 2007,14:32

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 15 2007,15:25)
As to common ancestor of man and ape: I am surprised that people here are unable to address evolution of coloration of ladybirds, mushrooms etc... but they are obviously able to address such complicated problems as evolution of human speech, etc...

Why do you want to discuss the most compliacted phenomenon of the evolution (the evolution of man), when you cannot address simple evolutionary problems like coloration of insects or fungi? Unbelievable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, we are asking you to address the question. And surely these are among the most central questions in this domain, which is why we ask.

Do you believe in common ancestry? And, more narrowly, do you believe that extant apes and human beings share a common ancestor?

Just askin' VMartin. Not that complicated, and surely you have a response independent of whether we are able to address the question convincingly.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 15 2007,16:28



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As to common ancestor of man and ape: I am surprised that people here are unable to address evolution of coloration of ladybirds, mushrooms etc... but they are obviously able to address such complicated problems as evolution of human speech, etc...

Why do you want to discuss the most compliacted phenomenon of the evolution (the evolution of man), when you cannot address simple evolutionary problems like coloration of insects or fungi? Unbelievable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Bravo, Martin. Two paragraphs of babbling and STILL no answer.

I will ask again:

do YOU believe that common ancestry between humans and primates is true?

No irrelevant snarls about 'Darwinists': do YOU believe it's true?

All we're asking for is ONE word:

a) Yes

or

b) No.

Real simple, V.

I'm noticing a problem you have, Marty: you seem to really hate Darwinism, but you have no alternate explanations.
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 15 2007,16:52

VMartin said:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As to common ancestor of man and ape: I am surprised that people here are unable to address evolution of coloration of ladybirds, mushrooms etc... but they are obviously able to address such complicated problems as evolution of human speech, etc...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Uh, VMartin, as long as you are wildly, insanely, goofily off topic, could you at least argue coherently?

If you start a sentence with "As to common ancestor of man and ape..."

LISTEN CLOSELY HERE

the second part of your sentence should have something to do with the common ancestor of man and ape.

You, perhaps accidentally(?), finished your sentence with mushrooms.  Just saying....

Now, how about finishing the sentence with something that makes sense?  Or do we have to wait another two months for you to say anything coherent?
Posted by: Patrick Caldon on Sep. 16 2007,10:44

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 15 2007,00:20)
1) Are ladybirds aposematic?

2) What was the coloration of the ladybirds ancestor? Was it dull, cryptic or bright, aposematic?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi VM,

I vaguely remember pointing out to you the following:  there is a difference between the statements "I do not know the answer to X" and "X is false".

I recall you agreeing.

In any event, I have no fricking idea why ladybugs have different colors.  If you want to put 10-100 million dollars/euros/whatever towards a crack team of entymologists to work it all out, I'm sure someone can set up a big aviary and work out how to breed ladybugs, and sequence a hella-lotta ladybug genome and work out exactly, and come up with a reasonable answer for you, and provide employment for a few PI's and a great many grad students.

I'm reluctant to come up with the x million myself, because:

- I don't have it;
- if I did I know you'd immediately just ask why the yellow-bellied glider had a yellow belly, whereas the sugar glider doesn't; and
- there's many more useful charitable causes (even of a evolutionary nature) that the cash could be spent on, for instance in research into disease, or endangered species preservation, and indeed many grant bodies seem to share my biases.

So VM, given that you can't tell us whether man and ape has a common ancestor, can you at least answer this question (and save you, and me, and a bunch of charities several million dollars in the investigation of the Petaurus genus ...)

- Why do yellow bellied gliders have a yellow belly and sugar gliders do not?

Given that no-one has to my knowledge answered this question you would be providing a great contribution (on the level of a couple of Nature publications) if you could tell us the answer.

Or alternatively:

- Explain the coloration of ladybugs.  

Again, this is millions of dollars of salaries and taxpayer expenditure which you can apparently click you fingers at.

I also recall a discussion about swans, and vaguely recall saying something along the above lines (i.e. no-one seems to have got a big grant for bazillions to study swan coloration) ... why are black swans black and white swans white?

Why are zebra stripey and horses not stripey?

Given your theory is so powerful, perhaps you could answer one of these questions without having a team of grad students wear themselves out over answering it?

Or maybe you could tell us whether humans and apes have a common ancestor.  As it happens someone has bothered to study this question from a "Darwinian" perspective.  Teams of graduate students have fought (and probably died) to give you an answer from the "Darwinian" point of view, unlike gliders, ladybugs, zebras and swans, where funding is a bit trickier.

If you could therefore explain human-ape ancestry from a VMartin point-of-view, and explain how the millions spent on human-ape evolution (and not spent on ladybug, marsupial glider, zebra/horse, and swan) have been wasted, you would do us all a great service, as our society will then not go on to waste millions of dollars and years of researcher-time on ladybugs etc.

So how about it VM?  Now we've sequences a human and a chimp (unlike swans, ladybugs, zebra/horse and gliders - but if you want to fund this study I'm sure we can find you someone ...), what's your theory's view on human-ape ancestry?

It's not a hard question, and there's a lot of funding and research effort in this area (unlike just about every other species on the planet ... )  so an answer would be peachy.

How about it VM?  Do humans and apes have a common ancestor?  Why or why not?
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Sep. 17 2007,06:31



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why do you want to discuss the most compliacted phenomenon of the evolution (the evolution of man), when you cannot address simple evolutionary problems like coloration of insects or fungi? Unbelievable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What is your evidence that the evolution of man is "the most complicated phenomenon of the evolution"?  In what units do you measure the complicatedness of evolutionary phenomena?

And what is your theory, anyway?  Am I oversimplifying your/JAD's piddlings when I summarize them as "god made species evolve, then he/she/it died"?
Posted by: Kristine on Sep. 18 2007,15:24

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Sep. 17 2007,05:31)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why do you want to discuss the most compliacted phenomenon of the evolution (the evolution of man), when you cannot address simple evolutionary problems like coloration of insects or fungi? Unbelievable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What is your evidence that the evolution of man is "the most complicated phenomenon of the evolution"?  In what units do you measure the complicatedness of evolutionary phenomena?

And what is your theory, anyway?  Am I oversimplifying your/JAD's piddlings when I summarize them as "god made species evolve, then he/she/it died"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My theory is, God faked His own death because He was being sued. < Again >! :D

< Just like before >! (You didn't know God was sued over ID, did you? Case is still pending. Too bad Judge Jones can't preside.)

Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 19 2007,10:03

Jesus doesn't except sin? Except it from what, I wonder?  :p
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 19 2007,10:06

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 19 2007,10:03)
Jesus doesn't except sin? Except it from what, I wonder?  :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Henry, don't be a moran.  ;)
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Sep. 19 2007,16:15

Arden, have I got a maroon moraine for you!
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 19 2007,16:16

Quote (Steviepinhead @ Sep. 19 2007,16:15)
Arden, have I got a maroon moraine for you!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"E is for ecceptance -- the feeling I always got at Moe's."
Posted by: VMartin on Sep. 20 2007,11:59

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Sep. 17 2007,06:31)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why do you want to discuss the most compliacted phenomenon of the evolution (the evolution of man), when you cannot address simple evolutionary problems like coloration of insects or fungi? Unbelievable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What is your evidence that the evolution of man is "the most complicated phenomenon of the evolution"?  In what units do you measure the complicatedness of evolutionary phenomena?

And what is your theory, anyway?  Am I oversimplifying your/JAD's piddlings when I summarize them as "god made species evolve, then he/she/it died"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wouldn't be surprised if the evolution of man would be very simple in your eyes. Natural selection is so powerful (you have only to believe in it, that's all.)

Anyway if you are unable coherently discuss the coloration of animals you are probably an expert on coloration of human races. It is much more easier for you I suppose.

So:

What was the coloration of a common ancestor of human races?

What is the advantage and meaning of yellow, reddish and black skin? Should we apply darwinian mantras and consider black skin to be "cryptic"? And people with reddish or yellow skin to "aposematics"? Hehe.

But I am pretty sure you have no answer to evolution of coloration of skin of human races. All of you here are lost to explain coloration of insects...  no wonder you are also lost as to coloration of human races.
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Sep. 20 2007,13:31

Dark skin (lots of melanin) folks, prior to the last few several hundred years of exploration, colonialism, trade, and technology, lived in low latitudes with lots of sunlight, where protection from skin cancer would have been the primary selection pressure.

Lighter-skinned folk, prior to etc., lived in higher latitudes, with less incident insolation, where dark skin would not only not confer an advantage, but would tend to inhibit the formation of Vitamin D.

(I'm hoping you know what Vitamin D is, and why its absence might be a problem.)

Folks with medium tones (Mediterraneans, Asians, Native Americans) tended to live in intermediate latitudes.

The Inuit (and some people pursuing similar lifestyles in far north Asia) lived so far north that they were exposed to sunlight reflected off snow and ice for much of the year.  (You may never have spent a sunny, or even cloudy, day on a glacier absent eye and skin sun protection, given that you apparently live in some basement in Lower Trogdylvania.  If so, I wouldn't recommend the experiment: sunburned tongues, inner nostrils, roofs of mouths, and eyeballs isn't too healthy.  Eh, on the other hand, go ahead, give it a whirl, Mr. aposematics--it's no skin off my nose.) They were, again, somewhat darker-toned.

Are you beginning to see a fairly simple relationship between latitude, sun exposure, and degree of melanin in the skin, Vmaroon?

Eh, probably not.  Anyone else could've googled up a latitude/skin tone chart in about 30 seconds, before so blatantly exposing their ignorance.

And, humor-deafness.
Posted by: VMartin on Sep. 20 2007,13:59

Excellent! Do you have any ideas about coloration of ladybirds too? For instance that black ones live in high latitudes to warm themselves? And red ones live in low latitudes near shores to protect themselves in sun-sets?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 20 2007,14:12

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 20 2007,13:59)
Excellent! Do you have any ideas about coloration of ladybirds too? For instance that black ones live in high latitudes to warm themselves? And red ones live in low latitudes near shores to protect themselves in sun-sets?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Martin, do you believe that common descent between humans and apes is true?

Don't be afraid, little guy. You can do it!
Posted by: Nerull on Sep. 20 2007,15:12

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 20 2007,13:59)
Excellent! Do you have any ideas about coloration of ladybirds too? For instance that black ones live in high latitudes to warm themselves? And red ones live in low latitudes near shores to protect themselves in sun-sets?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because, obviously, its not possible that different animals could have evolved coloration differently or for different reasons.

VMartin, were you always this thick? Did you need training? Does JAD help with that? Beating you with plank until you lose enough brain cells to suit him?
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Sep. 20 2007,21:11

Vmushroom, I shouldn't really be interdicting Arden's efforts to get you to answer one simple question honestly and directly--though arguably the longer you take and the more you dance around, the more of a dishonest buffoon you look--but here's another real softball for you to swing at:

Why are some animals big and some animals small.

Pick some otherwise similar animals, just to make it easy on yourself (no admissions of common descent required): like puddy tats and lions (about 1:10) or river dolphins and killer whales or velociraptors and T-Rexes.

Just pick one and wade into it.  No neurons required.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 20 2007,23:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Because, obviously, its not possible that different animals could have evolved coloration differently or for different reasons.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Right - it wouldn't be efficient for the chemical(s) that cause the color to also be doing other things at the same time.

Henry
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 25 2007,15:19

Ready to share your opinion of common descent between apes and humans, Martin? It won't be off topic, here.

EDIT:

Whoops, he's already buggered off:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
25 guests, 15 Public Members and 1 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>Arden Chatfield >factician >dheddle >Gunthernacus >Thought Provoker >Cyril Ponnamperuma's Foot >J. G. Cox >Albatrossity2 >MrsPeng >Erasmus, FCD >oldmanintheskydidntdoit >Reciprocating Bill >jeannot >keiths >Occam's Toothbrush
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 25 2007,15:43

steviepinhead

I kind of wonder about caddisflies (trichoptera)  Hydroptilids are 3-7 mm.  the limnephilid Hydatophylax argus is > 250 mm.

surely that is proof of design.
Posted by: VMartin on Sep. 25 2007,23:58

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 25 2007,15:43)
steviepinhead

I kind of wonder about caddisflies (trichoptera)  Hydroptilids are 3-7 mm.  the limnephilid Hydatophylax argus is > 250 mm.

surely that is proof of design.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Trichoptera caddisfly? What a perfect mimicry! Or are they poisonous? Surely they were not designed.



And all of these guys survived "natural selection" because they are perfectly "adapted". Predators have no chance to eradicate them as species.


Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 26 2007,09:51



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Trichoptera caddisfly? What a perfect mimicry! Or are they poisonous? Surely they were not designed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So could you lay out your explanation of why caddisflies are colored the way they are, Martin?

And while you're at it, we're STILL waiting for your verdict on common descent between apes and humans.

C'mon, big fella! Don't be so afraid! Davison wants you to make a good impression here!
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Sep. 26 2007,16:58

Nobody claims--and certainly no one with even a smattering of knowledge about biology and the ToE--that any organism is "perfectly" adapted.

Maroon.  Explain that coloration, Vmaroonie.  Start by looking in a mirror.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 26 2007,17:06

mimicry of what?
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Oct. 02 2007,17:02

Do you spend a lot of time standing in the vicinity of old Dodge Caravans, Vmaroonie?

And are you shy?

Otherwise, I'm having a hard time coming up with an evolutionary explanation of that maroon tint you bear...

Shall we mark that one down as an example of the PEH?  Or as a yet-unresolved mystery of the TeH?

What's your take, sweetie?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 14 2007,20:42

Am I the only one who thinks that < this > ESL troll at Panda's Thumb is very likely our VMartin with too much time on his hands?:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Reffering to someone’s commment on this page about a crime happened in the past : evolution did not happen in the past - there is no evidence for it in the fossils record. I was brain washed with evolution in high school; had to memorize stages of the horse evolution and human embrion develpoment : so called recapitulation theory. The last discredited as fraud commited by German “scientist” Heckel. To my surprise in my daughter’s biology textbook they are still there after 30 years.Not much had changed in the “scientific” mind of the evolutionary society. Reading evolutionists’s works who use “science” of “maybe” or “perhaps” for support, one can not resist an impression that they are very similar to medieval monks’ disputations as to how many devils would fit on a tip of a pin.Problem I have is: evolutionism cost a taxpayer a lot of money that can be used in much better way. A.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



or,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I believe all you guys have accepted new religion .What I see a problem as a taxpayer is that when you start to bend you data to accommodate your beliefs, damage can be done to people who are sick for instance: remember so called “vestigial organs”? There were many removed indiscriminately and unnecessary and vestigial organs turned out to be not so vestigial after all….
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You bias is appaling, you mind is as opened as tiny little hole in camera obscura. Read the quotation of Lewontin i supplied above, again. Saying that ,he spat in your evolutionary face and you wiped it out and saying : it is raining. It is not that I refused to listen to you evolutionary argument ,it is because you can not provide any argument to support your religious zeal ,that is why you kept abusing me all the way. Why , you evolutionnists have to attack the Bible or creationists to support your claims ,anyway ?. Did I said I was a creationinst ? I asked some questions after doing some internet research being high school educated and taken my biology classes seriously.I can thank God that I did not allowed myself to be as completely brainwashed as you are. I had a discussion with another “pundits” of your denomination who had an internet site with a message “ The Bible can not be taken literally therefore I am an evolutionist”. I was abused in similar manner afer asking similar questions and finally he said he had to go back to school. I think he was a teacher.Poor high school kids. Finally it is not me who came here with a lie, it is you and your like zelots who have been pertpetrated the lie ever since. The problem is, soome people take evolution the lie seriously.I can name two after Heckael : Hitler and Stalin. You are smart enough to go on Google and find soom emore about the two.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I see only two hints that this ISN'T Marty: (1) I have a hard time seeing Marty having a daughter (heaven forfend), and (2) he never mentions Davison. Other than that, it sounds EXACTLY like him.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 14 2007,20:47

Quote (Nerull @ Sep. 20 2007,16:12)
VMartin, were you always this thick? Did you need training? Does JAD help with that? Beating you with plank until you lose enough brain cells to suit him?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


reminds me of the great line from The Long Kiss Goodnight, which had a lot of great lines:

Charlie: Were you always this stupid, or did you take lessons?
Mitch Henessey: (Indignantly) I Took Lessons!
Posted by: VMartin on Oct. 15 2007,00:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I see only two hints that this ISN'T Marty: (1) I have a hard time seeing Marty having a daughter (heaven forfend), and (2) he never mentions Davison. Other than that, it sounds EXACTLY like him.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's sounds like me, but it's not me. Something like similarity, mimicry, you know. Darwinian simpletons to deceive is so easy. Hu: natural selection, darwinism: it must be Martin! The same the last time I was banned here: an moron comparing time postings at ISCIS and here came to conclusion me to be John. Do you remember?



Btw. Im am glad that only darwinists are allowed by natural selection to gave children, especially daughters.
Posted by: blipey on Oct. 15 2007,08:29

The important thing to know is whose children are getting gaved?  This is what people want!  Sure Darwinists gave children to those poor saps who only had 14 welfare tickets, but where did they come from?
Posted by: VMartin on Oct. 31 2007,15:30

Erasmus about professor Zdenek Neubauer at the thread
"Evolution of the horse":

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

If it was worth a damn, in 2007, it would be translated.  This is not a monk growing peas here.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't know.  I suppose that it took more than 40 years
(1926 vs 1969) Leo Berg's Nomogenesis had been available in English. Oddly enough his theory influenced also linguistic.

"The impact of Czech and Russian biology on the linguistic thought of the Prague Linguistic Circle"


Jakobson constantly refers to Berg when he strives to fight the Neo-grammarian principle of strict causality, and puts forward his own anti-darwinism. For instance, in 1927, in his Remarks on the phonological evolution of Russian, he explicitely opposes Darwin's conception of evolution by divergence to Berg's conception of evolution by convergence of non related species on the same territory.
etc...

< http://www2.unil.ch/slav/ling/recherche/biblio/99Impact.html >

The work of the founder of orthogenesis Theodor Eimer has not been translated into English at all - as far as I know. The same for the work of the anti-selectionist Franz Heikertinger about mimicry - nothing has been translated into English. The same for Adolf Portmann etc...


So your opinion that all important works are available in English is not correct. (Even some very interesting novels and works from Fyodor Dostoevsky has not been translated into English yet.)
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 31 2007,15:53

Well, Vicky, you better get cracking on those translations.  You have a conspiracy to overthrow.

Interesting how you neglect my questions about your view of the source of heredity.  the german school had to fight particulate inheritance because it was the empirical finding that destroyed their theory.  in 40 years one may forget that sort of thing.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 31 2007,16:29

Marty, you're off topic for this thread.

The question: do you believe that common descent between humans and apes is true?
Posted by: VMartin on Oct. 31 2007,16:38

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 31 2007,15:53)
Well, Vicky, you better get cracking on those translations.  You have a conspiracy to overthrow.

Interesting how you neglect my questions about your view of the source of heredity.  the german school had to fight particulate inheritance because it was the empirical finding that destroyed their theory.  in 40 years one may forget that sort of thing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's not conspiracy what John Davison (and I) are trying to overthrow. It's ignorance. Heredity is not the issue now. German school wasn't destroyed by "empirical facts". It wasn't destroyed at all (except in darwinian heads). Their arguments were simply "forgotten" and declared as "outdated" afterwards. But only darwinists pretend victory by neglecting all arguments, puzzles and ideas on evolution that "German school" collected and showed up. The period of anti-darwinian "German school" is very long - and it is only you who dismissed all their researches ad hoc.

I am afraid you are not aware that "German school" is not limited to Germany, because it influenced many Univesties across Europe. Because you dont't probably know anything about it, you dismiss it as a whole.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 31 2007,16:41

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 31 2007,16:38)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 31 2007,15:53)
Well, Vicky, you better get cracking on those translations.  You have a conspiracy to overthrow.

Interesting how you neglect my questions about your view of the source of heredity.  the german school had to fight particulate inheritance because it was the empirical finding that destroyed their theory.  in 40 years one may forget that sort of thing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's not conspiracy what John Davison (and I) are trying to overthrow. It's ignorance. Heredity is not the issue now. German school wasn't destroyed by "empirical facts". It wasn't destroyed at all (except in darwinian heads). Their arguments were simply "forgotten" and declared as "outdated" afterwards. But only darwinists pretend victory by neglecting all arguments, puzzles and ideas on evolution that "German school" collected and showed up. The period of anti-darwinian "German school" is very long - and it is only you who dismissed all their researches ad hoc.

I am afraid you are not aware that "German school" is not limited to Germany, because it influenced many Univesties across Europe. Because you dont't probably know anything about it, you dismiss it as a whole.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay, Marty, complete this sentence:

"German school have prove that the Darwinismus is wrong. Instead, what is the true is _"

Fill in the blank.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Oct. 31 2007,16:41

Should this thread be called VMartin's mental illness?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 31 2007,16:42

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Oct. 31 2007,16:41)
Should this thread be called VMartin's mental illness?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"VMartin's pathology" seems snappier.
Posted by: VMartin on Oct. 31 2007,17:04

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Oct. 31 2007,16:41)
Should this thread be called VMartin's mental illness?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If there is anyone ill here it is you and your "darwinian" friends who believe in "natural selection". I am trying to help you, open your sleepy ignorant eyes.

It's free of charge.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Oct. 31 2007,17:10

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 31 2007,17:04)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Oct. 31 2007,16:41)
Should this thread be called VMartin's mental illness?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If there is anyone ill here it is you and your "darwinian" friends who believe in "natural selection". I am trying to help you, open your sleepy ignorant eyes.

It's free of charge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, what you're doing is advertising your mental illness.  That's why I seldom venture into your threads, it's sad to see people suffer, no matter how stupid they are.

Fuck off.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 31 2007,17:12

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 31 2007,17:04)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Oct. 31 2007,16:41)
Should this thread be called VMartin's mental illness?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If there is anyone ill here it is you and your "darwinian" friends who believe in "natural selection". I am trying to help you, open your sleepy ignorant eyes.

It's free of charge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay, help us right now: is common descent true?
Posted by: VMartin on Nov. 01 2007,01:49

Christopher



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

No, what you're doing is advertising your mental illness.  That's why I seldom venture into your threads, it's sad to see people suffer, no matter how stupid they are.

Fuck off.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So why are you responding? Any problems at your work?  
Have your boss reproved you not to annoy your collegaues with endless lectures about "natural selection" and "evolution in action"? So you are relaxing here (fuck off etc...), yes?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Nov. 01 2007,08:29

Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 01 2007,01:49)
Christopher

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

No, what you're doing is advertising your mental illness.  That's why I seldom venture into your threads, it's sad to see people suffer, no matter how stupid they are.

Fuck off.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So why are you responding? Any problems at your work?  
Have your boss reproved you not to annoy your collegaues with endless lectures about "natural selection" and "evolution in action"? So you are relaxing here (fuck off etc...), yes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Martin, since you think you're here to 'help us', start now: do you believe common descent between apes and humans is correct?

I think that's about all you could possibly contribute, since you've admitted you have nothing positive to offer biology, and have no idea what the cause of variation in nature is.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Nov. 01 2007,15:33

Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 01 2007,01:49)
Christopher

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

No, what you're doing is advertising your mental illness.  That's why I seldom venture into your threads, it's sad to see people suffer, no matter how stupid they are.

Fuck off.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So why are you responding? Any problems at your work?  
Have your boss reproved you not to annoy your collegaues with endless lectures about "natural selection" and "evolution in action"? So you are relaxing here (fuck off etc...), yes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Vtard, pay close attention.  You can try and evangelize me and "my" Darwin buddies all you want, but keep in mind I don't lay awake at night thinking one minute about Darwin, biology, science or evolution.  These are interesting subjects for a discussion with educated minds over coffee from time to time, but not something I give two seconds thought about in an ordinary day.  

I just love seeing people like you exposed as the lying fools that you are.  Period.

I love seeing fundy religious nut cases (such as yourself) lose.  That's all.  

Yeah maybe it's not nice, oh well.  I just have a thing for watching lying, x-tian bastards get theirs whether in federal court or the public eye, I love a good public humiliation of fundy retards who want to shove their IDiotic notions down everyone else's throats while attempting to pollute our children's minds with their evil religion.  

Period :-)

So carry on your evangelizing while I make some more popcorn.  You're a one man tard fest and for that I say thank you!

Chris!
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 04 2007,12:43

I've shifted meta-discussion to the Bathroom Wall thread.
Posted by: VMartin on Nov. 10 2007,00:50

Erasmus arguments why aposematic insects haven't peopled the Earth detering all their predators with their "protective" coloration and "poisonous" qualities:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;st=240 >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

...lions aren't protected by noxious chemicals and have no predators.  why don't they people the whole earth?  blue whales?  brown tree snakes?  grizzly bears?  bahhh.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------





Maybe lions are too lazy to support neodarwinian idea of proliferation of the strogest. They almost oversleep all day doing nothing. They are not so vivid as rats and mice that are far better example of "struggle for life".

Medieval kings put the lion on their coat of arms. They considered him to be the  king of animals. It's a pity nobody could instruct them at those dark times about population genetic. Neodarwinian would have had a rat on his coat of arms. Rats are best adapted to various niches and win "struggle for life" everywhere. Lion couldn't survive a day in the sewage conduit.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Nov. 10 2007,02:07

You're babbling, Marty. AND off-topic.

If you go back to the first message on this thread, the questions are:

1) do you believe common descent is correct?
2) how old is the earth?

You answered the second. Since being 'on-topic' is so important for you, answer the first now:

do you believe common descent between apes and humans is true?

Bet you're still afraid to answer.
Posted by: VMartin on Nov. 30 2007,05:08

The thread about aposematism has been closed. Anyway according to my "cosmology" coloration of animals presents only some kind of species self-representation. Especially so called "warning coloration" of insects do not give them often any survival advantage. I am discussing the problem of wasps coloration at EvC forum, so if you would like to know more about  my arguments go there. (I dare say there is really discussion at EvC, no one uses denigration there instead arguments (idiot, Croatian old teacher,  etc...) except one person, who's access has been suspended because of it.)  

Of course I am ready to discuss any insect aposematism here ( also butterflies etc...). But because the topic and my person seems to be not wellcome here I would not start it again. Unless somebody ask me and admin would allow it.

Thank you.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 30 2007,09:52

Marty, why don't you just lay out your theory instead?  It shouldn't be that hard, right?  You've got one, right? That would make Lou and everyone else happy, no?

Your 'discussions' are nothing more than hand-waving and question begging.

I for one would love a thread where we could actually talk about your ideas instead of how wrong you (in simple ignorant error) believe the ideas of others to be.  

But I think the reason why we don't is that you don't have any ideas.  None, except some magical cosmic notion of progress and just enough sense to fall on your own sword.  It is entertaining to watch you fake the English-as-a-second-language gambit then drop the ball and you use some american slang.  love it.  mean it.
Posted by: VMartin on Nov. 30 2007,14:03

Reading the book "Evolutionary biology" by Jaroslav Flegr Charles Uni Prague, Department of Parasitology,  I hit on the name and quotation of some thoughts of professor John Davison.  Flegr has written that precursors of sexual cells migrate into gonads from different places. It means that sexual cells in different groups of Vertebrata are non-homologous (page 240).

John Davison's Manifesto and his ""Evolution as self limiting process" are listed in the Literature of this 500 hundered pages book published by Academy of Science of Czech republic.

< http://www.natur.cuni.cz/~flegr/book_evbiol.php >
Posted by: Richard Simons on Nov. 30 2007,22:59

VMartin - I thought you were going to tell us your theory.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Nov. 30 2007,23:28

Quote (Richard Simons @ Nov. 30 2007,22:59)
VMartin - I thought you were going to tell us your theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I absolutely guarantee you that will not happen.
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 14 2007,11:11

LOU at the thread "Evolution of the horse"



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Until then, talking to you will sadly remain much like talking to that computer - circles and circles without end or hope of substance but minus the fun.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I suppose it is only neodarwinian theories which we are discussing here.

But I think there is a created world which has it's own rules. Those rules inevitable directed evolution towards man. It is old concept of great men of the Rennaissance (like Giordano Bruno) who used for it the expression anima mundi . The same notion is vivid in Orthodox Russian and Greek church under the name Sophia .
These theories cannot be proved/disproved with limited  
scope of the science.

The theory discussed here is neodarwinism. We can use limited knowledes of science to discuss it if it is true or not. So keep the topic please:  is neodarwinism valid explanation of the secret of evolution?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 14 2007,11:15

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,11:11)
LOU at the thread "Evolution of the horse"



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Until then, talking to you will sadly remain much like talking to that computer - circles and circles without end or hope of substance but minus the fun.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I suppose it is only neodarwinian theories which we are discussing here.

But I think there is a created world which has it's own rules. Those rules inevitable directed evolution towards man. It is old concept of great men of the Rennaissance (like Giordano Bruno) who used for it the expression anima mundi . The same notion is vivid in Orthodox Russian and Greek church under the name Sophia .
These theories cannot be proved/disproved with limited  
scope of the science.

The theory discussed here is neodarwinism. We can use limited knowledes of science to discuss it if it is true or not. So keep the topic please:  is neodarwinism valid explanation of the secret of evolution?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Keep to the topic?

Go back to page 1, Marty. < Here > is the 'topic'. You never answered question one. Care to try now?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 14 2007,11:18

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,11:11)
Those rules inevitable directed evolution towards man.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What rules?
Who made them?
How are they directing evolution?
Why are they directing evolution towards "man".

How can you say that evolution is over when real scientists are saying the opposite?
< http://www.newscientist.com/article....te.html >
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Human evolution is speeding up. Around 40,000 years ago our genes began to evolve much faster. By 5000 years ago they were evolving 30 to 40 times faster than ever before and it seems highly likely that we continue to evolve at this super speed today.

Our population explosion and rapidly changing lifestyles seem to be the drivers of this acceleration, the discovery of which contradicts the widely held notion that our technological and medical advances have removed most of the selection pressures acting upon us.

This stunning insight into humanity's development comes from a wide-ranging study of human gene variants gathered by the international HapMap project. Investigators led by John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, studied 3.9 million simple differences in DNA called single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs, pronounced "snips") from 270 individuals, including people of Han Chinese, Japanese, Yoruban and northern European extraction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


More < here >
The data was from a wide-ranging study of human gene variants. The data is there. It's not agreeing with you.

Game over VMartin.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Dec. 14 2007,11:36

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,12:11)
I suppose it is only neodarwinian theories which we are discussing here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, Marty.  We'd like to discuss your theory.  Which part of that is too difficult for you to understand?  You are not only permitted, but you are encouraged to discuss your theory.  Can you not read the thread title?

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,12:11)
But I think there is a created world which has it's own rules.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ok, very good.  We've got a start here, because you are freaking finally saying something more than "Darwin Sucks -Dohn A. Javison".

Now, you've asserted that the created world in your theory has some rules.  Could you please enumerate them, elaborate on the ones that might be unclear, and provide some evidence that these rules exist?  Then we can move on to more complicated things.


Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,12:11)
Those rules inevitable directed evolution towards man.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, no, no.  You've skipped a few steps.  Go back to my previous comment.  Please tell us what rules you believe exist, and provide some evidence of that.


Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,12:11)
It is old concept of great men of the Rennaissance (like Giordano Bruno) who used for it the expression anima mundi . The same notion is vivid in Orthodox Russian and Greek church under the name Sophia .
These theories cannot be proved/disproved with limited  
scope of the science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm sure you'll be happy to elucidate the relevance of these statements.  After all, Rennaissance [sic] men also held to the concept of predicting the future by smoking weed and drinking a bowl of cow piss (or whatever).  That also has little to do with how man came to be (biologically speaking).

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,12:11)
The theory discussed here is neodarwinism. We can use limited knowledes of science to discuss it if it is true or not. So keep the topic please:  is neodarwinism valid explanation of the secret of evolution?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, no, no.  Again, read the title of this thread.  This thread is about "VMartin's Cosmology".  So keep to the topic please.

Stop evading and give us some specifics of your kick-ass scientific theory that will overthrow the very foundations of modern biology.


Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 14 2007,11:37

theyoungmanphilosophe

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

What rules?
Who made them?
How are they directing evolution?
Why are they directing evolution towards "man".

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And towards the Highest. Spiritual forces. Beyond scope of the science. Would you like to use science to explain
supernatural?

The evolution is over. We have discussed it already. No new mammalian Order last 30 millions years (except Pinnipedia). Diversification of mammals is decreasing. See research of fossils in John Day fossil Beds done also by neodarwian scientist Gingerich.


The period of 39 to 20 million years ago (John Day Formation) seems to harbor the greatest diversity in
known fossils of families and genera. Current diversity
of families and genera of the basin assessment
area does not match that of this time period,
and would even be far less if only current-day
mid- and large-bodied mammals (to match those
taxa more likely to persist and be discovered in
the fossil record) of sagebrush-steppe communities
were considered.


< http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr_410/pg069-79.pdf >

It agrees with John Davison's quotation of Robert Broom who also claimed that mammalin evolution is over.
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 14 2007,11:52

LOU



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

After all, Rennaissance [sic] men also held to the concept of predicting the future by smoking weed and drinking a bowl of cow piss (or whatever).  That also has little to do with how man came to be.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Do you mean Copernikus, Kepler and Bruno? That's a brand new theory. You should introduce it refuting Frances Yates conception of theories of those men. She as a prominent historian studied philosophy of those men all her life.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 14 2007,11:56

I think it's time to euthanize this thread.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Dec. 14 2007,12:07

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,12:52)
LOU

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

After all, Rennaissance [sic] men also held to the concept of predicting the future by smoking weed and drinking a bowl of cow piss (or whatever).  That also has little to do with how man came to be.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Do you mean Copernikus, Kepler and Bruno? That's a brand new theory. You should introduce it refuting Frances Yates conception of theories of those men. She as a prominent historian studied philosophy of those men all her life.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It was more of a general statement, V.  The point was that the idea that a given concept is valid just because Rennaissance [sic] men believed it is a rather silly invocation of an appeal to authority.

Now, back to your theory...
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 14 2007,13:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It was more of a general statement, V.  The point was that the idea that a given concept is valid just because Rennaissance [sic] men believed it is a rather silly invocation of an appeal to authority.

Now, back to your theory...


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why don't you splash this thread away? You are the master. Go ahead darling.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 14 2007,14:06

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,13:56)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It was more of a general statement, V.  The point was that the idea that a given concept is valid just because Rennaissance [sic] men believed it is a rather silly invocation of an appeal to authority.

Now, back to your theory...


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why don't you splash this thread away? You are the master. Go ahead darling.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Uf, we'd much rather hear your alternative to the Darwinismus. I hope your interest in telling us will arouse.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Dec. 14 2007,14:12

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,14:56)
Why don't you splash this thread away? You are the master. Go ahead darling.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The theory, V.  Get to the theory.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Dec. 14 2007,14:31

Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 14 2007,14:12)
Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,14:56)
Why don't you splash this thread away? You are the master. Go ahead darling.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The theory, V.  Get to the theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


6 pages and he is still unable to answer those two questions.  I think they are probably too sciency even for him.

Maybe you could give Martin something easier to answer, like count your nose or maybe what primary colors make the color green?  Or how many IDiots does it take to come up with a testable theory.

I'm just trying to be helpful and again, 6 pages and he's still incapable of answering two simple questions suggests the questions are over his head.  No sense in calling a dope a dope over and over.  

So in all fairness, give him some questions his intellect can withstand.  Start with "count your nose" and see if he can get that one right.  And don't ANYONE help him.  That defeats the purpose.
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 14 2007,14:32

Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 14 2007,14:12)
Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,14:56)
Why don't you splash this thread away? You are the master. Go ahead darling.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The theory, V.  Get to the theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And then you will splash it away. You are the Lord of atheistic keys here.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 14 2007,14:37

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,14:32)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 14 2007,14:12)
 
Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,14:56)
Why don't you splash this thread away? You are the master. Go ahead darling.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The theory, V.  Get to the theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And then you will splash it away. You are the Lord of atheistic keys here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What religion are you, Marty?

Are you one of those religions that says that common descent is false?

C'mon Marty. The alternative to the atheist Darwinismus please be giving to us now.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Dec. 14 2007,14:42

Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 14 2007,15:12)
The theory, V.  Get to the theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 14 2007,16:09

The thread about aposematism has been closed by  new administrator LOU who likes only topic backing up neodarwinian points of view (contrary to the administration rules of more liberal Elsberry).

The problem of bright coloration of catterpilars was a puzzle for Darwin (obviously not for LOU). As far as I know Darwin insisted on natural selection even if in this case it doesn't work. He said somethig like " I will believe in Natural selection even if in this case (bright coloration of caterpillars) it is not valid explanation of the phenomena". (According antidarwinian evolutionist Heikertiner.)
I cannot find out his letters about the topic which Darwin discussed with Wallace and Bates. Why is this one  unavailable - and especially the one with his credo about natural selection as the source of bright coloration of caterpillars?

< http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-5415.html >
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 14 2007,16:21

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,16:09)
The thread about aposematism has been closed by  new administrator LOU who likes only topic backing up neodarwinian points of view (contrary to the administration rules of more liberal Elsberry).

The problem of bright coloration of catterpilars was a puzzle for Darwin (obviously not for LOU). As far as I know Darwin insisted on natural selection even if in this case it doesn't work. He said somethig like " I will believe in Natural selection even if in this case (bright coloration of caterpillars) it is not valid explanation of the phenomena". (According antidarwinian evolutionist Heikertiner.)
I cannot find out his letters about the topic which Darwin discussed with Wallace and Bates. Why is this one  unavailable - and especially the one with his credo about natural selection as the source of bright coloration of caterpillars?

< http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-5415.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See page one, Marty. That's not what this thread is for.

You really are obsessed with caterpillars. You need to get out more.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Dec. 14 2007,16:21

is vmartin herezeroisreal's sock puppet? neither seems capable of answering a simple question and neither is able to make any sense.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Dec. 14 2007,16:24

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,17:09)
The thread about aposematism has been closed by  new administrator LOU who likes only topic backing up neodarwinian points of view (contrary to the administration rules of more liberal Elsberry).

The problem of bright coloration of catterpilars was a puzzle for Darwin (obviously not for LOU). As far as I know Darwin insisted on natural selection even if in this case it doesn't work. He said somethig like " I will believe in Natural selection even if in this case (bright coloration of caterpillars) it is not valid explanation of the phenomena". (According antidarwinian evolutionist Heikertiner.)
I cannot find out his letters about the topic which Darwin discussed with Wallace and Bates. Why is this one  unavailable - and especially the one with his credo about natural selection as the source of bright coloration of caterpillars?

< http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-5415.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So we're back to "Darwin Sucks"?

V, I've practically been BEGGING you to advance a hypothesis, ANY hypothesis, and support it to replace modern evolutionary theory.

You have repeatedly and exclusively declined in favor of "Darwin Sucks".

To accuse me of censoring your theory when you refuse to advance one is disingenuous and rather infantile.

Please take this opportunity to advance your replacement hypothesis and attempt to support it.  If you can do that, you may very well have the paradigm shifting theory that the Intelligent Design movement has been craving since its stillbirth from creationism.
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 14 2007,16:35

The point is not my hypothesis. It cannot be proved or disproved. I have already written down about it.

The point is that neodarwinian view is wrong on my opinion. That's my "cosmology". I have introduced many arguments why it is wrong. I would like to discuss it. If my arguments are wrong I would like to know why.

Thank you.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 14 2007,16:38

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,16:35)
The point is not my hypothesis. It cannot be proved or disproved. I have already written down about it.

The point is that neodarwinian view is wrong on my opinion. That's my "cosmology". I have introduced many arguments why it is wrong. I would like to discuss it. If my arguments are wrong I would like to know why.

Thank you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your 'cosmology' is that something other people think is wrong?

Wow, that's pathetic.

So, if the Darwinismus is wrong, what's the real cause of variation in nature? Could you splash us an answer?

Uh, you DO believe that there is variation in nature, right?
Posted by: Lou FCD on Dec. 14 2007,16:41

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,17:35)
The point is not my hypothesis. It cannot be proved or disproved. I have already written down about it.

The point is that neodarwinian view is wrong on my opinion. That's my "cosmology". I have introduced many arguments why it is wrong. I would like to discuss it. If my arguments are wrong I would like to know why.

Thank you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fair enough.  So your "Cosmology" consists of "modern evolutionary theory is wrong and science should just stop"?

Is that correct?  If the correct or accurate evaluation of the universe around us cannot be proven or disproven, then what would be the point of science?

To extend this thought, why do you consider it important to fight against science, if it's fruitless and pointless anyway?
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Dec. 14 2007,17:08



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
vmartin/here0isreal said
The point is not my hypothesis. It cannot be proved or disproved.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But it can be laughed at and quite frankly that's all you're good for.

Dude, what kind of a turd hangs out at a science blog and says shit like "darwin is wrong" all day long when darwin is proven right in science labs accross this country every stinking day.

Have you no life?  Is posting here some kind of weird S&M thing for you?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 14 2007,17:15

Try and imagine little Marty teaching a 10-week biology class back in Slovakia.

Week one: Why the Darwinismus is wrong.
Week two: Why the Darwinismus is wrong.
Week three: Why the Darwinismus is wrong.
Week four: Why the Darwinismus is wrong.
Week five: Why the Darwinismus is wrong.
Week six: Why the Darwinismus is wrong.

Around week 6 the students notice that all the readings are at least 70 years old, start to get restless, and say "Okay, we understand, the Darwinismus is wrong. But, uh, what's RIGHT? What IS the explanation for the stuff the Darwinismus tries to explain?"

Marty answers: "The point is not my hypothesis. It cannot be proved or disproved. I have already written down about it."

The students get real confused at this. "What's the point here, Mister Martin?"

Marty answers: "The point is that neodarwinian view is wrong on my opinion. That's my cosmology. I have introduced many arguments why it is wrong. I would like to discuss it. If my arguments are wrong I would like to know why."

Most of the remaining students drop the class in week 7.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Dec. 14 2007,17:25

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 14 2007,17:15)
Try and imagine little Marty teaching a 10-week biology class back in Slovakia.

Week one: Why the Darwinismus is wrong.
Week two: Why the Darwinismus is wrong.
Week three: Why the Darwinismus is wrong.
Week four: Why the Darwinismus is wrong.
Week five: Why the Darwinismus is wrong.
Week six: Why the Darwinismus is wrong.

Around week 6 the students notice that all the readings are at least 70 years old, start to get restless, and say "Okay, we understand, the Darwinismus is wrong. But, uh, what's RIGHT? What IS the explanation for the stuff the Darwinismus tries to explain?"

Marty answers: "The point is not my hypothesis. It cannot be proved or disproved. I have already written down about it."

The students get real confused at this. "What's the point here, Mister Martin?"

Marty answers: "The point is that neodarwinian view is wrong on my opinion. That's my cosmology. I have introduced many arguments why it is wrong. I would like to discuss it. If my arguments are wrong I would like to know why."

Most of the remaining students drop the class in week 7.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought Week 7 was the class where he'd have a guest lecturer,  JAD who would speak on "Why the Darwinismus is wrong."
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 14 2007,19:46

Week 7 he cancels the class and starts an entirely new one.
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 15 2007,02:51

Mr Christopher

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

But it can be laughed at and quite frankly that's all you're good for.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Reading your sad posts is not so enjoying experience.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Dude, what kind of a turd hangs out at a science blog and says shit like "darwin is wrong" all day long when darwin is proven right in science labs accross this country every stinking day.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Darwinism and science are two separate things Dude.
They have nothing common Dude.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Have you no life?  Is posting here some kind of weird S&M thing for you?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Did you notice you had sent much more posts than me? You know math, science.
Posted by: Steverino on Dec. 15 2007,09:21

"dude"

You are typical of Creationist/IDiots.  You point to something, a gap, and then back it up with dubious articles and viewpoints from the fringe.  Most of which has been debunked.....and then you cling to it.

What you and your side lack is it's own theory.  It's own evidence that can stand all by itself without clinging to perceived gaps.

You have nothing to offer.  Nothing.

If there was ANYTHING behind your position, then why aren't scientists jumping in doing research.  After all, we all want to be famous, make a name for ourselves....go down in history for our accomplishments.

Why???...because it's all BULlSHIT.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 15 2007,11:46

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 15 2007,02:51)
Darwinism and science are two separate things
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Funny coming from a person who won't even tell us what he thinks valid science IS, uff hehe.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Dec. 15 2007,19:44



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A tard moaned,
Darwinism and science are two separate things Dude.
They have nothing common Dude.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Remove evolution ("darwinism" for you) from biology and what have you got left, tard?  Do tell.


Well....



We're waiting...



Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 26 2007,14:08

Erasmus at Evolution of the horse:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It may be that supernatural intervention is required for, say, my little boy to grow teeth or his balls to drop.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And what explanation do you have for the last? I will bet you have nothing. Doctor Myers summarized all explanation of evolution of it in one of his articles. The most curious - and most popular - is that sperm need lower temperature. But maybe sperms only adapted to lower temperature in testicles and darwinians misjudged cause and effect as usually.

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).

All temperature cause babbling is nonsense considering fact that no such cooling device developed in birds, which have temperature 42 Celsius.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Dec. 26 2007,15:31

What?
Posted by: Assassinator on Dec. 26 2007,16:36

Meeh he just says darwinismus can't explain balls, well < here > Marty. Too bad you have to purchase the full article, but it's a start.
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 26 2007,23:40

Quote (Assassinator @ Dec. 26 2007,16:36)
Meeh he just says darwinismus can't explain balls, well < here > Marty. Too bad you have to purchase the full article, but it's a start.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't have to purchase it. It is full of darwinian nonsenses as well as doctor Myers' article is.


In the light of these findings we discuss some current hypotheses regarding the origin and evolution of the scrotum. We find that these are all incomplete in so far as it is not the presence of the scrotum in various mammal groups that requires explaining.


They don't know how to explain it more than 100 years. They use newspeak "incomplete" instead.


We suggest that the scrotum may have evolved before the origin of mammals, in concert with the evolution of endothermy in the mammalian lineage, and that the scrotum has been lost in many groups because descensus in many respects is a costly process that will be lost in mammal lineages as soon as an alternative solution to the problem of the temperature sensitivity of spermatogenesis is available.


This temperature sensitivity is obviously a bullshit considering birds having temperature 42 Celsius and having no such "cooling" problems..

(Btw. I've noticed you are unable to discuss here any issue on your own. You just send a link like Erasmus about ant mimicry. You don't underestand what you are sending. The poor Mr_Christoper doesn't even have the slightest idea that descent of testicles exists.)

All darwinian nonsenses about descending of testicles are summarised here at Pharyngula (also your article and for free):

< http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/descent_of_the_testicle/ >
Posted by: Hawk on Dec. 27 2007,02:16

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 26 2007,23:40)
This temperature sensitivity is obviously a bullshit considering birds having temperature 42 Celsius and having no such "cooling" problems..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


i must point out the obvious even though i am a new user and say that birds are completely different from humans
i must also say that science has it's flaws, some scientists are biased and will claim things and change work answers, science has not discovered everything and probably never will but there is quite a bit of proof against creationism, although science may not know everything, like, for example how the testicles developed and evolved, but have faith (i must point out, to protect myself from later attack that this is not the christian type of faith) that one day it will find out

Religion thrives on gaps
when science cannot explain something, theists are eager to say therefore it must have been god
i believe that the god theory is simply a device used by people who cannot explain something and therefore believe it to have been done by some supernatural force
Posted by: Assassinator on Dec. 27 2007,05:40



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't have to purchase it. It is full of darwinian nonsenses as well as doctor Myers' article is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You know how we call that Martin? We call that biased.
As Hawk says, birds are far different from mammals. Where did you get schooled in biology again Martin?

PS: Hawk, a PS2 is outdated, we all demand a PS3 now :p
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 27 2007,10:02

Assasinator, you are such an amusing darwinian troll. The article states:

       

---------------------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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You see there word "untestable", don't you? It's a pure neodarwinian story , nothing else. Btw. regarding  birds. Do you really mean that if their "spermatogenesis" had been disrupted they would have evolved also external testicles or what? Eagles with aeorodynamical balls or what? Otherwise they would die out.

I suppose that mammals and birds have common ancestors where endodermy should have led to descent of testicles (at least according the article you have sent but didn't bothered to read it's abstract). I didn't know that for birds there has been different evolution of spermatogenesis as for mammals and no descent of testicles were needed even at 42 grad Celsius. Maybe mammals should have asked birds how to solve the curious problem without external testicles.

I would say that adaptation of sperms to higher temperature would be a right solution (as is the case of birds having much more higher temperature than mammals). But of course to believe current explaination of descent of testicles you have to be a darwinist.

Did you know that retina must be also cooled in order to work properly? Yet I have never heard about external eyes or "descent of retina" from the eye sockets.
Posted by: Assassinator on Dec. 27 2007,10:06

I never claimed it was a fact, I just responded to you saying "darwinismus" can't come up with an explanation: you were wrong, they're working on it.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(at least according the article you have sent but didn't bothered to read)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How the hell can you say that when you haven't read it? Do you know how we call that? It's called biased.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Did you know that retina must be also cooled in order to work properly? Yet I have never heard about external eyes or "descent of retina" from the eye sockets.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here some information about the evolution of retinal structures < http://www.pigeon.psy.tufts.edu/avc/husband/avc4eye.htm >
Not that I think you will read any of of, nor understand any of it.

And the question is still open, where did you study biology? Or are you studying it at the minute?
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 27 2007,10:23



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I never claimed it was a fact, I just responded to you saying "darwinismus" can't come up with an explanation: you were wrong, they're working on it.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeaah, they are working on it more than 100 years with the same result - it is "probably" due to cooling of sperms. They will go on working in such "untestable" ideas till the end of the world. But they are wrong, because descending of testicles has meaning beyond any neodarwinian paradigma. They never cannot solve it using neodarwinian way of thinking.
Posted by: Steverino on Dec. 27 2007,12:32

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 27 2007,10:23)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I never claimed it was a fact, I just responded to you saying "darwinismus" can't come up with an explanation: you were wrong, they're working on it.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeaah, they are working on it more than 100 years with the same result - it is "probably" due to cooling of sperms. They will go on working in such "untestable" ideas till the end of the world. But they are wrong, because descending of testicles has meaning beyond any neodarwinian paradigma. They never cannot solve it using neodarwinian way of thinking.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And what is your theory, backed by the tested, repeatable evidence?
Posted by: Alan Fox on Dec. 27 2007,14:08



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But they are wrong, because descending of testicles has meaning beyond any neodarwinian paradigma.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, you've got my attention, now. Please do tell, Martin. The meaning of descending testicles is...
Posted by: Steverino on Dec. 27 2007,14:22

Alan,

Off topic...you need to optimize your catnap image...its downloading almost 500k
Posted by: VMartin on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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


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.
Posted by: Assassinator on Dec. 27 2007,15:20

I'll ask again Martin: where did you have your biology education? Where did you get educated in the evolutional theory and Darwinism? Where did you get science training?
Posted by: Annyday on Dec. 27 2007,15:24

Until you put forth and defend an actual idea in at least minimal detail, nobody is going to take anything you say seriously, VMartin. Every position you take seems engineered so you don't have to actually make any claims. It makes responding to anything you say a lost cause.

For instance, many evolutionary mechanisms about both testicles and sex organs in general are fairly well demonstrated. If someone were actually trying to present a case for anything about testicles they might explain known cases in detail as a jumping-off point. It's simply not worth doing with you.

However, if you want to keep people from seriously sitting down to explain anything to you, you've done a good job! Congratulations.
Posted by: qetzal on Dec. 27 2007,23:03

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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes! Yes! I see it now!

Polarity of bodies! Head and reproduction organs on opposite sides! That's why testicles are outside the body. Just like ovaries.... Wait. Hmm.

Dammit! It was clear there for a second. Lessee...center of individuality...opposing principles...wave both hands about vigorously...talk out of both ends of the body....

Nope, I've lost the thread. Can you explain it again, V?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 27 2007,23:12

Quote (Assassinator @ Dec. 27 2007,15:20)
I'll ask again Martin: where did you have your biology education? Where did you get educated in the evolutional theory and Darwinism? Where did you get science training?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Also, Marty, do you get to apply your 'knowledge' of biology at your bank job?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 27 2007,23:14

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 27 2007,14:36)
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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dunno. Doesn't sound simple and nice to me, Marty.
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 28 2007,00:16

Annyday

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

For instance, many evolutionary mechanisms about both testicles and sex organs in general are fairly well demonstrated. If someone were actually trying to present a case for anything about testicles they might explain known cases in detail as a jumping-off point. It's simply not worth doing with you.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Fairly well demonstrated? Really? I am not angry with you that you believe blindly in your neodarwinian fantasies.Perhaps you haven't read what I quoted about the problem from darwinian sources. Because you are obviously discussing issues without following the whole discussion - just for you (important words in bold):


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.


Do you see there "untestable"?


ancestral proto-mammal had probably evolved a scrotum as a solution to its fertility requirements, and really, probably the best answer to why we have this odd scrotal arrangement is that that is the way great-great-greatn-grandpa did it.


Do you see there "probably" mentioned twice or should I change the font?


The most likely explanation is that there is something in the function of the testis that is optimized...This seems reasonable...


And it seems reasonable also to assume that presenting untestable hypothesis is evidence of "fairly well demonstrated mechanism" for you.
Posted by: Assassinator on 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.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 28 2007,05:41

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 28 2007,00:16)
Annyday

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

For instance, many evolutionary mechanisms about both testicles and sex organs in general are fairly well demonstrated. If someone were actually trying to present a case for anything about testicles they might explain known cases in detail as a jumping-off point. It's simply not worth doing with you.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Fairly well demonstrated? Really? I am not angry with you that you believe blindly in your neodarwinian fantasies.Perhaps you haven't read what I quoted about the problem from darwinian sources. Because you are obviously discussing issues without following the whole discussion - just for you (important words in bold):


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.


Do you see there "untestable"?


ancestral proto-mammal had probably evolved a scrotum as a solution to its fertility requirements, and really, probably the best answer to why we have this odd scrotal arrangement is that that is the way great-great-greatn-grandpa did it.


Do you see there "probably" mentioned twice or should I change the font?


The most likely explanation is that there is something in the function of the testis that is optimized...This seems reasonable...


And it seems reasonable also to assume that presenting untestable hypothesis is evidence of "fairly well demonstrated mechanism" for you.
---------------------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?
Posted by: VMartin on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
The "function" of the phenomenon is missing.  

< http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/descent_of_the_testicle/ >
Posted by: VMartin on 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?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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".
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on 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?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you have any positive evidence for your position?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on 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).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on 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?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Marty's argument is much more sophisticated, tho: "the Darwinismus is bad".
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why do you avoid discussing your alternative to the Darwinismus?
Posted by: Assassinator on Dec. 28 2007,07:16



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In fact I suppose there is no more of them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And how, Martin, on EARTH do you know that?
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 28 2007,16:54

Quote (Assassinator @ Dec. 28 2007,07:16)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In fact I suppose there is no more of them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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



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?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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



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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Martin, do you use your degrees in bilology in your job at the bank?
Posted by: VMartin on 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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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).

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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).
Posted by: Alan Fox on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I was responding to your claim:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As you can see in "VMartin comsology" scientists admit that explanation of descent of testicles is untestable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
Posted by: VMartin on 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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on 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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Certainly is the Darwinismus very stupido, Martin. Please to tell us what we explain the variation in the Natur, uff hehe?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on 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.
Posted by: VMartin on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're the one that said this, you fool.
Posted by: VMartin on 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?
Posted by: Lou FCD on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Steverino on Jan. 03 2008,17:55

What...and take time off blogging to do actual research!!!
Posted by: Steviepinhead on 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...
Posted by: VMartin on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What are those 'evolutionary forces', Marty?

Got anything?

What's your 'nonbabbling' explanation?

Or is having an explanation 'stupido'?
Posted by: Henry J on 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
Posted by: Steviepinhead on 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!
Posted by: JohnW on 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 )
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Creationists think cosmology is bollocks. :D
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on 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.
Posted by: VMartin on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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 >
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on 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.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 09 2008,13:20

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


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.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry, I missed the part where you were going to show how your idea can be tested?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on 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.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on 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?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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".
Posted by: VMartin on Jan. 10 2008,02:37

Erasmus


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

what about starfish?  where are their poles?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And starfish are mammals too? What's your education?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 10 2008,03:01

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

what about starfish?  where are their poles?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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


Why do only mammals have "poles" VMartin?
Posted by: VMartin on 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?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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


Why do only mammals have "poles" VMartin?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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!
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on 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?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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


Why do only mammals have "poles" VMartin?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Very well.

How does this "poles" data point support your hypothesis (whatever it is)?
Posted by: VMartin on 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?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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


Why do only mammals have "poles" VMartin?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Very well.

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


Take it from another end. How scrotal testicles support neodarwinian hypothesis? Are they predicted to occur in mammals using neodarwinian paradigma?
Posted by: Assassinator on Jan. 10 2008,08:21

Answer the question, then we will answer yours. Don't turn things around.
Posted by: VMartin on 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.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on 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?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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


Why do only mammals have "poles" VMartin?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Very well.

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


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


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.
Posted by: VMartin on Jan. 10 2008,12:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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


The seventh one.

No, I've answered one of yours, now it's your turn. As above.
Posted by: Richard Simons on 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-------------------


 
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?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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


Why do only mammals have "poles" VMartin?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
Posted by: Henry J on 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
Posted by: VMartin on 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
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 11 2008,02:47

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


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)
Posted by: Darth Robo on Jan. 11 2008,08:42

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


Hey, somebody had to make that joke.    ???
Posted by: VMartin on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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)
---------------------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?

Something like Darwin: I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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)
---------------------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?

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


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
Posted by: Henry J on 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
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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)
---------------------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?

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


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.
Posted by: Nomad on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on 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.
Posted by: Darth Robo on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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

:angry:
Posted by: VMartin on 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?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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 >
Posted by: Nomad on 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 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: VMartin on 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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
Posted by: Richard Simons on Jan. 12 2008,16:42

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


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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 12 2008,17:26

Heyyyyyyyy viiiiiiiiiiicky




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It is on my opinion utterly implausible explanation
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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'
Posted by: VMartin on Jan. 14 2008,00:00

Any other neodarwinian explanation (e.g. abuses) of descent of desticles?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 14 2008,02:51

Why, are you having a raffle or something?
Posted by: Assassinator on Jan. 14 2008,05:11

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


What exactly is YOUR explanation? Ofcourse, we admit that the current explanation is not necceraly true, but the only think YOU can do is flame it. Do you have any better explanation to offer then the current one? Do you even know on wich observations etc the current explanation is based?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 14 2008,05:59

I think VMartin might be afraid of commitment!
Posted by: Nomad on Jan. 15 2008,01:48

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




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



< link >

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

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


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

So, Martin, care to try again, only this time perhaps you can take observed reality into account in your next attempt?
Posted by: Quack on Jan. 15 2008,03:31



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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If I may pursue the subject further, since VMartin refuses to voice an opinion about the age of the Earth: Does he accept the fundamentals of science, like physics, chemistry et cetera as used in our attempts at determining the age of our planet and the rest of the universe? And if not, why?  
But I fear I am asking too much. If however he should ask me, I wouldn't mind trying to answer as truthfully as I could.
Posted by: Darth Robo on Jan. 15 2008,07:51

The TRUTH is that we'd all look pretty silly with our dangly bits around our heads, PROOF that we were Intelligently Designed!
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 15 2008,07:55

Naughty bits on the head, like female dragonflies?

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

Har Har this is you Martin



Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Jan. 15 2008,15:25

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

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

Har Har this is you Martin



---------------------QUOTE-------------------



We are from France Slovakia!  :D
Posted by: VMartin on Jan. 16 2008,13:16

Natural selection bless American beautiful girls!



Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 16 2008,13:19

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



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now THAT is hot.

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

Neodarwinismus fail to explainismus thismus, all hypothetiker in selectionismus headismus.
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Jan. 16 2008,13:40

Erasmus FCD:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Har Har this is you Martin...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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

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

--Sincerely, Stevie
Posted by: VMartin on Jan. 25 2008,11:09

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your lost questions like "and what is your account of it Marty?" aren't any valid neodarwinian explanation of it.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Jan. 25 2008,11:15

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

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

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

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

I kind of enjoy your ignorance and hope no one helps you overcome it.
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Jan. 25 2008,11:50

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

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

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

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

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


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

__

*According to his buddy JAD, the explanismus in this case would be "god made descending testicles, then he died".  I love it so!
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Jan. 29 2008,10:49

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

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

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

After the Christian God* created testicles He died.  

I love it so and you're welcome!

Chris




*You may substitute reptilian space alien
Posted by: metoni on Jan. 29 2008,11:08

CAVEAT #1: AS — CAVEAT#2: Evolve

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

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

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

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

2. The continental drift supports the second day
 

3. The order of appearance of beasts agrees    

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

Our solution is not as daring as an admission the earth is elliptical. The Compromise Textbooks will stop leaving out the word “As” in correlating the scriptural creation time-lines, eliminate the word “Evolve” from science, replacing its bank of information as what it is — the factual detailing of known existence past, present, future, coupled with the detailed descriptions of intra-relationships or interdependencies derived by-way-of logical methods of investigation. This allows the ‘faith-based’ family to assert truth within an intelligent design but does not deny the evidence of how long or the interconnectivity presented. This also frees the scientific community to claim science bares neither responsibility nor need to answer what started the original void, leaving source definition to the trust/faith of each individual query and/or theory.
Posted by: jeannot on Mar. 01 2008,06:56

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


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Selection overrides gene flow to break down maladaptive mimicry

George R. Harper Jr, & David W. Pfennig


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


Do I spy the term "Natural selection" in this abstract? Gasp! :O
Posted by: Alan Fox on Mar. 01 2008,07:28

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

Added in edit: Mea culpa! VMartin is between home internet providers and is prohibited from using his work connection for personal blogging.
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 04 2008,10:32

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


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Selection overrides gene flow to break down maladaptive mimicry

George R. Harper Jr, & David W. Pfennig


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


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


Perhaps you could tell us what kind of aposematic "model" authors are dealing with. You know  poisonous coral snakes are nocturnal. What predators   are performing selective pressure  for diurnal harmless snakes to look like poisonous nocturnal ones?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Mar. 04 2008,10:41

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


     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Selection overrides gene flow to break down maladaptive mimicry

George R. Harper Jr, & David W. Pfennig


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


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


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


The red ones.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 04 2008,11:06

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


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

I'd point you to the links that would help you understand these facts, but since facts have never made a difference to you in previous conversations, I won't bother.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 04 2008,11:53

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


Careful, Marty, we'll tell your boss you're goofing off at work again and get your ass in trouble.  :angry:
Posted by: Lou FCD on Mar. 04 2008,11:58

The English has improved again, I notice.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 04 2008,11:59

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


It's like tides, or maybe sunspots.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Mar. 04 2008,12:01

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


It's like tides, or maybe sunspots.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


or the vapours...
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 07 2008,09:52

Get back to work and quit goofing off, Marty. Your boss'll fire your dumb ass.   :angry:
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 07 2008,10:01

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


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

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



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

Both species are slender and tend to be nocturnal.

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


or


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


or


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


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

Because it is somehow strange that some diurnal snakes are mimicking some nocturnal ones, don´t you think so?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 07 2008,10:06

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


Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 07 2008,10:09

Ooooh, I can play that game!!!

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

oh yeah and this one

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

How is that MArty?

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

But to your credit, laughing at your silly fake ass is a pleasure indeed.  You too crazy.
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 14 2008,12:15

I hope you understand now that "mimicry" of coral snakes is more complicated problem than your neodarwinian teachers taught you at secondary schools.

At least you have to invent some plausible stories how  it is possible that:

I. model snakes are nocturnal and their mimics are diurnal.

II. model coral snakes are so poisonous that no species can survive their encounter with them. So how can predators  remember they are dangerous? Consequently -what predators do you propose as selective agents?        

III. "Mimics" often lives in areas where no models are present.

The problem is more complicated than you would like to have it.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 14 2008,12:21

MARTIN! GET YOUR LAZY ASS BACK TO WORK!! WE'RE NOT PAYING YOU TO GOOF OFF!!! YOU'VE GOT A CUSTOMER AT YOUR WINDOW!!! ONE MORE TIME AND YOU'RE OUTTA HERE!!

:angry:
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 14 2008,12:32

Hey Arden don't fuck with him while he is at work.  We don't come down to your barrel and spray a waterhose into the hole.

Marty your comparative method leaves much much to be desired.  I suggest your try reading this paper for some insight:  < Pagel and Harvey 1988 >

You might need access to JSTOR.  There is a literature out there that you should get familiar with before we start this silly dance all over again.  Not that you would do such a thing.
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 14 2008,12:46

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 14 2008,12:32)
Hey Arden don't fuck with him while he is at work.  We don't come down to your barrel and spray a waterhose into the hole.

Marty your comparative method leaves much much to be desired.  I suggest your try reading this paper for some insight:  < Pagel and Harvey 1988 >

You might need access to JSTOR.  There is a literature out there that you should get familiar with before we start this silly dance all over again.  Not that you would do such a thing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you serious? Last time I wanted to discuss with you some cases of "mimicry" you ran away like a stench. I suppose you know nothing about coral snakes mimicry. You just google some articles and pretend to be an "expert" on the issue. Did you ever heard about names like herpetologist Mertens (1956) or Brattstrom (1956) Grobman (1978), Grehlbach (1972), Garstka (1982) or S.M.Smith (1975, 1977, 1978, 1980) who challenged "mimicry" of coral snakes?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 14 2008,12:48

Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 14 2008,12:46)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 14 2008,12:32)
Hey Arden don't fuck with him while he is at work.  We don't come down to your barrel and spray a waterhose into the hole.

Marty your comparative method leaves much much to be desired.  I suggest your try reading this paper for some insight:  < Pagel and Harvey 1988 >

You might need access to JSTOR.  There is a literature out there that you should get familiar with before we start this silly dance all over again.  Not that you would do such a thing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you serious? Last time I wanted to discuss with you some cases of "mimicry" you ran away like a stench. I suppose you know nothing about coral snakes mimicry. You just google some articles and pretend to be an "expert" on the issue. Did you ever heard about names like herpetologist Mertens (1956) or Brattstrom (1956) Grobman (1978), Grehlbach (1972), Garstka (1982) or S.M.Smith (1975, 1977, 1978, 1980) who challenged "mimicry" of coral snakes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


MARTIN! SHIT! YOUR BOSS IS COMING! QUICK, CLICK ON THAT SPREADSHEET!!!
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 14 2008,12:50

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 14 2008,12:32)
Hey Arden don't fuck with him while he is at work.  We don't come down to your barrel and spray a waterhose into the hole.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Whatever you say, just don't tell us what gets sprayed into your hole  disregard this post, it's like, totally uncivil.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 14 2008,13:38

Now I have been asleep for a while but can you tell me how a 'stench' runs away?

On little cat feet?

With it's smell between it's legs?
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 14 2008,13:53

I don't know how - if ever - you use Slovakian "zmiznú? ako smrad". Something like "to disappear like a stench"?

All of you here are  prominent neodarwinian linguists fluent in English, German and other languages. No problem for you I suppose.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 14 2008,13:56

Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 14 2008,13:53)
I don't know how - if ever - you use Slovakian "zmiznú? ako smrad". Something like "to disappear like a stench"?

All of you here are  prominent neodarwinian linguists fluent in English, German and other languages. No problem for you I suppose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't quit your day job, Marty.

(Or get fired from it.)
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 14 2008,14:03

Ask someone to check my IP address for you and than continue reading "Selfish gene" in your sanitarium.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 14 2008,14:04

Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 14 2008,14:03)
Ask someone to check my IP address for you and than continue reading "Selfish gene" in your sanitarium.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey Marty, your boss stepped out for lunch, how about that alternative to the Darwinismus you promised us?
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 14 2008,14:28

Blipey at Evolution of the horse commenting Daniel:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Your analogy of computer files is terrible.  If a file is not necessary to the functionality OF the computer, it is not functional in the way that the authors see repeated DNA sequences.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And your analogy is a perfect one. Do you know there are computers running many months or years without  being switched off? So why not to delete their "junk" boot sector? Nothing will happens while they run. Until you reboot them again - I recommend that experts like you should be abroad at that time.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 14 2008,14:34

Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 14 2008,14:28)
Blipey at Evolution of the horse commenting Daniel:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Your analogy of computer files is terrible.  If a file is not necessary to the functionality OF the computer, it is not functional in the way that the authors see repeated DNA sequences.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And your analogy is a perfect one. Do you know there are computers running many months or years without  being switched off? So why not to delete their "junk" boot sector? Nothing will happens while they run. Until you reboot them again - I recommend that experts like you should be abroad at that time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Aw, come on, Marty, after being away almost 2 months, you still have no alternative to either the Darwinismus or the Neodarwinismus?

Marty, we expected better. I mean, you do work in a biology or science department, and can thus be considered an 'expert', right? Right?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 14 2008,14:35

yes yes of course marty.

HEY DUDE CLICK OFF THIS SCREEN HERE COMES YOUR BOSS AND HE IS GOING TO WANT TO SEE YOU RINGING UP THE CUSTOMERS BECAUSE THERE IS A LINE OF BIG MACS BACK HERE THAT IS NOT GETTING ANY SHORTER!!!!
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 14 2008,14:45

Take a pill Erasmus. In other case Natural selection will  come for your genes.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 14 2008,14:46

Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 14 2008,14:45)
Take a pill Erasmus. In other case Natural selection will  come for your genes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seriously, dude, we're worried. What would we do if you got fired from your professorship at Bratislava U?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Mar. 14 2008,14:50

Would you like fries with that?

< http://www.flickr.com/photos/99655906@N00/ >
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 14 2008,14:50

Arden.
Probably I would go to your sanitarium to pay you a visit.
I would like to see your neodarwinian physiognomy. It must be a fascinating experience.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 14 2008,14:54

Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 14 2008,14:50)
Arden.
Probably I would go to your sanitarium to pay you a visit.
I would like to see your neodarwinian physiognomy. It must be a fascinating experience.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Marty, the line at the pickup window is a mile long. Quit daydreaming and get back to work.  :angry:
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 14 2008,14:58

I have already wrote you something dude. Ask someone to check my IP address. Anyway you are as witty as Alan Fox. Shake your hands.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 14 2008,15:05

Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 14 2008,12:15)
I hope you understand now that "mimicry" of coral snakes is more complicated problem than your neodarwinian teachers taught you at secondary schools.

At least you have to invent some plausible stories how  it is possible that:

I. model snakes are nocturnal and their mimics are diurnal.

II. model coral snakes are so poisonous that no species can survive their encounter with them. So how can predators  remember they are dangerous? Consequently -what predators do you propose as selective agents?        

III. "Mimics" often lives in areas where no models are present.

The problem is more complicated than you would like to have it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed it is.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Coral Snakes usually spend their maximum time underground, under any surface or inside any rock crevices. They remain active on the ground in the daytime, especially on hot sunny days. During very hot weather, activity is primarily nocturnal. This snake is normally active at temperatures between approximately 55 - 85 degrees.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

From < here >

or      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Arizona Coral Snakes are carnivorous, feeding mainly on blind snakes (Leptotyphlops), which are about the size of worms, but they also occasionally feed on other small snakes and lizards. They are usually diurnal in the spring, nocturnal in the summer (when they are most commonly seen), and both in the fall (rarely come above ground during winter).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

From < here. >

Did it ever occur to you that "nocturnal" and "tend to be nocturnal" or "secretive" are not the same thing?  Did it ever occur to you that these snakes do venture out in the day, and that they might be most vulnerable to predation when they did that? Did it ever occur to you that predators of these snakes probably are diurnal, and that a diurnal mimic would probably benefit from the mimicry? Of course it didn't, since you know as little about coral snakes as you do about any other aspect of reality...

Speaking of reality, maybe you'd like to reconsider this sentence as well "model coral snakes are so poisonous that no species can survive their encounter with them." See < here > for some data on avian predators, including laughing falcons and puffbirds. And please factor into your tiny brain the reality that the king snakes (various species) are predators of other snakes, immune to the venom of other snakes, and thus could "survive their encounter" with a coral snake.

While you're back here, maybe you can tell us your explanation for the fact that there are diurnal mimics of coral snakes.  I'm sure it is a well-supported and incredibly convincing story, but so far we haven't had the pleasure of hearing it from you.

[chirp chirp]
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 14 2008,15:17

I just found this exclusive picture of VM hard at work in his research lab studying Davison's exciting new theory of pantloading:



Surely soon will the Neodarwinismus run off like a stench.
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 14 2008,16:08

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 14 2008,15:05)
     
Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 14 2008,12:15)
I hope you understand now that "mimicry" of coral snakes is more complicated problem than your neodarwinian teachers taught you at secondary schools.

At least you have to invent some plausible stories how  it is possible that:

I. model snakes are nocturnal and their mimics are diurnal.

II. model coral snakes are so poisonous that no species can survive their encounter with them. So how can predators  remember they are dangerous? Consequently -what predators do you propose as selective agents?        

III. "Mimics" often lives in areas where no models are present.

The problem is more complicated than you would like to have it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed it is.
             

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Coral Snakes usually spend their maximum time underground, under any surface or inside any rock crevices. They remain active on the ground in the daytime, especially on hot sunny days. During very hot weather, activity is primarily nocturnal. This snake is normally active at temperatures between approximately 55 - 85 degrees.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

From < here >

or              

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Arizona Coral Snakes are carnivorous, feeding mainly on blind snakes (Leptotyphlops), which are about the size of worms, but they also occasionally feed on other small snakes and lizards. They are usually diurnal in the spring, nocturnal in the summer (when they are most commonly seen), and both in the fall (rarely come above ground during winter).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

From < here. >

Did it ever occur to you that "nocturnal" and "tend to be nocturnal" or "secretive" are not the same thing?  Did it ever occur to you that these snakes do venture out in the day, and that they might be most vulnerable to predation when they did that? Did it ever occur to you that predators of these snakes probably are diurnal, and that a diurnal mimic would probably benefit from the mimicry? Of course it didn't, since you know as little about coral snakes as you do about any other aspect of reality...

Speaking of reality, maybe you'd like to reconsider this sentence as well "model coral snakes are so poisonous that no species can survive their encounter with them." See < here > for some data on avian predators, including laughing falcons and puffbirds. And please factor into your tiny brain the reality that the king snakes (various species) are predators of other snakes, immune to the venom of other snakes, and thus could "survive their encounter" with a coral snake.

While you're back here, maybe you can tell us your explanation for the fact that there are diurnal mimics of coral snakes.  I'm sure it is a well-supported and incredibly convincing story, but so far we haven't had the pleasure of hearing it from you.

[chirp chirp]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps you should be more specific - as I asked you before - what kind of predators do you have on your mind. The link you have given doesn´t work. The other site is some ".com" speculation with no scientific value. I can reccomend you  as well these sentences from jstor dismissing "natural selection" as the source of coral snakes mimicry calling it "pseudomimicry":


Pseudomimicry is the term applied to the condition under which similar color patterns have arisen independently of natural selection in unrelated sympatric species occupying similar habitats. It is further suggested that the resemblances among Micrurus fulvius, Cemophora coccinea, and Lampropeltis triangulum are an example of pseudomimicry.


 < pseudomimicry >

On the other hand there are predators that have no problems with poisonous coral snakes and consequently it is utterly ridiculous  to consider them as selective agent of aposematism:


As in earlier studies coatis appeared to avoid coral snake models, our findings show that results from studies with abstract snake models cannot unconditionally serve as evidence for an aposematic function of coral snake coloration.



< http://www.springerlink.com/content/l60j183265852v30/ >

The problem is so complicated that I would reccomend that we should first focus only on some part of it. What would you prefer - are really coral snake models nocturnal/diurnal or - what kind of predators they have? Give the exact name of snakes and their predators you would like to support your view of mimicry.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 14 2008,16:12

Martin:

Please to give us the exact name of your alternative theory to the Natural Selectionismus.

Then a large Coke and order of fries. Hurry your ass up.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 14 2008,16:36

Hey Martin, I'm really getting sick and fucking tired of my milkshake being runny when you finally get off the internetismus long enough to bring to the window.  It's getting old.

Albie, I think you an legitimately substitute 'nocturnal' for 'gossipy' and not lose any empirical content in Martin's latest tardation.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Mar. 14 2008,16:48

Somebody PM me when Marty presents an alternative theory to the Darwinismuskov.

Thanks.
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 14 2008,16:51

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 14 2008,16:36)
Hey Martin, I'm really getting sick and fucking tired of my milkshake being runny when you finally get off the internetismus long enough to bring to the window.  It's getting old.

Albie, I think you an legitimately substitute 'nocturnal' for 'gossipy' and not lose any empirical content in Martin's latest tardation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Have you ever heard about  Erasmus  who was making fool of himself in discussion with Martin in 16 century?

You are the same case. But nowadays you are a living example of a Darwin's disciple. The great Darwin was so perplexed by aposematism of worms that he claimed:    

I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.

So go on in the best tradition of darwininian exact "science" founded by your teacher.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 14 2008,16:56

Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 14 2008,16:51)
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Goddamn it Martin, quit 'maintaining your ground' and hurry up with my goddamn cheeseburger. It's been twenty minutes! :angry:
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 14 2008,17:07

Congratulation Arden. 4.800 posts. You are a prolific on-topic neodarwinian AtBC author. 200 more babbling and you are the winner. Do you contribute to other forums as well? You are more prolific than doctor Myers who writes his neodarwinian posts every 2 hours unless he sleeps.
But you are better.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 14 2008,17:11

Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 14 2008,17:07)
Congratulation Arden. 4.800 posts. You are a prolific on-topic neodarwinian AtBC author. 200 more babbling and you are the winner. Do you contribute to other forums as well? You are more prolific than doctor Myers who writes his neodarwinian posts every 2 hours unless he sleeps.
But you are better.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Got a theory, Martin?

Or at least my Happy Meal™?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 14 2008,17:13

aposematism of worms?

listen now goddammit if you put parsley on my cheeseburger and call it lettuce I'm going to have to go talk to that pimply faced 19 year old kid that is your manager and we'll have something done about it.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 14 2008,17:38

Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 14 2008,16:08)
The problem is so complicated that I would reccomend that we should first focus only on some part of it. What would you prefer - are really coral snake models nocturnal/diurnal or - what kind of predators they have? Give the exact name of snakes and their predators you would like to support your view of mimicry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Marty

Three quick points.

1) the jstor link works fine for me. If you want to look it up yourself, here is more information
   Avian Predation of Coral Snakes

       Neal Griffith Smith

       Copeia, Vol. 1969, No. 2. (Jun. 3, 1969), pp. 402-404.

       Stable URL: < http://links.jstor.org/sici?si....O%3B2-W >


2) I don't give a damn if other snakes are mimics, pseudomimics, trans-mimics, or slovakian belly dancers. My original points are that you are incorrect about coral snakes being strictly nocturnal, about it being impossible for predation of these snakes to occur, and about a lot of other things that have come up on this thread. Deal with those. But finally and most importantly, deal with

3) What is your favored explanation of the origin of snakes that seem to mimic coral snakes?

thanks
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 15 2008,01:43

Albatrossity2

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

2) I don't give a damn if other snakes are mimics, pseudomimics, trans-mimics, or slovakian belly dancers.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Why are you so angry? Only because a researcher at jstor called the whole coral-snake issue as pseudomimicry?

And why do you want to discuss the issue? You'd better go to MacDonald instead where Erasmus and bipolar Arden are mailing their orders to AtBC.


As to your link. The author observed TWO falcon preying on coral snakes. I don't know if you consider number TWO to be sufficently supportive for an idea, that coral snakes are strictly diurnal or what. Obviously both falcons were successful. In this case as well:


Laughing falcon (Herpetotheres cachinnans) predation on coral snakes (Micrurus nigrocinctus) was recorded in two incidents that illustrate previously unreported variation in predatory behavior. In the first, the falcon held a live coral snake by the posterior end for an extended period of time, rather than decapitating it immediately. In the second, the falcon left a decapitated coral snake in a tree for more than 2 h before returning to recover its prey. A variety of behavioral adaptations may protect laughing falcons from coral snake venom.




< here >

I would say those falcons aren't selective agents. You should probably find some example where a predator has been bitten by the snake and survived. Such an example would support your neodarwinian fairy-tale about coral snake mimicry.
Posted by: Assassinator on Mar. 15 2008,05:41



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I would say those falcons aren't selective agents.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They are, everything non-random (because random things like forest fires and vulcanoes are called genetic shift, or was it drift? keep mixing those up) that alters the allel-frequencies in a population is a selective agent. Predation, like those falcons, is an (non-random) example of them.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You should probably find some example where a predator has been bitten by the snake and survived. Such an example would support your neodarwinian fairy-tale about coral snake mimicry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's about the fact that predators would be scared shitless, won't hunt them. Our current explanation is that that's because they look poisonous even though we're not (and we can check that, just capture one and check if they have poison glands). If you've got something better wich eliminates our current explanation we would be glad to hear it (and perhaps a Nobel-price in biology would await), currently you haven't offerd anything better.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 15 2008,07:51



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't know if you consider number TWO to be sufficently supportive for an idea
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well Martin I'd say that there are a bunch more than two folks around here that think you are just a bag of air.

If you wish to give your theory that will replacenko das darwinismus we are listening.  giggling, but listening.

GET BACK TO WORK MARTIN THOSE TOILETS AIN'T GONNA CLEAN THEMSELVES SON!!!
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 15 2008,08:52

Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 15 2008,01:43)
Why are you so angry?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nice try. How about this one instead?

You have so far failed to tell anyone your explanations for any biological phenomenon, preferring to consistently misrepresent biological facts and theories. If you think that is a fair exchange, you are wrong. If you think that should make a person "angry", you are wrong as well. But it sure can lead to frustration.

As noted (and ignored) before, I don't have a theory of mimicry, pseudo-Darwinian or otherwise. I have merely provided facts which you said did not exist. They do exist, and still you feel compelled to act as if you are correct about all of this. I'm not here to discuss my theory of mimicry. I'm here in the vain hope that you can provide us with your theory, and an equal opportunity to poke holes in your notions. Sounds fair to me. So I'll try again.

What is your favored explanation of the origin of snakes that seem to mimic coral snakes?

[chirp chirp]
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 15 2008,12:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I would say those falcons aren't selective agents. You should probably find some example where a predator has been bitten by the snake and survived. Such an example would support your neodarwinian fairy-tale about coral snake mimicry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What? A bird that learned about avoiding certain prey, due to surviving a bad experience, would be an example of an animal learning something during its lifetime. It wouldn't be an example of natural selection.

What would be an example of natural selection would be if some birds have an inherited tendency to avoid the snakes, and subsequently they become more prevalent within their species than their relatives that don't have an aversion to that kind of snake.

Henry
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 15 2008,14:07

I am surprised you don't even know basics of aposematism. The aposematism to be functional have to deter predators. Predators have to learn first that aposematics are dangerous/poisonous/unpalatable. Obviously falcons are not afraid of coral snakes and prey upon them. Consequently they do not avoid them but probably seek them actively my friends.

You have to present other predators which learn that  coral snakes are  poisonous. They should be bitten and survive it and learn from it. Consequently they would avoid coral snakes' mimics.

Do you know them or there will be another flood of babbling?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 15 2008,14:48

V

You seem incapable of understanding that I am not defending any explanation of mimicry, Darwinian or otherwise. Let's try this more direct approach.

I am not defending any explanation of mimicry, Darwinian or otherwise.

Furthermore, you seem incapable of understanding why I entered this conversation. I wanted to provide facts to allow you to correct some of your assumptions about coral snakes. These facts are

1) coral snakes are not strictly nocturnal,

2) there are diurnal predators of coral snakes, and

3) not all predators attempting to take a coral snake are killed by the snake.

Maybe you can use those facts to help you explain the existence of snakes that seem to mimic coral snakes. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that modern evolutionary theory fails to explain that. Regardless of that failure, modern evolutionary theory does provide testable hypotheses in this area. Let's assume that tests of these hypotheses fail, and that we need a better explanation.

Your job, as noted before, is to use all of the available observations (including those above) to generate a better explanation. This explanation needs to provide testable hypotheses as well, in order to be considered at least on a par with modern evolutionary theory. So far, despite repeated requests, you have failed to provide this explanation. So I'll try again, in the hope that you will eventually understand what I am asking.

What is your favored explanation of the origin of snakes that seem to mimic coral snakes?
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 15 2008,16:29

Your points 1) and 2) could be summarized under one point. There were many voices claiming that coral snakes are nocturnal, or predominantly nocturnal. Interesting point is also that both cases described in previous links occured in the morning.
   


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

3) not all predators attempting to take a coral snake are killed by the snake.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I agree. There are only two cases I 've read about yet.
Digital zero/one: predators who kill and eat coral snakes and species that are killed and eaten by coral snakes. I've never heard about predators trying to kill a coral snake and being bitten by this venomus snake recovered!
And then learned to avoid them!

But such encounters are the only explanation of supposed origin of coral snake's mimics. There is no other.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

What is your favored explanation of the origin of snakes that seem to mimic coral snakes?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Correct: they seems.

Who knows. You know life. Would you like to explain life? -Unless you are a darwinist of course.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 15 2008,16:36

Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 15 2008,16:29)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

What is your favored explanation of the origin of snakes that seem to mimic coral snakes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Correct: they seems.

Who knows. You know life. Would you like to explain life? -Unless you are a darwinist of course.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In other words, you are content to sit on the sidelines and snipe at the ideas of others, but you have no ideas of your own?

What a waste of your powerful intellect...
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 15 2008,18:51

What a waste of my money!

MARTIN GODDAMMIT GET BACK TO WORK WE ARE NOT PAYING YOU TO FIGHT THE DARWINISMUS YOU ARE BEING PAID TO PICK BEETS.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 15 2008,20:20



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Who knows. You know life. Would you like to explain life? -Unless you are a darwinist of course.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wow.

Marty BRAGS about not even trying to explain anything. He BRAGS about throwing up his hands, giving up, contributing nothing, offering no solutions of any kind, and insulting those who do actual research.

What a worthless waste of food and air.
Posted by: blipey on Mar. 15 2008,20:31

Albatrosity2:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am not defending any explanation of mimicry, Darwinian or otherwise.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Here I am being not able to understand your meaning.  Maybe more clear your words should be.  Hoping to understand more your confusing words.  Mayhaps you explain in manner that is worthy of scientific thought and not of mere Darwinismus babble.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 16 2008,08:07

Quote (blipey @ Mar. 15 2008,20:31)
Albatrosity2:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am not defending any explanation of mimicry, Darwinian or otherwise.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Here I am being not able to understand your meaning.  Maybe more clear your words should be.  Hoping to understand more your confusing words.  Mayhaps you explain in manner that is worthy of scientific thought and not of mere Darwinismus babble.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My apologies. The Darwinismus strabismus precludes me from communicating clearly.


Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Mar. 16 2008,09:14

Salt?
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 17 2008,13:48

From the history criticising professor Portmann's concept of descent of testicles.

As far as I know professor Adolf Portmann's book Spirit and biology (Geist und Biologie) has never been translated into English. Yet professor Portmann's concept of descent of testicles was criticized heavily in neodarwinian journal Evolution published by Society for the Study of Evolution (can be find at jstor) in 1958.

In the "THE EVOLUTIONARY SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SCROTUM" by Raymond Cowles we can read about cooling of birds spermatozoa:

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

In summary it seems probable that in the
aves we have a case of vertebrates, having high
normal body temperatures and no external thermal
regulatory scrotum, substituting for this
device a system that requires nocturnal spermatogenesis
when temperatures are regularly 2-3" C. below the daytime norm and that in addition there is direct ventilation and a 2-3" C. cooling in the air sac that partly or wholly insulates the testes from the viscera and the
kidney with its massive blood flow, while permatogenesis
is in progress, and that in addition sperms may be stored in an external protuberance carrying a convoluted portion of the vas deferens. Surely there is evidence here that does not agree with Portmann's dismissal of
the importance of temperature in reproduction.
Portmann's unwillingness to accept the extensive
experimental work that has been done in
this field since at least as early as 1898 and
continuing to the present, and his substitution
of an "all or none" speculation based solely on
the gaudy posteriors of apes and the ornamented
posteriors of some Artiodactyles is less
than convincing.


Whether or not Cowles' hypothetical involvement
of heat sterility and associated phenomena
will prove to be correct in all respects is a
matter for others to say but because of the possible
importance of heat susceptibility in the
spermatogenic process, it is indeed unfortunate
that in order to support his concept, Portmann
is not even willing to concede the correctness
of the conclusions of literally scores of workers.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------




and Rodolfo Ruibal Uni California in the same journal:

THE EVOLUTION OF THE SCROTUM

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Direct evidence has been provided
by Riley (1937) to show that avian spermatogenesis
is sensitive to high temperatures....However,
when the birds become active and raise the body
tetnperautre to 110' F. there is a complete cessation
of spermatogenesis. It is clear that instead of contradicting the thermoregulatory theory, the avian condition does provide corroboration, since there is evidence of some analogous adaptation.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

Pretty convincing and self-confident neodarwinian stuff, isn't it? Yet the reality seems to be different than neodarwinists would like to have it:

Determination of Testis Temperature Rhythms and Effects of Constant Light on Testicular Function in the Domestic Fowl (Gallus domesticus)

Christine E. Beaupre, 3 ,5 Corinna J. Tressler,4 ,5 Steven J. Beaupr6,6 James L.M. Morgan,5 Walter G. Bottje,5
and John D. Kirby2,5

Center of Excellence for Poultry Science, Departments of Poultry Sciences and Biological Sciences



         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It is apparent from the data
that the testis is not cooled by association with an air sac and, indeed, is not cooled by any mechanism. Therefore, spermatogenesis occurs in the domestic fowl at the core body temperature of 40-41 C. Our results provide evidence for the uniqueness of spermatogenesis in the avian testis as compared to that of the mammals examined thus far, in which spermatogenesis occurs at 33-350 C.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


and authors ask:

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Our data raise interesting questions relative to reproductive fitness and evolution. For example, why have most mammals evolved external (and cooler) testes, which makes the testes (and most importantly, the genetic potential they contain) much more vulnerable, while the other predominant homeothermic group, Aves, have evolved testes that function efficiently at elevated core body temperatures?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 

< http://www.biolreprod.org/cgi/reprint/56/6/1570.pdf >
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 17 2008,14:03

What's the real explanation, then, Marty?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 17 2008,14:56


Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 17 2008,16:02



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet the reality seems to be different than neodarwinists would like to have it:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What's the evidence that "neodarwinists" (whoever they are) want things to be the way described in that writeup?

Henry
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 18 2008,01:23

Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 17 2008,16:02)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet the reality seems to be different than neodarwinists would like to have it:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What's the evidence that "neodarwinists" (whoever they are) want things to be the way described in that writeup?

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did you notice these words: "Portmann's unwillingness to accept the extensive experimental work"?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Mar. 18 2008,03:50

SALT?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 18 2008,09:37

DAMMIT MARTY, I SAID *NO* PICKLES ON MY BURGER!! :angry:
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 18 2008,11:27



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Did you notice these words: "Portmann's unwillingness to accept the extensive experimental work"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ah. But that's just one person. One person having an attitude doesn't imply that that attitude is common in the group that he's in.

Henry
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 18 2008,13:01

Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 18 2008,11:27)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Did you notice these words: "Portmann's unwillingness to accept the extensive experimental work"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ah. But that's just one person. One person having an attitude doesn't imply that that attitude is common in the group that he's in.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He he, is just the sort of thing foolish neodarwinismist say. You continue run away from my argument like stench.  :angry:
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 18 2008,14:21

Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 18 2008,11:27)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Did you notice these words: "Portmann's unwillingness to accept the extensive experimental work"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ah. But that's just one person. One person having an attitude doesn't imply that that attitude is common in the group that he's in.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You may have noticed that I quoted in fact two articles from "Evolution". Both of them claimed that professor A.Portmann was wrong, because spermatozoa in birds are cooled  - the claim which turned out to be wrong.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Mar. 18 2008,14:23

V, have you managed to get around to proposing an alternative to the Darwinisumusov yet?

Please do make a point to let me know when you do that.
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 19 2008,14:02

Arnold B. Grobman in his article

An Alternative Solution to the Coral Snake Mimic Problem (Reptilia, Serpentes, Elapidae)


JSTOR:

< http://links.jstor.org/sici?si.....CO;2-R >

calls the whole issue of coral snakes mimicry as pseudomimicry. Next to maps and areas of distribution of "mimics" he presented in the article many other facts that are unexplainable by selectionist's fancies. The author dismissed selection as the source of resemblance between coral snakes and their mimics. Interestig is his examples of snakes that are "aposematic" only on their ventral side and so no predator can be warned/scared by it.

For instance ring-neck snake:    



The author of the article (1978) was inspired by ideas  of Reighard (1908) who dismissed selection as source of some colorfull fish.

A. Grobman concludes:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

With little or no selection pressure through predation, bright colors and bizarre patterns have arisen among a variety of unrelated species of secretive snakes. Among a substantial number of those species, several independently have developed color patterns of gross similarity although differing in detail. Snakes of similar size with grossly similar patterns bear a superficial
resemblance to each other. When such resembling species occupy approximately the same geographic area, the phenomenon might be called pseudomimicry. It is proposed that the superficial morphological resemblances among the coral snake, scarlet snake, and scarlet kingsnake in the southeastern United States comprise an example of pseudomimicry.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 19 2008,14:28

Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 19 2008,14:02)
A. Grobman concludes:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

With little or no selection pressure through predation, bright colors and bizarre patterns have arisen among a variety of unrelated species of secretive snakes. Among a substantial number of those species, several independently have developed color patterns of gross similarity although differing in detail. Snakes of similar size with grossly similar patterns bear a superficial
resemblance to each other. When such resembling species occupy approximately the same geographic area, the phenomenon might be called pseudomimicry. It is proposed that the superficial morphological resemblances among the coral snake, scarlet snake, and scarlet kingsnake in the southeastern United States comprise an example of pseudomimicry.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And until you give us another explanation for the phenomenon, your contributions here can be explained simply as pseudointellectual pseudoscientific posturing.

I'll ask again, even though I know it is futile.

What is your favored explanation of the origin of snakes that seem to mimic coral snakes?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 19 2008,16:27



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

With little or no selection pressure through predation, bright colors and bizarre patterns have arisen among a variety of unrelated species of secretive snakes. Among a substantial number of those species, several independently have developed color patterns of gross similarity although differing in detail. Snakes of similar size with grossly similar patterns bear a superficial
resemblance to each other. When such resembling species occupy approximately the same geographic area, the phenomenon might be called pseudomimicry. It is proposed that the superficial morphological resemblances among the coral snake, scarlet snake, and scarlet kingsnake in the southeastern United States comprise an example of pseudomimicry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What is the explanation of 'pseudomimicry', Marty? I can't help but notice there isn't any actual explanation in here.

Naming something is not an explanation.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Mar. 19 2008,16:38

I liked VMartian much better when he was obsessed with testicles.
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 19 2008,16:52

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 19 2008,16:27)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

With little or no selection pressure through predation, bright colors and bizarre patterns have arisen among a variety of unrelated species of secretive snakes. Among a substantial number of those species, several independently have developed color patterns of gross similarity although differing in detail. Snakes of similar size with grossly similar patterns bear a superficial
resemblance to each other. When such resembling species occupy approximately the same geographic area, the phenomenon might be called pseudomimicry. It is proposed that the superficial morphological resemblances among the coral snake, scarlet snake, and scarlet kingsnake in the southeastern United States comprise an example of pseudomimicry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What is the explanation of 'pseudomimicry', Marty? I can't help but notice there isn't any actual explanation in here.

Naming something is not an explanation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh really? You didn't notice? Did you read the whole article I have given link to? You would probably see that there is actually proposed an explanation of pseudomimicry (unless you suffers from dyslexia of course).  

Arnold B. Grobman offered an explanation there.

Or do you have problem with conneting to JSTOR from your McDarwin fastfood University?
Posted by: Lou FCD on Mar. 19 2008,17:03





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Troll sign >, by Tierecke on Flickr
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 19 2008,17:38

Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 19 2008,16:52)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 19 2008,16:27)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

With little or no selection pressure through predation, bright colors and bizarre patterns have arisen among a variety of unrelated species of secretive snakes. Among a substantial number of those species, several independently have developed color patterns of gross similarity although differing in detail. Snakes of similar size with grossly similar patterns bear a superficial
resemblance to each other. When such resembling species occupy approximately the same geographic area, the phenomenon might be called pseudomimicry. It is proposed that the superficial morphological resemblances among the coral snake, scarlet snake, and scarlet kingsnake in the southeastern United States comprise an example of pseudomimicry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What is the explanation of 'pseudomimicry', Marty? I can't help but notice there isn't any actual explanation in here.

Naming something is not an explanation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh really? You didn't notice? Did you read the whole article I have given link to? You would probably see that there is actually proposed an explanation of pseudomimicry (unless you suffers from dyslexia of course).  

Arnold B. Grobman offered an explanation there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is explaining his theory more than your linguistic and intellectual skills can handle? Or is it that your break is over and you need to get back to your window? Or is it that you are continue to run away like stench, he he?
Posted by: Lou FCD on Mar. 19 2008,17:58

Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 19 2008,17:52)
Oh really? You didn't notice? Did you read the whole article I have given link to? You would probably see that there is actually proposed an explanation of pseudomimicry (unless you suffers from dyslexia of course).  

Arnold B. Grobman offered an explanation there.

Or do you have problem with conneting to JSTOR from your McDarwin fastfood University?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


V,

It would be interesting if you actually presented some sort of case, some alternative to the theory of evolution.

As it is, simply repeating "Darwin sucks" in various and sundry forms is becoming tiresome.  Quoting long dead scientists helps you not one whit, especially when you quote ones whose ideas have turned out to be incorrect, which you do with alarming frequency.

Find an alternative.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 19 2008,20:33



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
find an alternative
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



HOW ABOUT YOU ALTERNATIVE YOUR ASS BACK TO WORK GODDAMMIT MARTIN YOU ARE NOT BEING PAID TO FIDDLEFART AROUND WITH YOUR GOOBER ON TEH INTERWEBZ YOU ARE BEING HARDLY PAID TO KEEP THOSE ORDERS COMING.  NOT ANOTHER WORD UNTIL YOU KNOW THE MCMENU BY HEART!!!!one!!!!
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 20 2008,11:43

Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 19 2008,17:58)
Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 19 2008,17:52)
Oh really? You didn't notice? Did you read the whole article I have given link to? You would probably see that there is actually proposed an explanation of pseudomimicry (unless you suffers from dyslexia of course).  

Arnold B. Grobman offered an explanation there.

Or do you have problem with conneting to JSTOR from your McDarwin fastfood University?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


V,

It would be interesting if you actually presented some sort of case, some alternative to the theory of evolution.

As it is, simply repeating "Darwin sucks" in various and sundry forms is becoming tiresome.  Quoting long dead scientists helps you not one whit, especially when you quote ones whose ideas have turned out to be incorrect, which you do with alarming frequency.

Find an alternative.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually you haven't presented any evidence that herpetologist and professor of biology Arnold B. Grobman was wrong regarding his research and conclusions about "mimicry" of coral snakes. And it was Jeanot and not me who started the discussion about this case of "mimicry".

Professor Grobman also presented in his paper non-selectionist explanation of the case. But maybe you  think that all cases of so-called mimicry could be apriori reduced to natural selection whatever the reality and facts are.

And I would like to ask you something. Do you think that contents of Erasmus' posts agree with AtBC rules of  discussion?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 20 2008,11:46

Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 20 2008,11:43)
And I would like to ask you something. Do you think that contents of Erasmus' posts agree with AtBC rules of  discussion?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope. We asked you first.

What is your favored explanation of the origin of snakes that seem to mimic coral snakes?

Your turn.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 20 2008,12:07

Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 20 2008,11:43)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 19 2008,17:58)
   
Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 19 2008,17:52)
Oh really? You didn't notice? Did you read the whole article I have given link to? You would probably see that there is actually proposed an explanation of pseudomimicry (unless you suffers from dyslexia of course).  

Arnold B. Grobman offered an explanation there.

Or do you have problem with conneting to JSTOR from your McDarwin fastfood University?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


V,

It would be interesting if you actually presented some sort of case, some alternative to the theory of evolution.

As it is, simply repeating "Darwin sucks" in various and sundry forms is becoming tiresome.  Quoting long dead scientists helps you not one whit, especially when you quote ones whose ideas have turned out to be incorrect, which you do with alarming frequency.

Find an alternative.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually you haven't presented any evidence that herpetologist and professor of biology Arnold B. Grobman was wrong regarding his research and conclusions about "mimicry" of coral snakes. And it was Jeanot and not me who started the discussion about this case of "mimicry".

Professor Grobman also presented in his paper non-selectionist explanation of the case. But maybe you  think that all cases of so-called mimicry could be apriori reduced to natural selection whatever the reality and facts are.

And I would like to ask you something. Do you think that contents of Erasmus' posts agree with AtBC rules of  discussion?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You're trying to change the subject. Nice try, but you don't have enough credibility to pull it off.

Martin, you seem unwilling to discuss why Grobman's paper supposedly supports your view. Have you even paid for, downloaded and *read* it, or are you just bluffing, based on the title page?

Or is there some other reason why you can't/won't explain Grobman's argument?

My suspicion is that Grobman isn't as 'anti-Darwinian' as you'd like, and you're hoping we won't notice.

So: what is YOUR explanation of apparent mimicry in snakes?
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 22 2008,16:10



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

What is your favored explanation of the origin of snakes that seem to mimic coral snakes?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



As far as I know neodarwinian school offered only so-called "Mertensian mimicry" as the explanation of the mimicry of deadly poisonous coral snakes. No one bird has been observed to survive after being bitten. So how can any bird learn not to touch coral-like snakes?




---------------------QUOTE-------------------

During the next 80 min, the bird became progressively uncoordinated, unresponsive to my approach, and finally collapsed. By 14:05 h the bird was dead of flaccid paralysis typical of the neurotoxic effects of elapsid venom.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< jstor 1989: Red-Tailed Hawk Dies with Coral Snake in Talons >

Above mentioned professor Grobman who called the whole issue as pseudomimicry offered this solution:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

In developing the concept of pseudomimicry, it is suggested that in secretive snakes, in which there is no selection pressure for a color pattern that is concealing, camouflaging, deflective, warning, mimicking, etc., a wide variety of non-adaptive color patterns could arise
and some might be quite bright and bizarre....
.
.
.
Among secretive snakes there is little or no selection pressure by predators for a protective color pattern. With little or no selection pressure through predation, bright colors and bizarre patterns have arisen among a variety of unrelated species of secretive snakes. Among a substantial number of those species, several independently have developed color patterns of gross similarity although differing in detail. Snakes of similar size with grossly similar patterns bear a superficial resemblance to each other. When such resembling species occupy approximately the same geographic area, the phenomenon might be called pseudomimicry. It is proposed that the superficial morphological resemblances among the coral snake, scarlet snake, and scarlet kingsnake in the southeastern United States comprise an example of pseudomimicry.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sounds like Heikertinger who refuted natural selection as the source of mimicry entirely.

As to the so-called neodarwinian mertesian mimicry explanation - or in German "Mertensche mimikry" - Komarek from UNI Prague wrote, that the whole explanation belongs more to the realm of fairy-tales.

< Mimicry, Aposematism and Related Phenomena in Animals and Plants 1998 >

For those who are interested in an independent view on the whole issue of mimicry and neodarwinism as well, some of Komarek's views can be found   < here pdf. >
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 22 2008,16:33

Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 22 2008,16:10)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

What is your favored explanation of the origin of snakes that seem to mimic coral snakes?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



As far as I know neodarwinian school offered only so-called "Mertensian mimicry" as the explanation of the mimicry of deadly poisonous coral snakes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


V

I don't know how to break this news to you, but your response is not an answer to the question.

Try again.

What is your favored explanation of the origin of snakes that seem to mimic coral snakes?

[hint - the word "explanation" means that you try to "explain" the phenomenon. Talking endlessly about how another explanation fails to account for all of your facts is not the same thing as an explanation.]
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 22 2008,16:42

You obviously didn't read my previous post where I highlited the text written by professor Grobman. The discussing case of coral snakes is not mimicry, only "pseudomimicry". Mimicry by definition is a resemblance between the species living in the same area giving some of them survival advantage where natural selection is the source of the resemblance. Because in all discussed cases there is not natural selection involved we are not dealing with "mimicry" only with a resemblance. Consequently I have no answer to something that doesn't exist per definition.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 22 2008,17:45

Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 22 2008,16:42)
You obviously didn't read my previous post where I highlited the text written by professor Grobman. The discussing case of coral snakes is not mimicry, only "pseudomimicry". Mimicry by definition is a resemblance between the species living in the same area giving some of them survival advantage where natural selection is the source of the resemblance. Because in all discussed cases there is not natural selection involved we are not dealing with "mimicry" only with a resemblance. Consequently I have no answer to something that doesn't exist per definition.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Obviously you didn't understand the question; I said that they "seem to mimic" coral snakes. These snakes certainly exist, and they certainly seem to look like coral snakes, or your argument would be even more pointless than usual. Notice that I didn't say that this was a case of mimicry. I'll agree with you that it is pseudomimicry. But naming it is not the same as explaining it.

Try again, but focus on the question this time.

What is your favored explanation of the origin of snakes that seem to mimic coral snakes?
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 22 2008,17:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No one bird has been observed to survive after being bitten. So how can any bird learn not to touch coral-like snakes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If it happens often for a particular bird species, it might give an advantage to any variety within that species that happens to have an aversion (or even just a lack of interest) in snakes of that appearance, over varieties of the species that lack that aversion.

Henry
Posted by: Lou FCD on Mar. 22 2008,18:33

Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 20 2008,12:43)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 19 2008,17:58)
 
Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 19 2008,17:52)
Oh really? You didn't notice? Did you read the whole article I have given link to? You would probably see that there is actually proposed an explanation of pseudomimicry (unless you suffers from dyslexia of course).  

Arnold B. Grobman offered an explanation there.

Or do you have problem with conneting to JSTOR from your McDarwin fastfood University?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


V,

It would be interesting if you actually presented some sort of case, some alternative to the theory of evolution.

As it is, simply repeating "Darwin sucks" in various and sundry forms is becoming tiresome.  Quoting long dead scientists helps you not one whit, especially when you quote ones whose ideas have turned out to be incorrect, which you do with alarming frequency.

Find an alternative.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually you haven't presented any evidence that herpetologist and professor of biology Arnold B. Grobman was wrong regarding his research and conclusions about "mimicry" of coral snakes. And it was Jeanot and not me who started the discussion about this case of "mimicry".

Professor Grobman also presented in his paper non-selectionist explanation of the case. But maybe you  think that all cases of so-called mimicry could be apriori reduced to natural selection whatever the reality and facts are.

And I would like to ask you something. Do you think that contents of Erasmus' posts agree with AtBC rules of  discussion?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've made no claims whatever, V.

I asked you a straightforward question.

The fact that you choose to play games and simply repeat the mantra of "The Darwinisimusikov sucks" says much about your (utter lack of) explanation.

Just spit it out, V.

You're not really fooling anyone anyway.

As for Erasmus' posts, moderation discussion can be taken up by PM.  You'd have known that had you actually bothered to read the rules about which you're so smarmily asking.

Given your own posting history, you might want to consider taking a deep breath before bitching about anyone else.  Please look at aforementioned rules for the term "excessively annoying".
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 23 2008,01:35

Albatrossity2



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

What is your favored explanation of the origin of snakes that seem to mimic coral snakes?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You use words you don't underestand. What do you mean by "to mimic"?

There are placental wolfs and marsupial wolfs that looks very similar. Would you ask me the stupid question:

What is your favored explanation of the origin of placental wolfs that seem to mimic marsupial wolfs ?  

Make clear yourself what do you mean by "to mimic", "mimicry" and come back. Or better - explain me what do you mean by these words.
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 23 2008,02:04

Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 22 2008,17:56)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No one bird has been observed to survive after being bitten. So how can any bird learn not to touch coral-like snakes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If it happens often for a particular bird species, it might give an advantage to any variety within that species that happens to have an aversion (or even just a lack of interest) in snakes of that appearance, over varieties of the species that lack that aversion.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But there are some cases observed where birds were bitten and died and some cases where birds killed and decapitated coral snakes. In the same article I have given link to there is a table "Published records of Avian predation on coral snakes and red and black coral snakes".

Observed birds were: Red-tailed hawk, Red-shouldered hawk, American kestrel, Laughing falcon, Puffbird, Loggerhead shrike.

The interesting facts are recorded about the laughing falcons: one decapitated a coral snake but didn't eat it, but another laughing falcon ate living false coral snake without decapitating it! I am not claiming laughing falcons distinguish between coral snakes and king snakes, but perhaps who knows.

Your explanation is a current one as far as I know.
But it requires that such innate aversions evolved in many predatory species - which seems to be very strange - and on the other hand there are many species that attack  coral snakes without any harm.
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 23 2008,02:30

Lou FCD

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I've made no claims whatever, V.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You made claims. You wrote:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Quoting long dead scientists helps you not one whit, especially when you quote ones whose ideas have turned out to be incorrect, which you do with alarming frequency

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Do you mean I was incorrect with coloration of fruiting bodies of mushrooms, wasps "mimicry", descent of testicles? All of them are at least open problems for discussion I dare say.  

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Given your own posting history, you might want to consider taking a deep breath before bitching about anyone else.  Please look at aforementioned rules for
the term "excessively annoying".

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I wasn't bitching. I asked a question.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 23 2008,07:28

Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 23 2008,01:35)
Albatrossity2

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is your favored explanation of the origin of snakes that seem to mimic coral snakes?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You use words you don't underestand. What do you mean by "to mimic"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Huh. I thought you were the one who brought up this topic. It's pretty sad when you admit you don't even know the definition of a word you have been throwing around in your last hundred comments or so.

mimic = "look like"

Thanks
Posted by: Alan Fox on Mar. 23 2008,12:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For those who are interested in an independent view on the whole issue of mimicry and neodarwinism as well, some of Komarek's views can be found   here pdf.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This paper is a work of history. I can find no evidence of research into the possible mechanisms of mimicry in it. "Komarek' views" shed no light on any alternative explanation of mimicry, unless I have missed something. Perhaps you can pick out something?
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 24 2008,12:53

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 23 2008,07:28)
Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 23 2008,01:35)
Albatrossity2

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is your favored explanation of the origin of snakes that seem to mimic coral snakes?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You use words you don't underestand. What do you mean by "to mimic"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Huh. I thought you were the one who brought up this topic. It's pretty sad when you admit you don't even know the definition of a word you have been throwing around in your last hundred comments or so.

mimic = "look like"

Thanks
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you think that placental wolfs are "mimicking" marsupial wolfs?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 24 2008,13:12

I think that the moon is mimicking the sun marty.

The serpent mimicked Jesus The Designer.

You mimic a real person interested in science.

On the other hand, your ass is getting ready to mimic a football if you don't

GET OFF THE COMPUTER MARTIN HERE COMES THE 19 YEAR OLD MANAGER KID AND HE IS PISSISIMUS LIKE THE STENCH!!!
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 24 2008,13:16

Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 23 2008,12:12)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For those who are interested in an independent view on the whole issue of mimicry and neodarwinism as well, some of Komarek's views can be found   here pdf.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This paper is a work of history. I can find no evidence of research into the possible mechanisms of mimicry in it. "Komarek' views" shed no light on any alternative explanation of mimicry, unless I have missed something. Perhaps you can pick out something?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I suspect you of very superficial reading the material. Komarek for instance wrote:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Day-active birds, as is well known, attack owls with an almost passionate hatred /so called mobbing/, even though most of them do not constitute a direct danger for the birds. On the other hand, the birds usually cannot attack the owls with any great success. In spite of all neo-Darwinian attempts at interpretation of this phenomenon /e.g. Curio, 1978/ it seems, that „irrational“ emotions, something like archetypal hatred between day birds and night birds, play an important role. This is
seen even clearer in occasionally published papers about occurrences of the mobbing of bats by small day birds /Campbell, 1973, Cundale et al., 1988, Strong & Cuffe, 1985/ (this author observed this as well) - Here neither predation nor competition can play even the slightest role, the only remaining explanation is the deep archetypal hatred for non-birds, which are too
similar not to attract attention and at the same time too different to be accepted as „regular“ birds.).

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




I think that "archetypal hatred between day birds and night birds" is something that is no way in accord with neodarwinian mantras.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It is interesting that nobody from the Continental school attempted to interpret cryptic phenomena using Jung’s and von Pauli’s (Jung, 1952) principle of synchronicity, or rather in this case „syntopicity“, for which it would be an almost ideal subject (synchronicity is understood by Jung and von Pauli to be the cumulation of phenomena, which require joint interpretation - in this case optical phenomena ) in space and time (even various other mimetic phenomena would fit into this thought system very well). It is important to know that Jung’s and von
Pauli’s (and also Kammerer’s, 1919) principle of synchronicity goes against the whole range of modern science with its principle of causality...
.
.
.
then mimetic paralle lism of the external form would remind us of inter-psychic connections between people who are close to one another, which causes for example the induction of psychic symptoms in otherwise healthy individuals by their sick relations (the well known phenomena folie deux).
Considering the fact that modern science does not operate with the term psýché in this way,
the interpretation of mimetic phenomena in this way lies outside its scope of interest, but in any case this analogy seems to be quite useful

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Interesting is also the chapter "Darwinism and sociomorphic modeling". As you can see some biologists from Uni Prague have pretty relaxed stance towards the mainstream neo-darwinism.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 24 2008,13:22

Martin, can you please explain in more detail this 'archetypical hatred of day birds and night birds'?

In particular, this empirical finding seems to verify the biblical prediction that bats are indeed birds.  I am intrigued by your diligent hard work and of course I apologize for heaping such undeserved scorn upon a true sojourner for truth and knowledge.  It must be difficult to be a piranha and I regret my participation in such behavior.

Shhh some one is coming....
Posted by: jeannot on Mar. 24 2008,13:25

Martin has got a point here. Defining mimicry is not straightforward. Probably, wikipedia has a definition. Care to look at it, Martin?

Also, the authors of the Nature paper did some measures of predation on snakes, which supported their hypothesis. What say you?
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Mar. 24 2008,13:31

Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 24 2008,18:53)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 23 2008,07:28)
Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 23 2008,01:35)
Albatrossity2

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is your favored explanation of the origin of snakes that seem to mimic coral snakes?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You use words you don't underestand. What do you mean by "to mimic"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Huh. I thought you were the one who brought up this topic. It's pretty sad when you admit you don't even know the definition of a word you have been throwing around in your last hundred comments or so.

mimic = "look like"

Thanks
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you think that placental wolfs are "mimicking" marsupial wolfs?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, no, he wasn't actually making any claims.

He was asking what you thought explains the fact that some animals look like others. So what do you think?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 24 2008,13:39

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 24 2008,13:31)
Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 24 2008,18:53)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 23 2008,07:28)
 
Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 23 2008,01:35)
Albatrossity2

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is your favored explanation of the origin of snakes that seem to mimic coral snakes?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You use words you don't underestand. What do you mean by "to mimic"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Huh. I thought you were the one who brought up this topic. It's pretty sad when you admit you don't even know the definition of a word you have been throwing around in your last hundred comments or so.

mimic = "look like"

Thanks
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you think that placental wolfs are "mimicking" marsupial wolfs?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, no, he wasn't actually making any claims.

He was asking what you thought explains the fact that some animals look like others. So what do you think?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Surely for the asking of that question are you the foolish neodarwinismusist, he he."
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 24 2008,14:19

Quote (jeannot @ Mar. 24 2008,13:25)
Martin has got a point here. Defining mimicry is not straightforward. Probably, wikipedia has a definition. Care to look at it, Martin?

Also, the authors of the Nature paper did some measures of predation on snakes, which supported their hypothesis. What say you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I agree. I am not sure that V understands it past the "looks alike" cursory definition, however.  Note that he didn't really answer the question (again) but rather came back with another question.

Sigh.

V. Please try again, using whatever definition of "mimic" yanks your chain.

What is your favored explanation of the origin of snakes that seem to mimic coral snakes?
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 24 2008,14:48

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 24 2008,13:22)
Martin, can you please explain in more detail this 'archetypical hatred of day birds and night birds'?

In particular, this empirical finding seems to verify the biblical prediction that bats are indeed birds.  I am intrigued by your diligent hard work and of course I apologize for heaping such undeserved scorn upon a true sojourner for truth and knowledge.  It must be difficult to be a piranha and I regret my participation in such behavior.

Shhh some one is coming....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Have you sobered up? What did you drink? Mojito with mexican urine?

Are you still working in the University department with that colleague of yours who doesn't know how to tell apart spiders and ants? What Unversity are you working at?
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 24 2008,14:51

Quote (jeannot @ Mar. 24 2008,13:25)
Martin has got a point here. Defining mimicry is not straightforward. Probably, wikipedia has a definition. Care to look at it, Martin?

Also, the authors of the Nature paper did some measures of predation on snakes, which supported their hypothesis. What say you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have offered my definition of mimicry as Heikertinger had defined it. I've done it several times. It's not my problem that nobody at AtBC read my posts. There are several points which have to be fulfilled to enable a resemblance to be called as "mimicry".
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 24 2008,14:54

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 24 2008,13:31)
Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 24 2008,18:53)
 
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 23 2008,07:28)
 
Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 23 2008,01:35)
Albatrossity2

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is your favored explanation of the origin of snakes that seem to mimic coral snakes?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You use words you don't underestand. What do you mean by "to mimic"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Huh. I thought you were the one who brought up this topic. It's pretty sad when you admit you don't even know the definition of a word you have been throwing around in your last hundred comments or so.

mimic = "look like"

Thanks
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you think that placental wolfs are "mimicking" marsupial wolfs?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, no, he wasn't actually making any claims.

He was asking what you thought explains the fact that some animals look like others. So what do you think?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It depends on animals. Some sabretooth's animals looked surprisingly similar but nobody called the cases of convergent evolution as "mimicry" - except Albatrossity2.
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 24 2008,14:58

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 24 2008,14:19)
Quote (jeannot @ Mar. 24 2008,13:25)
Martin has got a point here. Defining mimicry is not straightforward. Probably, wikipedia has a definition. Care to look at it, Martin?

Also, the authors of the Nature paper did some measures of predation on snakes, which supported their hypothesis. What say you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I agree. I am not sure that V understands it past the "looks alike" cursory definition, however.  Note that he didn't really answer the question (again) but rather came back with another question.

Sigh.

V. Please try again, using whatever definition of "mimic" yanks your chain.

What is your favored explanation of the origin of snakes that seem to mimic coral snakes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Unless you define what do you mean by "to mimic" I am afraid our discussion has no sense. You don't even know what you are asking. Btw. have you ever heard of "convergent evolution"? What do you think, what is the difference between "convergent evolution" and "mimicry"?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 24 2008,15:02

Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 24 2008,14:58)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 24 2008,14:19)
Quote (jeannot @ Mar. 24 2008,13:25)
Martin has got a point here. Defining mimicry is not straightforward. Probably, wikipedia has a definition. Care to look at it, Martin?

Also, the authors of the Nature paper did some measures of predation on snakes, which supported their hypothesis. What say you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I agree. I am not sure that V understands it past the "looks alike" cursory definition, however.  Note that he didn't really answer the question (again) but rather came back with another question.

Sigh.

V. Please try again, using whatever definition of "mimic" yanks your chain.

What is your favored explanation of the origin of snakes that seem to mimic coral snakes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Unless you define what do you mean by "to mimic" I am afraid our discussion has no sense. You don't even know what you are asking. Btw. have you ever heard about "convergent evolution"? What do you think, what is the difference between "convergent evolution" and "mimicry"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nonanswer. Try again.

Remember how back in high school nonanswers like that would get you flunked?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 24 2008,15:04

Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 24 2008,14:48)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 24 2008,13:22)
Martin, can you please explain in more detail this 'archetypical hatred of day birds and night birds'?

In particular, this empirical finding seems to verify the biblical prediction that bats are indeed birds.  I am intrigued by your diligent hard work and of course I apologize for heaping such undeserved scorn upon a true sojourner for truth and knowledge.  It must be difficult to be a piranha and I regret my participation in such behavior.

Shhh some one is coming....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Have you sobered up? What did you drink? Mojito with mexican urine?

Are you still working in the University department with that colleague of yours who doesn't know how to tell apart spiders and ants? What Unversity are you working at?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is this your way of volunteering to tell us what university department YOU'RE at, Marty, or what your credentials are?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 24 2008,15:04

Martin, the little kids are getting pissed off that you quit driving up and down their street and instead just sit outside the starbucks using their free internet.  THE KIDS NEED THEIR ICE CREAM GODDAMMIT MARTY GET BACK TO WORK

By the way please let us know when you are available to go through our ant collection and pull out all of the spiders and beetles that are misidentified.  I hear that there are some snake collectors that also need your expertise.  And we need someone, preferably an untrained unskilled savant like yourself, to sort through all of the sticks in the forest and pull out the Phasmotodeans.  Only you could do this Vicky.  By the way nice accent there.  HERE COMES YOUR BOSS GET BACK TO WORK!!! THOSE LIDS ARE NOT GOING TO SCREW THEMSELVES ON GODDAMMIT
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 24 2008,15:05

Ardent, you have a fine picture now. As soon as I notice it I skip the whole post. Did you write anything?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 24 2008,15:07

Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 24 2008,15:05)
Ardent, you have a fine picture now. As soon as I notice it I skip the whole post. Did you write anything?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Martin, are you volunteering to tell us what university department you're at? Or what McDonald's in Bratislava you got fired from?
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 24 2008,15:14

Erasmus after another shot of mojito with mexican urine:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

By the way please let us know when you are available to go through our ant collection and pull out all of the spiders and beetles that are misidentified.  I hear that there are some snake collectors that also need your expertise.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You didn't give us the names of ants and spiders your colleague from University could not tell apart after half an hour of observing (or more? Maybe he was observing them 6 hours while you were writing your scientific dissertation at AtBC). Btw. hasn't your University written above the main entrance something like Sanatorium? It would explain a lot about you and your "colleagues".
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 24 2008,15:18

Here we go, V:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Are you still working in the University department with that colleague of yours who doesn't know how to tell apart spiders and ants? What Unversity are you working at?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Since you're claiming to know your ass from a hole in the ground about biology & the darwinismus, it's only fair if you told us what University YOU are working at? What are your credentials? Are you at some 'special' university where having no explanations and not answering questions is rewarded? Or are you just working at a bank window or a McDonalds? It's only fair you should tell us, Marty.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 24 2008,15:22

Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 24 2008,14:58)
Unless you define what do you mean by "to mimic" I am afraid our discussion has no sense. You don't even know what you are asking. Btw. have you ever heard of "convergent evolution"? What do you think, what is the difference between "convergent evolution" and "mimicry"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


V - I do know what I am asking. And I did define what I meant by "mimic". If it isn't satisfactory, please feel free to provide your own definition. Then, of course, you will have to answer the question. Please note that it has always been worded this way ("seem to mimic") so that you couldn't weasel out of it by flailing away at definitions of mimicry and pseudomimicry. Quit flailing. And please quit asking more questions before you answer this one.

What is your favored explanation of the origin of snakes that seem to mimic coral snakes?
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 24 2008,15:28

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 24 2008,15:22)
Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 24 2008,14:58)
Unless you define what do you mean by "to mimic" I am afraid our discussion has no sense. You don't even know what you are asking. Btw. have you ever heard of "convergent evolution"? What do you think, what is the difference between "convergent evolution" and "mimicry"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


V - I do know what I am asking. And I did define what I meant by "mimic". If it isn't satisfactory, please feel free to provide your own definition. Then, of course, you will have to answer the question. Please note that it has always been worded this way ("seem to mimic") so that you couldn't weasel out of it by flailing away at definitions of mimicry and pseudomimicry. Quit flailing. And please quit asking more questions before you answer this one.

What is your favored explanation of the origin of snakes that seem to mimic coral snakes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have already defined "mimicry" here several times. Also for you. Read my answers to your posts please.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 24 2008,15:30

Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 24 2008,15:28)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 24 2008,15:22)
Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 24 2008,14:58)
Unless you define what do you mean by "to mimic" I am afraid our discussion has no sense. You don't even know what you are asking. Btw. have you ever heard of "convergent evolution"? What do you think, what is the difference between "convergent evolution" and "mimicry"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


V - I do know what I am asking. And I did define what I meant by "mimic". If it isn't satisfactory, please feel free to provide your own definition. Then, of course, you will have to answer the question. Please note that it has always been worded this way ("seem to mimic") so that you couldn't weasel out of it by flailing away at definitions of mimicry and pseudomimicry. Quit flailing. And please quit asking more questions before you answer this one.

What is your favored explanation of the origin of snakes that seem to mimic coral snakes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have already defined "mimicry" here several times. Also for you. Read my answers to your posts please.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A definition is not an explanation, Marty. Nice try.
Posted by: jeannot on Mar. 24 2008,16:47

Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 24 2008,14:51)
Quote (jeannot @ Mar. 24 2008,13:25)
Martin has got a point here. Defining mimicry is not straightforward. Probably, wikipedia has a definition. Care to look at it, Martin?

Also, the authors of the Nature paper did some measures of predation on snakes, which supported their hypothesis. What say you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have offered my definition of mimicry as Heikertinger had defined it. I've done it several times. It's not my problem that nobody at AtBC read my posts. There are several points which have to be fulfilled to enable a resemblance to be called as "mimicry".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks Martin.
Now what about my second point?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 24 2008,16:58

Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 24 2008,15:28)
I have already defined "mimicry" here several times. Also for you. Read my answers to your posts please.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Great. If you've defined it, then use that definition to answer the question. And don't accuse me of not reading your posts, when you have spent the last week not reading this:

What is your favored explanation of the origin of snakes that seem to mimic coral snakes?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 24 2008,17:49

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 24 2008,16:58)
Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 24 2008,15:28)
I have already defined "mimicry" here several times. Also for you. Read my answers to your posts please.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Great. If you've defined it, then use that definition to answer the question. And don't accuse me of not reading your posts, when you have spent the last week not reading this:

What is your favored explanation of the origin of snakes that seem to mimic coral snakes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think I < found > the 'explanation of apparent mimicry' that Marty keeps insisting he gave us:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Who knows. You know life. Would you like to explain life? -Unless you are a darwinist of course.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I think we now know why Marty never passed his MA orals.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Mar. 26 2008,04:01

Martin,

I wrote:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I can find no evidence of research into the possible mechanisms of mimicry in it. "Komarek' views" shed no light on any alternative explanation of mimicry, unless I have missed something.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You replied:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I suspect you of very superficial reading the material.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is true, but I was merely scanning for evidence of research and any alternative explanation of mimicry; I found none and asked you to point some out. There is nothing in your reply that answers my question.

I see that one or two other posters have expressed a similar interest in hearing your alternative explanation.

You complain:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's not my problem that nobody at AtBC read my posts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, if you want to hold on to the few that are still bothering to glance at your comments, perhaps you could try a new strategy of answering a simple question, for example:

What is your favored explanation of the origin of snakes that seem to mimic coral snakes?
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 26 2008,13:49

Quote (jeannot @ Mar. 24 2008,16:47)
Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 24 2008,14:51)
 
Quote (jeannot @ Mar. 24 2008,13:25)
Martin has got a point here. Defining mimicry is not straightforward. Probably, wikipedia has a definition. Care to look at it, Martin?

Also, the authors of the Nature paper did some measures of predation on snakes, which supported their hypothesis. What say you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have offered my definition of mimicry as Heikertinger had defined it. I've done it several times. It's not my problem that nobody at AtBC read my posts. There are several points which have to be fulfilled to enable a resemblance to be called as "mimicry".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks Martin.
Now what about my second point?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course there might have been such a result. But I don't see why natural selection should have been involved in the origin of the resemblance.

You know marsupial wolfs look like placental wolfs but it doesn't mean they look similar because of natural selection via their predators.  Even if scientists prove that plasteline models of marsupial wolfs are less attacked in the areas where placental wolfs live as compared with the areas where placental wolfs do not live.
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 26 2008,13:51

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 24 2008,16:58)
Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 24 2008,15:28)
I have already defined "mimicry" here several times. Also for you. Read my answers to your posts please.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Great. If you've defined it, then use that definition to answer the question. And don't accuse me of not reading your posts, when you have spent the last week not reading this:

What is your favored explanation of the origin of snakes that seem to mimic coral snakes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Seem to mimic" to whom? To you? Than explain your question yourself. I don't think they are "mimicking" or "they seem to mimic" anything.
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 26 2008,14:06

Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 26 2008,04:01)
Martin,

I wrote:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I can find no evidence of research into the possible mechanisms of mimicry in it. "Komarek' views" shed no light on any alternative explanation of mimicry, unless I have missed something.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You replied:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I suspect you of very superficial reading the material.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is true, but I was merely scanning for evidence of research and any alternative explanation of mimicry; I found none and asked you to point some out. There is nothing in your reply that answers my question.

I see that one or two other posters have expressed a similar interest in hearing your alternative explanation.

You complain:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's not my problem that nobody at AtBC read my posts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, if you want to hold on to the few that are still bothering to glance at your comments, perhaps you could try a new strategy of answering a simple question, for example:

What is your favored explanation of the origin of snakes that seem to mimic coral snakes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You didn't bothered read my post  where I quoted Komarek for you. Of course he like darwinists doesn't provide evidence. If you are looking for evidence á la neodarwinian explanation of mimicry you wouldn't find them in his book - but what  you will find there is many  
interesting ideas and observations

As to your last question, see my previous post to Albatrossity. My opinion is in accord with John Davison's claims in his Manifesto. The resemblance between marsupial and placental wolfs has been prescribed from the beginning. The same for the coloration of coral snakes, wasps and their so-called "mimics". It is nothing else as "pseudomimcry". In this case I am on the side of Davison, Heikertinger and Grobman. There are many species with the same color patterns which happen to live next to each other.  Sometimes some of them (or better some of their plasteline models) may have some "survival advantage" from looking like their neighbours, but there was not natural selection involved in the origin of their coloration.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 26 2008,14:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In this case I am on the side of Davison,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Davison also has said God has died. Do you agree with that?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

"Seem to mimic" to whom? To you? Than explain your question yourself. I don't think they are "mimicking" or "they seem to mimic" anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wow. Doesn't look like you know what 'seem' means.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 26 2008,14:37

Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 26 2008,14:06)
As to your last question, see my previous post to Albatrossity. My opinion is in accord with John Davison's claims in his Manifesto. The resemblance between marsupial and placental wolfs has been prescribed from the beginning. The same for the coloration of coral snakes, wasps and their so-called "mimics".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Prescribed" brings us closer to an explanation, but it is still not a real explanation. Prescribed by who or what? And how was this prescription filled?  And when was this "beginning"?

Thanks in advance
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 26 2008,20:53



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Prescribed by who or what?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The family doctor? :p

Henry
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 26 2008,23:35

The Great Physician, of course.
Posted by: Falk Macara on Mar. 27 2008,00:49

When you get around to < answering >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is your favored < explanation > of the origin of snakes that < seem > to < mimic > coral snakes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You could provide < evidence > supporting your assertion that  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
there was not natural selection involved in the origin of their coloration
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 27 2008,09:12

Quote (Falk Macara @ Mar. 27 2008,00:49)
When you get around to < answering >      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is your favored < explanation > of the origin of snakes that < seem > to < mimic > coral snakes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You could provide < evidence > supporting your assertion that      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
there was not natural selection involved in the origin of their coloration
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't think we should get sidetracked, since we know from long experience that VM will never answer those questions.

VM just said this:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As to your last question, see my previous post to Albatrossity. My opinion is in accord with John Davison's claims in his Manifesto. The resemblance between marsupial and placental wolfs has been prescribed from the beginning. The same for the coloration of coral snakes, wasps and their so-called "mimics".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Albatrossity nailed it best:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Prescribed" brings us closer to an explanation, but it is still not a real explanation. Prescribed by who or what? And how was this prescription filled?  And when was this "beginning"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's what we need from our Slovakian creationist troll now:

What does 'prescribed' mean and how is 'prescribing' done?

Who 'prescribed' it?

When did this 'prescribing' happen?
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 27 2008,13:01

Quote (Falk Macara @ Mar. 27 2008,00:49)
When you get around to < answering >  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is your favored < explanation > of the origin of snakes that < seem > to < mimic > coral snakes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You could provide < evidence > supporting your assertion that    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
there was not natural selection involved in the origin of their coloration
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I see. The definition from the site:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

biol: the close resemblance of one animal or plant species to another species, or to a non-living feature of its natural environment, which protects it from predators or enables it to deceive its prey.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




This is very innacurate biological definition. But if you and other participants here think it is correct no wonder that discussion about "mimicry" is hampered by such superficial knowledge.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Mar. 27 2008,13:08

V, read this very carefully.

If something seems to mimic something, it means it looks like it. It doesn't mean it "mimics" it for any other than the superficial definition whereby mimic simply means "looks like".

So, why do you think some snakes look like others? What process caused them to adopt this look, or was it by accident?

If it was prescribed, who did this, and how?
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 27 2008,13:08

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 26 2008,14:37)
 
Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 26 2008,14:06)
As to your last question, see my previous post to Albatrossity. My opinion is in accord with John Davison's claims in his Manifesto. The resemblance between marsupial and placental wolfs has been prescribed from the beginning. The same for the coloration of coral snakes, wasps and their so-called "mimics".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Prescribed" brings us closer to an explanation, but it is still not a real explanation. Prescribed by who or what? And how was this prescription filled?  And when was this "beginning"?

Thanks in advance
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It means that there was an innate tendency in variation in coloration. This has been set in the past and has nothing to do with natural selection. It can be explained as "self-represenation" of species as proposed by Swiss zoologist professor Adolf Portmann or as frontloading as proposed by professor John Davison in his Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. Also other scientists considered so called "mimicry" as variation of coloration of different animals which happened to resemble each other.
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 27 2008,13:13

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,13:08)
V, read this very carefully.

If something seems to mimic something, it means it looks like it. It doesn't mean it "mimics" it for any other than the superficial definition whereby mimic simply means "looks like".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Are you sure? "Mimics" = "looks like"?


Do you think that marsupial wolfs mimic placental wolfs?

Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Mar. 27 2008,13:20

snakes and testicles, snakes and testicles, snakes and testicles.

marty I'm beginning ti think you're soft in the head or possibly have a hidden desire/fetish you're not sharing with the class.

Just when did your obsession begin with snakes and testicles?
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Mar. 27 2008,13:26

Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,19:13)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,13:08)
V, read this very carefully.

If something seems to mimic something, it means it looks like it. It doesn't mean it "mimics" it for any other than the superficial definition whereby mimic simply means "looks like".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Are you sure? "Mimics" = "looks like"?


Do you think that marsupial wolfs mimic placental wolfs?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mimics tend to look like things, yes. Admittedly, my comment was poorly written (I'm not entirely on the ball right now) and no, mimics don't simply look like something, but since you failed to understand what "seems" meant, I phrased it badly.
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 27 2008,13:58

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Mar. 27 2008,13:20)
snakes and testicles, snakes and testicles, snakes and testicles.

marty I'm beginning ti think you're soft in the head or possibly have a hidden desire/fetish you're not sharing with the class.

Just when did your obsession begin with snakes and testicles?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It has started when I noticed that darwinists are like bulls. If they see a red colored animal they start shouting - look aposematim! Survival advantage!

Descent of testicles is another phenomenon that darwinists are lost how to explain. They claim in their text-books that there must have been cooling of spermatozoa behind it  (whatever the facts are). They stick to this nonsense like a leech.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Mar. 27 2008,14:00

Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,13:58)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Mar. 27 2008,13:20)
snakes and testicles, snakes and testicles, snakes and testicles.

marty I'm beginning ti think you're soft in the head or possibly have a hidden desire/fetish you're not sharing with the class.

Just when did your obsession begin with snakes and testicles?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It has started when I noticed that darwinists are like bulls. If they see a red colored animal they start shouting - look aposematim! Survival advantage!

Descent of testicles is another phenomenon that darwinists are lost how to explain. They claim in their text-books that there must have been cooling of spermatozoa behind it  (whatever the facts are). They stick to this nonsense like a leech.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Personally, I thank God every day for my hernia, and the Design of our upright posture.

Good work, Big Guy.
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 27 2008,14:03

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,13:26)
 
Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,19:13)
 
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,13:08)
V, read this very carefully.

If something seems to mimic something, it means it looks like it. It doesn't mean it "mimics" it for any other than the superficial definition whereby mimic simply means "looks like".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Are you sure? "Mimics" = "looks like"?


Do you think that marsupial wolfs mimic placental wolfs?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mimics tend to look like things, yes. Admittedly, my comment was poorly written (I'm not entirely on the ball right now) and no, mimics don't simply look like something, but since you failed to understand what "seems" meant, I phrased it badly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You "seem" to be lost. Do you realise there is also a crypsis? What do you think what is the difference between mimicry and crypsis?
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Mar. 27 2008,14:14

Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,20:03)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,13:26)
 
Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,19:13)
   
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,13:08)
V, read this very carefully.

If something seems to mimic something, it means it looks like it. It doesn't mean it "mimics" it for any other than the superficial definition whereby mimic simply means "looks like".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Are you sure? "Mimics" = "looks like"?


Do you think that marsupial wolfs mimic placental wolfs?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mimics tend to look like things, yes. Admittedly, my comment was poorly written (I'm not entirely on the ball right now) and no, mimics don't simply look like something, but since you failed to understand what "seems" meant, I phrased it badly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You "seem" to be lost. Do you realise there is also a crypsis? What do you think what is the difference between mimicry and crypsis?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Guess what Marty? I don't care. Know why? Well, it's because I'm not the one being asked the question. You state that X cannot be true. Great, why can X not be true? In order for you to state this you must know what really IS true. So why do some snakes look like others? Why do some wolves (note: wolVes) look like other wolves?

Describe what mechanism causes some animals to look like others.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Mar. 27 2008,14:24

Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,13:58)
Descent of testicles is another phenomenon that darwinists are lost how to explain.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And it appears you are also lost how to explain. So you and darwinism are equal. So it's nil-nil at half time Vmartin. Will you move your players into a new formation or just keep on droning on as you have been.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 27 2008,14:27

Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,13:08)
 It means that there was an innate tendency in variation in coloration. This has been set in the past and has nothing to do with natural selection. It can be explained as "self-represenation" of species as proposed by Swiss zoologist professor Adolf Portmann or as frontloading as proposed by professor John Davison in his Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. Also other scientists considered so called "mimicry" as variation of coloration of different animals which happened to resemble each other.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry, V, that is not an answer. Saying that it has "nothing to do with natural selection" is not the same as giving us some idea about what you (not Portmann or Davison) think it might have something to do with.  "Set" by whom? Or what?  And when "in the past"?

When you say that "The resemblance between marsupial and placental wolfs has been prescribed from the beginning", it implies more than "an innate tendency in variation in coloration". Even the word "innate" hides a mechanism; we're asking you for a mechanism to explain the observation that some snakes seem to mimic coral snakes. So let's back up and try again.  

"Prescribed" brings us closer to an explanation, but it is still not a real explanation. Prescribed by who or what? And how was this prescription filled?  And when was this "beginning"?

thanks
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 27 2008,14:36

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,14:14)
Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,20:03)
 
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,13:26)
   
Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,19:13)
     
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,13:08)
V, read this very carefully.

If something seems to mimic something, it means it looks like it. It doesn't mean it "mimics" it for any other than the superficial definition whereby mimic simply means "looks like".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Are you sure? "Mimics" = "looks like"?


Do you think that marsupial wolfs mimic placental wolfs?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mimics tend to look like things, yes. Admittedly, my comment was poorly written (I'm not entirely on the ball right now) and no, mimics don't simply look like something, but since you failed to understand what "seems" meant, I phrased it badly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You "seem" to be lost. Do you realise there is also a crypsis? What do you think what is the difference between mimicry and crypsis?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Guess what Marty? I don't care. Know why? Well, it's because I'm not the one being asked the question. You state that X cannot be true. Great, why can X not be true? In order for you to state this you must know what really IS true. So why do some snakes look like others? Why do some wolves (note: wolVes) look like other wolves?

Describe what mechanism causes some animals to look like others.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why should I know what is true? If you claim that the fifth root of 15785 is one hundred I am pretty sure you are wrong even thouhg I don't know the result.

But your question is much more exact than the babbling questions of Albatrossity2. Anyway it is too general. As regarding the coral snakes I have already answered it. It is "pseudomicry" - the resemblance is pure coincidence and it was no way selection by predators that has led to the similarity of king snakes to coral snakes.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Mar. 27 2008,14:44

Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,20:36)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,14:14)
 
Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,20:03)
 
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,13:26)
     
Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,19:13)
     
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,13:08)
V, read this very carefully.

If something seems to mimic something, it means it looks like it. It doesn't mean it "mimics" it for any other than the superficial definition whereby mimic simply means "looks like".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Are you sure? "Mimics" = "looks like"?


Do you think that marsupial wolfs mimic placental wolfs?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mimics tend to look like things, yes. Admittedly, my comment was poorly written (I'm not entirely on the ball right now) and no, mimics don't simply look like something, but since you failed to understand what "seems" meant, I phrased it badly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You "seem" to be lost. Do you realise there is also a crypsis? What do you think what is the difference between mimicry and crypsis?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Guess what Marty? I don't care. Know why? Well, it's because I'm not the one being asked the question. You state that X cannot be true. Great, why can X not be true? In order for you to state this you must know what really IS true. So why do some snakes look like others? Why do some wolves (note: wolVes) look like other wolves?

Describe what mechanism causes some animals to look like others.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why should I know what is true? If you claim that the fifth root of 15785 is one hundred I am pretty sure you are wrong even thouhg I don't know the result.

But your question is much more exact than the babbling questions of Albatrossity2. Anyway it is too general. As regarding the coral snakes I have already answered it. It is "pseudomicry" - the resemblance is pure coincidence and it was no way selection by predators that has led to the similarity of king snakes to coral snakes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well I'm going to do something strange now Marty. I'm going to thank you for actually supplying an answer.

Congratulations, it only took a few pages, but we got an answer.

"It just is that way".
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 27 2008,14:46

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 27 2008,14:27)
 
Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,13:08)
 It means that there was an innate tendency in variation in coloration. This has been set in the past and has nothing to do with natural selection. It can be explained as "self-represenation" of species as proposed by Swiss zoologist professor Adolf Portmann or as frontloading as proposed by professor John Davison in his Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. Also other scientists considered so called "mimicry" as variation of coloration of different animals which happened to resemble each other.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry, V, that is not an answer. Saying that it has "nothing to do with natural selection" is not the same as giving us some idea about what you (not Portmann or Davison) think it might have something to do with.  "Set" by whom? Or what?  And when "in the past"?

When you say that "The resemblance between marsupial and placental wolfs has been prescribed from the beginning", it implies more than "an innate tendency in variation in coloration". Even the word "innate" hides a mechanism; we're asking you for a mechanism to explain the observation that some snakes seem to mimic coral snakes. So let's back up and try again.  

"Prescribed" brings us closer to an explanation, but it is still not a real explanation. Prescribed by who or what? And how was this prescription filled?  And when was this "beginning"?

thanks
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why couldn't I back up my ideas with Portmann's or Davison's arguments? Did you invent "natural selection" or "random mutation" and do you consider them for your own ideas or what? You support your notion by arguments of neodarwinian scientists. So do I.

I also don't like your sentences like "So let's back up and try again." I am not here on interrogation and you are not the teacher.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 27 2008,15:02

Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,14:46)
 
Why couldn't I back up my ideas with Portmann's or Davison's arguments? Did you invented "natural selection" or "random mutation" and do you consider them for your own ideas or what? You support your notion by arguments of neodarwinian scientists. So do I.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because, like you, they had no explanations of HOW these things were "prescribed", or WHEN they were "prescribed", or by WHOM they were "prescribed".  If they did, please point us to those passages in their works, and indicate if you fully agree with these sages.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I also don't like your sentences like "So let's back up and try again." I am not here on interrogation and you are not the teacher.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I am trying to learn by asking questions. I am the student; you are the teacher. Would you disallow questions by students? Or is it merely the case that you cannot answer them in a scientific manner?

Prescribed by who or what? And how was this prescription filled?  And when was this "beginning"?
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 27 2008,15:06

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,14:44)
Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,20:36)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,14:14)
 
Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,20:03)
   
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,13:26)
     
Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,19:13)
       
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,13:08)
V, read this very carefully.

If something seems to mimic something, it means it looks like it. It doesn't mean it "mimics" it for any other than the superficial definition whereby mimic simply means "looks like".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Are you sure? "Mimics" = "looks like"?


Do you think that marsupial wolfs mimic placental wolfs?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mimics tend to look like things, yes. Admittedly, my comment was poorly written (I'm not entirely on the ball right now) and no, mimics don't simply look like something, but since you failed to understand what "seems" meant, I phrased it badly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You "seem" to be lost. Do you realise there is also a crypsis? What do you think what is the difference between mimicry and crypsis?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Guess what Marty? I don't care. Know why? Well, it's because I'm not the one being asked the question. You state that X cannot be true. Great, why can X not be true? In order for you to state this you must know what really IS true. So why do some snakes look like others? Why do some wolves (note: wolVes) look like other wolves?

Describe what mechanism causes some animals to look like others.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why should I know what is true? If you claim that the fifth root of 15785 is one hundred I am pretty sure you are wrong even thouhg I don't know the result.

But your question is much more exact than the babbling questions of Albatrossity2. Anyway it is too general. As regarding the coral snakes I have already answered it. It is "pseudomicry" - the resemblance is pure coincidence and it was no way selection by predators that has led to the similarity of king snakes to coral snakes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well I'm going to do something strange now Marty. I'm going to thank you for actually supplying an answer.

Congratulations, it only took a few pages, but we got an answer.

"It just is that way".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are wellcome. Actually I wrote the same thing some pages above. The "pseudomimicry" as explanation of coral snake rings was proposed by professor Grobman. Conspicuous coloration of animals is outcome of relaxed selective pressure and not "aposematism" and "mimicry" as neodarwinian school would like us to believe.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Mar. 27 2008,15:43

Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,21:06)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,14:44)
Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,20:36)
 
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,14:14)
   
Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,20:03)
   
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,13:26)
       
Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,19:13)
       
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,13:08)
V, read this very carefully.

If something seems to mimic something, it means it looks like it. It doesn't mean it "mimics" it for any other than the superficial definition whereby mimic simply means "looks like".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Are you sure? "Mimics" = "looks like"?


Do you think that marsupial wolfs mimic placental wolfs?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mimics tend to look like things, yes. Admittedly, my comment was poorly written (I'm not entirely on the ball right now) and no, mimics don't simply look like something, but since you failed to understand what "seems" meant, I phrased it badly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You "seem" to be lost. Do you realise there is also a crypsis? What do you think what is the difference between mimicry and crypsis?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Guess what Marty? I don't care. Know why? Well, it's because I'm not the one being asked the question. You state that X cannot be true. Great, why can X not be true? In order for you to state this you must know what really IS true. So why do some snakes look like others? Why do some wolves (note: wolVes) look like other wolves?

Describe what mechanism causes some animals to look like others.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why should I know what is true? If you claim that the fifth root of 15785 is one hundred I am pretty sure you are wrong even thouhg I don't know the result.

But your question is much more exact than the babbling questions of Albatrossity2. Anyway it is too general. As regarding the coral snakes I have already answered it. It is "pseudomicry" - the resemblance is pure coincidence and it was no way selection by predators that has led to the similarity of king snakes to coral snakes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well I'm going to do something strange now Marty. I'm going to thank you for actually supplying an answer.

Congratulations, it only took a few pages, but we got an answer.

"It just is that way".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are wellcome. Actually I wrote the same thing some pages above. The "pseudomimicry" as explanation of coral snake rings was proposed by professor Grobman. Conspicuous coloration of animals is outcome of relaxed selective pressure and not "aposematism" and "mimicry" as neodarwinian school would like us to believe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But just saying "It's pseudomimicary" isn't an answer. You have to then provide what you think is the explanation, which in this case was "It just is".
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 27 2008,15:49

Albatrossity2:

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Because, like you, they had no explanations of HOW these things were "prescribed", or WHEN they were "prescribed", or by WHOM they were "prescribed".  If they did, please point us to those passages in their works, and indicate if you fully agree with these sages.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You are wellcome. Professor Davison suggests that new species may occur by 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."  

I am not a genetist so I cannot judge it. But what seem to be very interesting and something I would like to  stress is professor Davison's  idea that sexual reproduction prevents evolution.  

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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< here >

As I wrote elsewhere this concept has been quoted by Jaroslav Flegr Uni Prague in his "Evolutionary biology" 2005 where he wrote that precursors of sexual cells migrate into gonads from different places. It means that sexual cells in different groups of Vertebrata are non-homologous (page 240).

It also means that different groups of Vertebrata has arisen independently. But you can check Davison's Manifesto yourself and discuss with him the issue in more details at his own blog if you like.

As to professor Portmann there are no sources available on internet except of his "New paths in biology" which is only in Czech.

< here Czech >
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 27 2008,18:05

Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,15:49)
You are wellcome. Professor Davison suggests that new species may occur by 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."  

I am not a genetist so I cannot judge it. But what seem to be very interesting and something I would like to  stress is professor Davison's  idea that sexual reproduction prevents evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm pretty sure that explaining HOW a new species develops is NOT the same thing as explaining WHY some snakes seem to mimic coral snakes. But let's go with that explanation.

It seems to me that one prediction from your invocation of Davison's mechanism for species generation would be that snakes that look the most alike are the most closely related genetically. Would you agree with that prediction?
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 27 2008,20:48



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It also means that different groups of Vertebrata has arisen independently.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The problem with that conclusion is that it would leave us with a huge number of apparently homologous features that couldn't actually be homologous if that conclusion were correct.

As for why some snakes (or any type of living thing, for that matter) resemble each other - given the huge number of species out there, it seems to me that it'd be extremely unlikely to not find some that resemble each other, sometimes in the same geographic area.

For that matter, such a coincidence as that would be a prerequisite for actual adaptive mimicry.

As for the resemblance of marsupial and placental "wolf", as I understand it that's simply a result of having a similar environment, and a similar way of getting food, therefore similar physical abilities would be a direct result of adaptation to that lifestyle. (It's analogous to why dolphins and whales are largely fish-shaped - that shape is advantageous in that environment.)

Henry
Posted by: Lou FCD on 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.
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 28 2008,10:58

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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know who "Javison" is. I presented my opinions about the work written by professor John A. Davison.
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 28 2008,11:20

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 27 2008,18:05)
         
Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,15:49)
You are wellcome. Professor Davison suggests that new species may occur by 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."  

I am not a genetist so I cannot judge it. But what seem to be very interesting and something I would like to  stress is professor Davison's  idea that sexual reproduction prevents evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm pretty sure that explaining HOW a new species develops is NOT the same thing as explaining WHY some snakes seem to mimic coral snakes. But let's go with that explanation.

It seems to me that one prediction from your invocation of Davison's mechanism for species generation would be that snakes that look the most alike are the most closely related genetically. Would you agree with that prediction?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually I don't know the exact opinion of professor John Davison about the coral snakes "mimicry". You'd better  ask him. Otherwise I would be only a messenger between him and you. You probably underestand I will be banned here immediately. He has his own blog where you can discuss it.  

As far as I can judge from his Manifesto he would say that the case is similar to the case of resemblance between marsupial and placental wolfs. That would be my personal "prediction".
My opinion about some striking resemblances you can see in my following post to Henry.
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 28 2008,11:33

Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 27 2008,20:48)
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It also means that different groups of Vertebrata has arisen independently.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The problem with that conclusion is that it would leave us with a huge number of apparently homologous features that couldn't actually be homologous if that conclusion were correct.

As for why some snakes (or any type of living thing, for that matter) resemble each other - given the huge number of species out there, it seems to me that it'd be extremely unlikely to not find some that resemble each other, sometimes in the same geographic area.

For that matter, such a coincidence as that would be a prerequisite for actual adaptive mimicry.

As for the resemblance of marsupial and placental "wolf", as I understand it that's simply a result of having a similar environment, and a similar way of getting food, therefore similar physical abilities would be a direct result of adaptation to that lifestyle. (It's analogous to why dolphins and whales are largely fish-shaped - that shape is advantageous in that environment.)

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know if the problem of coral snakes "mimicry" could  (or couldn't) be solved by the systematics more precisely. Heikertinger who dismissed natural selection amongst butteflies didn't adressed the coral snakes "mimicry" specifically. Yet he used systematics in addressing many cases of mimicry in insect realm. Darwinists of the past days called "mimicry" also resemblances between species of the same genera of butterflies! The whole systematics of butterflies is the science of itself and I don't know if coloration patterns on butterfly wings play an unimportant role in it. I did't find on my books and on internet the rules of systematics of butterflies.

On the other hand the main proponent of Orthogenesis Theodor Eimer observed some transformational rules in the development of coloration of butterflies wings (and on lizard's skins) in the course of evolution. These transformation rules seem to be independent on "natural selection"  and no wonder if some amazing resemblances of coloration of wing patterns of unrelated butterflies (or lizard's skins) may evoke "mimicry" in a darwinian mind.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 28 2008,11:53

Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 28 2008,11:20)
Actually I don't know the exact opinion of professor John Davison about the coral snakes "mimicry". You'd better  ask him. Otherwise I would be only a messenger between him and you. You probably underestand I will be banned here immediately. He has his own blog where you can discuss it.  

As far as I can judge from his Manifesto he would say that the case is similar to the case of resemblance between marsupial and placental wolfs. That would be my personal "prediction".
My opinion about some striking resemblances you can see be in my following post to Henry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm pretty sure you can follow this argument if you try. If you can't follow it, you have no business here acting as if you understand the biology of the things that you are discussing.

You wrote    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
new species may occur by 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."
---------------------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?
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 28 2008,12:36

Albatrossity2

You are obviously an arrogant person.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What "predictions" are you babbling about? You didn't read professor Davison's Manifesto. Otherwise you wouldn't make your bold presuppositions. Professor Davison is a proponent of saltationism and therefore there is no need to make predictions how a new species coloration after "saltus" would look like. Saltationism  is also an idea of Richard Goldschmidt. I will not respond to your post anymore unless you know what you are talking about.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

If you can't follow it, you have no business here acting as if you understand the biology of the things that you are discussing.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes. Why don't you go away to other threads and  spread your wisdom there where it could be appreciated more? I restricted myself to this thread and Bathroom wall. So don't read and respond at these threads.

     

       
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Mar. 28 2008,12:39

I said no mayo and extra salad. Geez, just can't get the staff.
Posted by: VMartin on Mar. 28 2008,13:00

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 28 2008,12:39)
I said no mayo and extra salad. Geez, just can't get the staff.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ask Erasmus and his colleague who don't know how to tell apart spiders and ants on the floor. They are janitors at University. Doing nothing all day.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 28 2008,13:50

Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 28 2008,12:36)
Albatrossity2

You are obviously an arrogant person.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What "predictions" are you babbling about? You didn't read professor Davison's Manifesto. Otherwise you wouldn't make your bold presuppositions. Professor Davison is a proponent of saltationism and therefore there is no need to make predictions how a new species coloration after "saltus" would look like. Saltationism  is also an idea of Richard Goldschmidt. I will not respond to your post anymore unless you know what you are talking about.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

If you can't follow it, you have no business here acting as if you understand the biology of the things that you are discussing.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes. Why don't you go away to other threads and  spread your wisdom there where it could be appreciated more? I restricted myself to this thread and Bathroom wall. So don't read and respond at these threads.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


V

Insulting me is not an answer to the question, nor will it dissuade me from asking again. Asking me to go away is also not a valid response.

You are here to teach us darwinists how this all works, and you finally, after months of weaseling, gave a mechanistic answer that leads to a testable prediction. It is not a "bold presupposition"; it is a logical outcome of your proposed mechanism. I am trying to understand that mechanism, and I merely asked you if, based on your profound understanding of both Biology and Manifesto, you agreed with that prediction.

Do you have a problem with testing your hypotheses?  If so, you need to quit pretending to discuss science. If not, let's hear your thoughts.

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?

Posted by: BopDiddy on 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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Mar. 28 2008,15:49

Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 28 2008,13:00)
Ask Erasmus and his colleague who don't know how to tell apart spiders and ants on the floor.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ask them what?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 28 2008,16:08

Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 28 2008,10:58)
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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know who "Javison" is. I presented my opinions about the work written by professor John A. Davison.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you love it so?
Posted by: Lou FCD on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know who "Javison" is. I presented my opinions about the work written by professor John A. Davison.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We of course are referring to the same nutjob, crackpot Dohn A. Javison.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 28 2008,16:18



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The resemblance between marsupial and placental wolfs has been prescribed from the beginning. The same for the coloration of coral snakes, wasps and their so-called "mimics".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Who did the 'prescribing'?

When did this prescribing happen?
Posted by: VMartin on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know who "Javison" is. I presented my opinions about the work written by professor John A. Davison.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We of course are referring to the same nutjob, crackpot Dohn A. Javison.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If there is any crackpot it's  FOO Lcd no doubt.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know who "Javison" is. I presented my opinions about the work written by professor John A. Davison.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We of course are referring to the same nutjob, crackpot Dohn A. Javison.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If there is any crackpot it's  FOO Lcd no doubt.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Martin, who did the 'prescribing' you speak of?

When did this prescribing happen?

Is God dead, like Javison says?
Posted by: VMartin on 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?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




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.
Posted by: VMartin on 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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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".
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on 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".

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So do you completely reject common descent for all organisms?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: VMartin on 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?

---------------------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".
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on 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-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
if unrelated snakes do not have common ancestor
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


#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.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 29 2008,15:34



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But they cannot lose germ cells. Non-homology in germ cells is a strong argument against "common descent".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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?
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 29 2008,15:40



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I mentioned non-homology of germ cells. Obviously such case doesn't indicate "common ancestor".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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
Posted by: VMartin on 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

Posted by: BopDiddy on 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)
Posted by: VMartin on 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?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
Posted by: Henry J on 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
Posted by: Lou FCD on April 05 2008,07:18

Quote (VMartin @ April 04 2008,17:24)
It's "natural selection" on the trial here, not me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Posted by: Alan Fox on April 05 2008,08:59



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ladybirds are very conspicuous regarding their coloration. Yet neodarwinian school doesn't have any plausible explanation of it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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!"
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on April 06 2008,01:25

Alan I think this might help clarify VMartin's opinion.


Posted by: VMartin on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 10 2008,14:36



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But they cannot lose germ cells. Non-homology in germ cells is a strong argument against "common descent".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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?
Posted by: VMartin on 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
---------------------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".  

 


but what about this one:



or this one
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on 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".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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?
Posted by: Lou FCD on April 10 2008,16:06

This thread is a < case in point. >

There's just no parody too ridiculous.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on 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.
Posted by: Henry J on 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".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Reality does not care about what VMartin can't understand.
Posted by: Lou FCD on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Reality does not care about what VMartin can't understand.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And VMartin doesn't appear to understand that reality doesn't care about what VMartin can't understand.

It's recursive that way.
Posted by: VMartin on 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".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on April 11 2008,13:11

Quote (VMartin @ April 11 2008,13:04)
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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure, Marty

Whatever you say. "Darwinists" are obviously completely wrong about all of this. Nobody can argue with a refutation of 45 years of stomach content analysis...

But there must be a better explanation that you and the other refuters have some evidence for. So perhaps now you can divulge your explanation of how those dragonflies got those colors and patterns.

I'm all ears...
Posted by: Alan Fox on April 11 2008,13:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But perhaps you could do some study of the issue before.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How ironic! Science fascinates me and I try to learn about new developments as time permits. What can I learn from you? How to open a bank account in Bratislava, perhaps?
Posted by: VMartin on April 11 2008,13:26

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 11 2008,13:11)
Quote (VMartin @ April 11 2008,13:04)
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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure, Marty

Whatever you say. "Darwinists" are obviously completely wrong about all of this. Nobody can argue with a refutation of 45 years of stomach content analysis...

But there must be a better explanation that you and the other refuters have some evidence for. So perhaps now you can divulge your explanation of how those dragonflies got those colors and patterns.

I'm all ears...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Obviously "natural selection" is no explanation of it.
Posted by: VMartin on April 11 2008,13:29

Quote (Alan Fox @ April 11 2008,13:12)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But perhaps you could do some study of the issue before.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How ironic! Science fascinates me and I try to learn about new developments as time permits. What can I learn from you? How to open a bank account in Bratislava, perhaps?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In Bratislava? Do you think your irony is as witty as those of Voltaire or Stendhal? I am afraid you are the second class comparing those great French authors. You have still to learn.
Posted by: Alan Fox on April 11 2008,13:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You have still to learn.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Agreed. So, teach me your alternative to variation followed by selection.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on April 11 2008,13:53

Quote (VMartin @ April 11 2008,13:26)
Obviously "natural selection" is no explanation of it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Obviously.

So please tell us your explanation of it, and the evidence that supports it.

Thanks in advance!
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 11 2008,13:58

Quote (VMartin @ April 11 2008,13:26)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 11 2008,13:11)
Quote (VMartin @ April 11 2008,13:04)
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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure, Marty

Whatever you say. "Darwinists" are obviously completely wrong about all of this. Nobody can argue with a refutation of 45 years of stomach content analysis...

But there must be a better explanation that you and the other refuters have some evidence for. So perhaps now you can divulge your explanation of how those dragonflies got those colors and patterns.

I'm all ears...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Obviously "natural selection" is no explanation of it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What is?
Posted by: BopDiddy on April 11 2008,16:04

Quote (VMartin @ April 11 2008,13:26)

Obviously "natural selection" is no explanation of it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm curious, too.  What is the explanation?
Posted by: VMartin on April 12 2008,22:01

Quote (Lou FCD @ April 05 2008,07:18)
   
Quote (VMartin @ April 04 2008,17:24)
It's "natural selection" on the trial here, not me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Natural selection has been vindicated only in your confused mind Lou.

---

Good message. The neodarwinian idiots have just banned me at EvC.

< http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin....3&m=226 >
Posted by: olegt on April 12 2008,22:31

VMartin,

I think you have been asked several times about the alternative theory that presumably fares better than mainstream biology.  You have avoided answering the question so far.
Posted by: VMartin on April 12 2008,23:47

Just before I am banned here too.

The top idiots at AtBC are:

1) ArdenChatfield
2) theolddarwinismyhero
3) Erasmus
4) LouFCD

They have never produced any arguments except denigration, abuses, stupid questions and nonsensical babbling. The whole discussion at AtBC is moderated
by idiot LouFCD who has no slightest idea about justice.

Idiots here are unable to discuss any issue. The only thing they are able to do is to "google out" some neodarwinian article and to parrot the first page of it.  

This is not a forum, this is a cage of fools.
Posted by: olegt on April 12 2008,23:52

Thanks, VMartin, for providing an exhaustive answer.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 13 2008,02:12

Quote (VMartin @ April 13 2008,00:14)
Your questions are not on the programme now.

But you can hand down a message to LouFCD from professor John Davison.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If natural selection does not explain variation, Martin, what does?

Why won't you answer this?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
LouFCD can kiss him on his purple blister.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That seems to be your job, Marty.
Posted by: VMartin on April 13 2008,03:25

You are a neodarwinian idiot par excellence.
Posted by: Lou FCD on April 13 2008,06:49

Posting in proxy for a banned commenter is a bannable offense, for which I had warned you on several occasions.

Offending comments can be found < here >, and < here > on The Bathroom Wall.  VMartin can be found elsewhere.

Goodbye, VMartin.

Thread closed.



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Fremont Troll >, by Travis S.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< help, i'm a stick figure trapped in this boring picture >, by robotson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




end


Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a
Ikonboard © 2001 Jarvis Entertainment Group, Inc.