Printable Version of Topic

-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: JAD was banned again from UD... started by Mr_Christopher


Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Oct. 11 2006,12:18

Could we allow JAD to post here again?  Maybe just one thread like Afdave, tard, fighter pilot and part time biologist got?

Just a thought.  JAD is too special to be silenced and Davetard just nuked him again.

JAD if you read this your fans here are pulling for you!
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 11 2006,12:23

No.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Oct. 11 2006,12:26

Aawwww man...That's cold!

Well hopefully our man about science will find someplace other than larry farafarafarafarafara's blog to land and spread his message.

I am going to miss him over at UD.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 11 2006,12:32

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Oct. 11 2006,18:26)
Aawwww man...That's cold!

Well hopefully our man about science will find someplace other than larry farafarafarafarafara's blog to land and spread his message.

I am going to miss him over at UD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Honestly, I don't remember when and why JAD was banned. But the fact is, this isn't Uncommon Descent, where they ban you if they don't like the cut of your jib. So few people get banned here, it's really only the people who are extremely disruptive and problematic, and even then, it's only after months of tired patience. So once banned, forever banned. I'm sure JAD and DaveScot will manage to find places to have their flame wars.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 11 2006,12:36

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 11 2006,17:23)
No.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Got that? Write it down!




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well hopefully our man about science will find someplace other than larry farafarafarafarafara's blog to land and spread his message.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Doesn't JAD still have a blog of his own? Or did he mothball it last time the ashtrays got full?
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Oct. 11 2006,13:20

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 11 2006,17:32)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Oct. 11 2006,18:26)
Aawwww man...That's cold!

Well hopefully our man about science will find someplace other than larry farafarafarafarafara's blog to land and spread his message.

I am going to miss him over at UD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Honestly, I don't remember when and why JAD was banned. But the fact is, this isn't Uncommon Descent, where they ban you if they don't like the cut of your jib. So few people get banned here, it's really only the people who are extremely disruptive and problematic, and even then, it's only after months of tired patience. So once banned, forever banned. I'm sure JAD and DaveScot will manage to find places to have their flame wars.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


IIRC it was to do with his offensive tone and inability to stop repeating himself.

He posted for quite a while on PT but was only allowed on the bathroom wall (the old 1 that was on PT); At least since I started reading it, that was where he was "caged".

His spats often made me laugh. However the regulars who had been there for some time had had enough of him. But boy could that guy rant.

In a way I supose it was pretty sad. People would taunt him and he would go into instant rage mode.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 11 2006,13:25

With Heddle and JAD gone, UD is out of 'scientists'.
Chock full of engineers, though.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Oct. 11 2006,13:59

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Oct. 11 2006,18:20)
In a way I supose it was pretty sad. People would taunt him and he would go into instant rage mode.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It WAS fun to rattle then monkey's bars and watch him fling poo in all directions.


Well, it did get boring after a while, though.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 11 2006,14:47

Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 11 2006,18:25)
With Heddle and JAD gone, UD is out of 'scientists'.
Chock full of engineers, though.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't they still have Phil Skell?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 11 2006,17:28



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

Don't they still have Phil Skell?

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



Haven't you heard? Phil Skell turns out to be unnecessary to the progress of science.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Oct. 11 2006,19:25

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 11 2006,17:36)
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 11 2006,17:23)
No.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Got that? Write it down!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I love it so!

Bob
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Oct. 11 2006,22:13

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Oct. 11 2006,18:59)
 
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Oct. 11 2006,18:20)
In a way I supose it was pretty sad. People would taunt him and he would go into instant rage mode.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It WAS fun to rattle then monkey's bars and watch him fling poo in all directions.


Well, it did get boring after a while, though.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When I first started reading PT, JAD's favourite end-comment was "how do you like them apples" (equivalent to his "Got that? Right it down!"). Then someone asked him if he lacked the knowledge to name more than one fruit (aprox).

JAD then ended each comment with "How do you like them (insert obscure fruit, each one different)". That whent on for quite a while.

I also quite liked JAD's reaction to the banning of Dave Scott. That lasted quite a while. Back then he was describing D-T along the lines of a "genius in the field of computing".

Then the was the people calling JAD a a caged monkey throughing his feces about; That went down well. Guess that was you then Lenny.

I do remember the day JAD was correct though. Something to do with a dinosaur nest and the way the eggs lay. JAD commented on how this was evidence for a certain pelvic arangement in the species (something along those lines, it was few years ago). He was instantly ridiculed by many posters, but turned out JAD was right.
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 11 2006,22:33

It's "Got that? Write that down."

Alan could probably confirm this.
;)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Oct. 12 2006,02:16

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Oct. 12 2006,03:13)
I do remember the day JAD was correct though. Something to do with a dinosaur nest and the way the eggs lay. JAD commented on how this was evidence for a certain pelvic arangement in the species (something along those lines, it was few years ago). He was instantly ridiculed by many posters, but turned out JAD was right.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


JAD was an actual scientist at one time, before he lost his marbles and went stark raving mad.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 12 2006,02:54

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Oct. 12 2006,07:16)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Oct. 12 2006,03:13)
I do remember the day JAD was correct though. Something to do with a dinosaur nest and the way the eggs lay. JAD commented on how this was evidence for a certain pelvic arangement in the species (something along those lines, it was few years ago). He was instantly ridiculed by many posters, but turned out JAD was right.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


JAD was an actual scientist at one time, before he lost his marbles and went stark raving mad.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wonder if he was as dull and repetitive before the breakdown?

His thread over at Dawkins place is progressing nicely, they've got to the point of going "huh" now, little do they know the madness that awaits (repetitive madness mind!;)

I fark it so!
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 12 2006,04:01

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 11 2006,22:28)


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

Don't they still have Phil Skell?

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



Haven't you heard? Phil Skell turns out to be unnecessary to the progress of science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wasn't paying any attention to UD for several days, what happened? Did Skell bow out?
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Oct. 12 2006,05:28

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Oct. 12 2006,07:16)
JAD was an actual scientist at one time, before he lost his marbles and went stark raving mad.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Got that? Write that down.  <- (Better Jeannot?)

I know.

Hard to believe isn't it?

How do you like those apples?
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 12 2006,05:33

A much more observant reader that myself emails to tell me:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
JAD was not banned from PT. He was confined to his very own thread, which he stopped posting to after it dropped off the front page.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So he could come back anytime he wants.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 12 2006,05:38

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Oct. 12 2006,10:28)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Oct. 12 2006,07:16)
JAD was an actual scientist at one time, before he lost his marbles and went stark raving mad.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Got that? Write that down.  <- (Better Jeannot?)

I know.

Hard to believe isn't it?

How do you like those apples?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You guys are forgetting 'darwimp'.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Oct. 12 2006,05:44

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 12 2006,10:38)
You guys are forgetting 'darwimp'.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, no. I assure you I hadn't forgotten that one. He used it so often on PT that a regular eventually lost his rag and offered JAD a fistfight. (Hopefully) Forgetting JAD was an 80+ y.o. man.

Oh, those funny memories just keep on truckin.

Deja Vu - all over again.
Posted by: argystokes on Oct. 12 2006,05:59

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 12 2006,08:33)
A much more observant reader that myself emails to tell me:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
JAD was not banned from PT. He was confined to his very own thread, which he stopped posting to after it dropped off the front page.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So he could come back anytime he wants.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Are you sure?  I suspect that his last comment was enough to have Wes pull the plug:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by John A. Davison on May 27, 2005 09:12 AM (e)

Neither allelic mutation nor selection ever had anything to do with organic evolution which was predetermined executed and now finished.
This post is destined for oblivion in the Welsberry gas chamber as just another example of his Nazi tactics.

John A. Davison
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 12 2006,06:12

I have now been informed by email that John A Davison has indeed been sacked.

Mynd you, mŘŘse bites Kan be pretty nasti ...
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Oct. 12 2006,07:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This post is destined for oblivion in the Welsberry gas chamber as just another example of his Nazi tactics
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now that was some comedy.  JAD should be a fundie christian.  He has the persecuted victim thing down to a "science".

His latest on Dawkins site is pretty much:

JAD: Read my thesis, I am prepared to defend it!

Forumites: Ok, we read it.  Please defend it here, here, here and here with some sort of evidence for these claims.

JAD: I will no longer tollerate the personal attacks on me!  Go ahead and ban me now!!!
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 12 2006,08:41

(I see I accidentally posted this in the wrong thread)

Looking over the fiasco at RichardDawkins.net, I'm starting to think that < this > may be JAD's problem.

Or ONE of them, at least.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Oct. 12 2006,13:46

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 12 2006,13:41)
(I see I accidentally posted this in the wrong thread)

Looking over the fiasco at RichardDawkins.net, I'm starting to think that < this > may be JAD's problem.

Or ONE of them, at least.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sounds just like every fundie IDer I've ever met.  (shrug)
Posted by: GCT on Oct. 13 2006,03:56

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 11 2006,17:23)
No.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you.

Although the fact that he isn't off the deep end in regards to climate change was a nice surprise, his posts in relation to biology are simply annoying.  Nothing more, nothing less.
Posted by: 2ndclass on Oct. 13 2006,05:39

Quote (GCT @ Oct. 13 2006,08:56)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 11 2006,17:23)
No.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you.

Although the fact that he isn't off the deep end in regards to climate change was a nice surprise, his posts in relation to biology are simply annoying.  Nothing more, nothing less.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Amen to that.  JAD isn't just a crackpot; he's an insufferably boring crackpot.  Other IDers regularly come up with new angles, but JAD is a broken record.  He's the kid sitting behind you at the theater who keeps kicking your seat through the whole movie.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 13 2006,05:48

Anyone who wants to engage that nut can just go to < http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=341 > Or better yet, go tell Davetard where he is and put some popcorn in the microwave.
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 14 2006,08:16

I was amazed to see that Professor Davison envisioned his governorship of Vermont.  :O
< John A. Davison for Governor of Vermont >.
:D
Posted by: Alan Fox on Oct. 14 2006,11:08

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 14 2006,08:16)
I was amazed to see that Professor Davison envisioned his governorship of Vermont.  :O
< John A. Davison for Governor of Vermont >.
:D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think he should have stuck with his composting < toilet >.
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 14 2006,12:42

When imagining this man behind his screen in a dark room, typing another post full of insults on a random internet forum, I can't help but laugh.  :D
Posted by: Ved on Oct. 16 2006,07:15

From the Dawkins forum:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The most gratifying feature of this thread is the ratio of views to messages which as of this time is 129 to 1. Isn't that some sort of record?

I love it so!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



He's kind of like a travelling exhibit.
Posted by: REC on Oct. 16 2006,11:59

Wow....Nomogenesis. Isn't that the thesis that pools examples of weak homologies and of convergent evolution into some sort of warped 'evolution guided by laws?' I can't believe with the modern molecular understanding of patterning genes that notion hasn't gone away.

It's like saying: C. elegans has a digestive tube, I have a digestive tube, there is (was) a creator who intended us to be tubey.

And the examples are so weak: Certain sharks and mammals have placentas, so the claim is that the former structure 'predicts' the latter. Except they are non-homologous, the shark 'placenta' derives from the yolk sak, as opposed to the amnion/chorion in mammals. Another example: two mammals from across the globe both developed big teeth. Universal laws, indeed.
Posted by: Ved on Oct. 17 2006,05:02

Hmmm, I was just going to pop on here to say that Davison sure knows how to get what he wants: his thread over on the Dawkins forum had just been closed.

But, now that I look at it again, the thread is reopened with no sign of the mod's closing post.

Come on Davison, you can do it!
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 22 2006,20:52

JAD has been banned from the RichardDawkins.net forums. Fora. Forums. Whatever.

< http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=341&start=270 >
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 22 2006,20:55

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 23 2006,02:52)
JAD has been banned from the RichardDawkins.net forums. Fora. Forums. Whatever.

< http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=341&start=270 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oddly, the Admin who banned him spells like a drunk Salvador Cordova.
Posted by: Ichthyic on Oct. 22 2006,22:13

Skepticus (forum admin):



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
symultaniously
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Indubidubiliciously, he is a creeetive spallar.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 23 2006,01:12

His "logic has no place in science" comment has to make it on his All Time Hits list.  Classic.  Explains a lot about DAJ, too.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 23 2006,04:10

Yet another banning for poor old pathetic Davison to add to his CV. I'm sure he's proud.

I think he behaves this way because it keeps him from having to defend his ideas or < listen to other people, > neither of which he's willing to do. He can be the permanent 'martyr', without ever having to answer any awkward questions or develop any social skills.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 23 2006,04:15

Wow, they didn't take long to get JAD's number:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
John seems to walk a fine line between a harmless kook and a troll. His method of claiming things that are absurd by any standard and refusing to debate reasonably, were symultaniously, entertaining and annoying. John was like an itch that felt good to scratch but would never stop itching. It was a comment by UndercoverElephant, that caused me to reconsider John as a super troll:


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

UndercoverElephant wrote:
I can't personally see his views as being particularly appealing to any community. His theology is every bit as absurd as his evolutionary biology. We have here a creationist who doesn't believe God exists! He disparagingly refered to me as "a natural-selection-worshipping, mutation-obsessed Darwinian mystic." I've got one foot in each camp, trying to bridge the gap. He's got neither foot in either camp.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This, seems to me to be the perfect position to take up if your motive was to be as universaly disagreeable as posible. That, along with the arrogant sophistry, seems to be the perfect strategy for a persistent troll. I think you only go on being a sophist for so long without it becoming obvious that your intention is to simply annoy and frustrate people. John is litteraly a crackpots crackpot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Oct. 23 2006,07:00

As far as who JAD is and where he's coming from, I though that thread was the most revealing one yet.

JAD clearly comes out saying he has this super duper theory and invites folks to read his thesis and says he;s ready to defend it.

The second people started asking him to actually defend his assertions (and asking for evidence to support those assertions) he starts calling foul and goes in persecuted "scientist" mode.  He never once responded to any the requests for evidence or critiques of his ideas.

He's a certified lunatic.  Let's hope they let him start posting at UD again where is is amongst his own kind.
Posted by: Ichthyic on Oct. 23 2006,09:46



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He's a certified lunatic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



the problem is, he's a lunatic, but he HASN'T been certified.

If he had been, maybe he would get treatment.
Posted by: Kristine on Oct. 24 2006,17:47

Dum-de-dum...hey, I've written three grad papers since that fun time at TheEndofEvolution, wonder how JAD is doing on his paper, maybe I'll check out Dawkins' site--gaaa! Holy crap!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
John A. Davison wrote:
It is impossible to understand any aspect of life as a manifestation of undirected processes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, he sure lasted long there. :O JAD's sort of an undirected process himself, isn't he?

"Beshrew my heart, but I pity the man."
Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 02 2006,08:28



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Zachriel



Posts: 51
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2006,14:21  
John Davison asked me to let everyone know about this thread over at ISCID. I see no reason not to drop the link. Enter at your own risk.

<
Darwinism as Delusion >
--------------
--
Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
< http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: slpage on Nov. 02 2006,10:56

Same old lunatic, being helped along by his 'boy' Sal Cordova.

I see he's still quoting his out-of-date heros...

Pathetic as ever.
Posted by: VMartin on Nov. 05 2006,00:51

REC:

No doubt there are other examples which cited also Davison in Manifesto and that are no way to be explained away as "superficially resemblance" as you do in case of placenta, tasmanian wolf etc.. Davison cited Punnet who believed that gradualismus cannot explain many baffling examples of mimicry and saltus is needed. Problem of mimicry consist in fact that to be effective there have to be initial resemlance between model and mimic to be deceptive for predators. No initial gradually step is enough to do this. Even today many experts on batesian or mullerian mimicry of butterflies conform with view of saltus even if in guise of "genetic effect of large magnitude".

Maybe you did not see one of most puzzling case of mimicry, where we have 14 different female morphs of Papilio Dardanus and many of them mimics unpalatable species (Batesian mimicry):

< http://www.ucl.ac.uk/taxome/jim/Mim2/dardanus.html >

According Nijhout (2003) :

"Initial step in the evolution of mimicry is likely to have been due to a genetic effect of large magnitude".

< http://www.nbb.cornell.edu/neurobio/BioNB420/Dardanus2003.pdf >

And do darwinian have enough fantasy to explain even origin of mimetism described by Poulton, when mimics and his model lived in different and distatnt areas?
For instance Limenitis albomaculata lives in West China and their model - males Hypolimnas misippus - southeast Asia?

< http://main2.amu.edu.pl/~skoracka/china/tn_49.html >

< http://www.inra.fr/papillon/papilion/nymphali/texteng/h_misipp.htm >

(One darwinian explanation is this: it is due migrating birds that somehow remember archetypes of unpalatable species and to image of which mimic species in West China accomodated!;)
Posted by: Alan Fox on Nov. 05 2006,23:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No doubt there are other examples which cited also Davison in Manifesto and that are no way to be explained away as "superficially resemblance" as you do in case of placenta, tasmanian wolf etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What is your alternative explanation, apart from personal incredulity?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Davison cited Punnet who believed that gradualismus cannot explain many baffling examples of mimicry and saltus is needed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Punnet (and all John's sources) were working many years ago. Biology is a continually developing body of knowledge. Also John's beliefs are not evidence. What he needs is a convincing hypothesis backed up by suggestions for testing it.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Problem of mimicry consist in fact that to be effective there have to be initial resemlance between model and mimic to be deceptive for predators. No initial gradually step is enough to do this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Can you support this assertion?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Initial step in the evolution of mimicry is likely to have been due to a genetic effect of large magnitude".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Single point mutations can have large phenotypic effects. How do you interpret this statement as a problem for evolutionary theory?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And do darwinian have enough fantasy to explain even origin of mimetism described by Poulton, when mimics and his model lived in different and distatnt areas?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Fantasy? You seem to be having a problem with personal incredulity again. Remember, if evidence for a theory is weak, it does not strengthen the evidence for a particular alternative theory. John' saltationist-front-loading "hypothesis" needs to have some foothold in evidence if it is ever to rise above crank status.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One darwinian explanation is this: it is due migrating birds that somehow remember archetypes of unpalatable species and to image of which mimic species in West China accomodated!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If  species of migratory birds were observed to eat models and mimics in different locations in their migratory cycle, it seems a plausible idea. Does John's "hypothesis" have a better, testable alternative?

I noticed your post at ISCID.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
They are sometimes like unleshead beasts.

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



If you are referring to AtBC posters, I have to agree with you. :D

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am by now way expert on genetics
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Fine. Neither am I. But that does not seem to affect your ability to dismiss the work of many hard-working and dedicated scientists, for the alternative of a "hypothesis" that has no evidential basis.
Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 05 2006,23:59

I read the abstract of Nijhout's paper. He describes alleles of large effects. What's the problem?

I don't see why the first steps of mimicry would require mutations of large effects in all species.
The initial ressemblance could be the result of another selective factor, an exaptation. For instance, two species of toxic insects could develop flashing colors that warn predators. If the flashing colors are closed (it's quite plausible), predation by birds will favor the ressemblance between the species (mullerian mimics). Then one species may lose its ability to produce toxin, but will still benefit from the toxin produced by the other (batesian mimics).
And this is just the first possibility I have in the top of my head (hope this is the correct expression...).

Regarding the mimic and the model living in different regions... Well, migrations/local extinctions could easily explain this. Maybe the aeras of both species were overlapping, in the past.
What does JAD's PEH have to say about it?
Posted by: VMartin on Nov. 06 2006,08:26

Surely Davison do not dwell in his Manifesto on mimicry, he just cited Punnett, who do not believe on graduall steps that could eventually led to mimicry. Yet I consider Davison Manifesto one of the best critic of darwinism I have ever read.  

As to your remarks that Davison sources are out of date it seems to me very strange, while neoDARWINISm stands on naturalist phantasy of Darwin who lived in 19 century and had no idea, that something like DNA exist.

If you claim, that Punnet is also outdated I must remind you that there are more scientists, who studied insects, mimicry and related phenomens and do not believed in neodarwism - for instance Heikertinger - he and Punnet claimed that behind development are "internal factors".  
Something, that propose also Davison and what is in accord with Grasse.

Modern scientist who visited Amazonia and do not believe in neodarwinism at all, but propose some Goethean approach and other developmental forces is Andreas Suchantke who wrote in 1994 "Metamorphosen im Insektenreich".
Posted by: VMartin on Nov. 06 2006,08:45

Jeannot.

It would be fine, if you put beside Davison photo your own. We would than might see your fysiognomia and amuse ourselves.
Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 06 2006,11:19

No, it would be pointless in a thread about John A Davison. And there's nothing particularly funny in my physionomy (neither in JAD's) if you want to know.
The fun comes from the comparison of JAD's wise face and those childish instults he keeps posting in on any internet forum that hasn't banned him yet.

You know, like the comment you just wrote...
Who, except the man himself, supports this PEH drivel and gets mad on people willing to stay anonymous? (Which BTW never prevented his pathetic attempts to post on this baord under another name).

Davison, is this you? :)
Posted by: Alan Fox on Nov. 06 2006,12:04



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...I consider Davison Manifesto one of the best critic of darwinism I have ever read.  

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



One of the best? Then modern evolutionary theory is safe for a while, yet.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...Darwin who lived in 19 century and had no idea, that something like DNA exist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



A scientific theory stands or falls by the evidence that supports or disproves it. Subsequent developments, from Mendel to whole genome sequencing, have generally reinforced the original concept of natural selection. Modern evolutionary theory is not static; observations, experiments and modifications continue to advance and improve on the original theory. "Origin of Species" was a seminal work but is not a very useful reference for anyone wishing to learn about modern evolutionary theory.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Heikertinger
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ah! Googling Heikertinger led me < here. > Posters at AvC seem already to have dealt quite adequately with your concerns. I doubt you will get any further here without some new material. I wouldn't rely on John to come up with anything original.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Nov. 06 2006,13:40

Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 06 2006,17:19)
Davison, is this you? :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We'll know for sure if the Fruit starts talking about "liking them fruits".

;)
Posted by: VMartin on Nov. 08 2006,15:02

Alan Fox



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Can you support this assertion?

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



Surely I can. You might not read link on my first post
on Papilio Dardanus so I cited from there - page 580:



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

Batesian mimicry is believed to originate by means of aninitial mutation that has a sufficiently big effect on the phenotype to give a passable resemblance to a protected model, followed by the accumulation and selection of mutations in modifier genes that progressively refine the mimicry (Fisher 1930; Carpenter and Ford 1933; Sheppard 1959; Clarke and Sheppard 1960c; Charlesworth and Charles-worth 1975a; Turner 1977; Charlesworth 1994). Charlesworth and Charlesworth (1975b,c) calculated the conditions under which mimicry will evolve, and their calculations suggest that modifying mutations that refine the mimicry will be maintained if they are tightly liked to the gene that conferred the initial advantage, thus providing a plausible explanation for the evolution of a supergene.

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



I underestand that neodarwinists do not like hear of initial big step and prefer to gradual changes. Yet in case of mimicry it is more than 100 years that such theory is accepted as only possible.  

I suppose that even hardcore neodarwinist  do not believe, that "initial mutation" was a one that affected randomly one-two nucleotides and these small random mutation changed completely wing patterns and colors that even birds are unable distinct it from model species.
In Papilio Dardanus most of 14 morphs mimics unpalatable species, so this "randomness" occurs many times.
Posted by: REC on Nov. 08 2006,15:35

SO-JAD is back at UD, and its some good reading:

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1647#comments >

In response to V martin, my main complaint is that nomogenesis (evolution according to laws) hasn't been updated-and the utter lack of molecular biology hurts its cause. It might have seemed spectacular that mutliple species develop the same long teeth, or color-patterns, or whatever in the 1960s-so much so that JAD critiques evolution on this basis (which I think are poor examples anyway).

BUT, evolutionary biology now knows about things like HOX genes. If the mammalian skull 'plan' is laid out in a common ancestor, and the expression level of a certain gene controls tooth length, are we surprised two species across the globe could converge on a mammalian skull with long teeth? Does this indicate a supernatural "frontloading?" In short, once you strip away the semantics, the "laws" you claim guide evolution are PREDICTED by understanding molecular mechanisms shared due to common ancestry.
Posted by: REC on Nov. 08 2006,15:56

oops-double post
Posted by: REC on Nov. 08 2006,15:58

As for the evolution of mimicry, I guess the complaint is the standard  "too complex for evolution."

V martin confirms this  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
mimicry consist in fact that to be effective there have to be initial resemlance between model and mimic to be deceptive for predators. No initial gradually step is enough to do this
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm not an insect biologist by any means-but it took me about 2 minutes at entrez-pubmed to find:

Mimicry by lack of 1 enzyme, 1 mutation-

The molecular basis of melanism and mimicry in a swallowtail butterfly.
Koch et al Curr Biol. 2000 May 18;10(10):591-4.


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

Melanism in Lepidoptera, either industrial or in mimicry, is one of the most commonly cited examples of natural selection [1] [2]. Despite extensive studies of the frequency and maintenance of melanic genes in insect populations [1] [2], there has been little work on the underlying molecular mechanisms. Nowhere is butterfly melanism more striking than in the Eastern Tiger Swallowtail (Papilio glaucus) of North America [3] [4] [5]. In this species, females can be either yellow (wild type) or black (melanic). The melanic form is a Batesian mimic of the distasteful Pipevine Swallowtail (Battus philenor), which is also black in overall color. Melanism in P. glaucus is controlled by a single Y-linked (female) black gene [6]. Melanic females, therefore, always have melanic daughters. Black melanin replaces the background yellow in melanic females. Here, we show that the key enzyme involved is N-beta-alanyl-dopamine-synthase (BAS), which shunts dopamine from the melanin pathway into the production of the yellow color pigment papiliochrome and also provides products for cuticle sclerotization. In melanic females, this enzyme is suppressed, leading to abnormal melanization of a formerly yellow area, and wing scale maturation is also delayed in the same area. This raises the possibility that either reduced BAS activity itself is preventing scale sclerotization (maturation) or, in contrast, that the delay in scale maturation precludes expression of BAS at the correct stage. Together, these data show how changes in expression of a single gene product could result in multiple wing color phenotypes. The implications for the genetic control of mimicry in other Lepidoptera are discussed.

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



The problem is, the philosophers of the 1970's went a little too far, coming up with examples they thought Darwinian evolution could never explain. And they did it with no data-before the jury was in. Molecular biology is answering these open questions.

Seems like a lesson to be learned for the 'irreducible complexity' community....
Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 08 2006,16:18

Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 05 2006,23:59)
What does JAD's PEH have to say about it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


God dun it.

Then he died.
Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 08 2006,16:43

Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 08 2006,16:18)
Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 05 2006,23:59)
What does JAD's PEH have to say about it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


God dun it.

Then he died.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks.

'Got that, and wrote that down.  :D

It's hard to believe, isn't it?
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Nov. 09 2006,10:06

Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 08 2006,16:43)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 08 2006,16:18)
 
Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 05 2006,23:59)
What does JAD's PEH have to say about it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


God dun it.

Then he died.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks.

'Got that, and wrote that down.  :D

It's hard to believe, isn't it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I love it so!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 09 2006,10:12

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 09 2006,10:06)
Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 08 2006,16:43)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 08 2006,16:18)
 
Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 05 2006,23:59)
What does JAD's PEH have to say about it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


God dun it.

Then he died.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks.

'Got that, and wrote that down.  :D

It's hard to believe, isn't it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I love it so!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


SOCK IT TO HIM!
Posted by: VMartin on Nov. 16 2006,16:20

Davison cited prominent modern scientists who dismissed darwinism. I would like add one name from "small philosophy" - atheist Friedrich  Nietzsche who ridicules Darwin very. I cannot find english translation of his last book Gotzen dammerung, but German original  can be found easily on inet.

Nietzsche on darwinism AND MIMICRY in Gotzen Dammerung (see especially that Darwin forget spirit (Geist) - "das ist englisch!"), :

Anti-Darwin. - Was den berühmten Kampf um's Leben betrifft, so scheint er mir einstweilen mehr behauptet als bewiesen. Er kommt vor, aber als Ausnahme; der Gesammt-Aspekt des Lebens ist nicht die Nothlage, die Hungerlage, vielmehr der Reichthum, die Üppigkeit, selbst die absurde Verschwendung, - wo gekämpft wird, kämpft man um Macht... Man soll nicht Malthus mit der Natur verwechseln. - Gesetzt aber, es giebt diesen Kampf - und in der That, er kommt vor -, so läuft er leider umgekehrt aus als die Schule Darwin's wünscht, als man vielleicht mit ihr wünschen dürfte: nämlich zu Ungunsten der Starken, der Bevorrechtigten, der glücklichen Ausnahmen. Die Gattungen wachsen nicht in der Vollkommenheit: die Schwachen werden immer wieder über die Starken Herr, - das macht, sie sind die grosse Zahl, sie sind auch klüger... Darwin hat den Geist vergessen (- das ist englisch!;), die Schwachen haben mehr Geist... Man muss Geist nöthig haben, um Geist zu bekommen, - man verliert ihn, wenn man ihn nicht mehr nöthig hat. Wer die Stärke hat, entschlägt sich des Geistes (- "lass fahren dahin! denkt man heute in Deutschland - das Reich muss uns doch bleiben"...). Ich verstehe unter Geist, wie man sieht, die Vorsicht, die Geduld, die List, die Verstellung, die grosse Selbstbeherrschung und Alles, was mimicry ist (zu letzterem gehört ein grosser Theil der sogenannten Tugend).

< http://manybooks.net/support....xp.html >
Posted by: VMartin on Nov. 16 2006,16:57

Am I now banned like Davison?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Nov. 16 2006,21:21

Huh, did you say something?

Sorry, but nobody is listening to you.  (shrug)
Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 16 2006,22:54

Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 16 2006,17:20)
Davison cited prominent modern scientists who dismissed darwinism. I would like add one name from "small philosophy" - atheist Friedrich  Nietzsche who ridicules Darwin very. I cannot find english translation of his last book Gotzen dammerung, but German original  can be found easily on inet.

Nietzsche on darwinism AND MIMICRY in Gotzen Dammerung (see especially that Darwin forget spirit (Geist) - "das ist englisch!"), :

Anti-Darwin. - Was den berühmten Kampf um's Leben betrifft, so scheint er mir einstweilen mehr behauptet als bewiesen. Er kommt vor, aber als Ausnahme; der Gesammt-Aspekt des Lebens ist nicht die Nothlage, die Hungerlage, vielmehr der Reichthum, die Üppigkeit, selbst die absurde Verschwendung, - wo gekämpft wird, kämpft man um Macht... Man soll nicht Malthus mit der Natur verwechseln. - Gesetzt aber, es giebt diesen Kampf - und in der That, er kommt vor -, so läuft er leider umgekehrt aus als die Schule Darwin's wünscht, als man vielleicht mit ihr wünschen dürfte: nämlich zu Ungunsten der Starken, der Bevorrechtigten, der glücklichen Ausnahmen. Die Gattungen wachsen nicht in der Vollkommenheit: die Schwachen werden immer wieder über die Starken Herr, - das macht, sie sind die grosse Zahl, sie sind auch klüger... Darwin hat den Geist vergessen (- das ist englisch!;), die Schwachen haben mehr Geist... Man muss Geist nöthig haben, um Geist zu bekommen, - man verliert ihn, wenn man ihn nicht mehr nöthig hat. Wer die Stärke hat, entschlägt sich des Geistes (- "lass fahren dahin! denkt man heute in Deutschland - das Reich muss uns doch bleiben"...). Ich verstehe unter Geist, wie man sieht, die Vorsicht, die Geduld, die List, die Verstellung, die grosse Selbstbeherrschung und Alles, was mimicry ist (zu letzterem gehört ein grosser Theil der sogenannten Tugend).

< http://manybooks.net/support....xp.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And the babelfish translation....
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Which concerns the famous fight um's life, then it seems to me meanwhile more stated than proven. It occurs, but as exception; Gesammt aspect life is not Nothlage, which which sumptuousness, even the absurd verschwendung, - one fights where, one fights to hunger situation, rather the Reichthum, for power... One is not to confound Malthus with nature. - set however, it giebt this fight - and in the That, he comes forwards -, then it runs out unfortunately in reverse as the school Darwin's wishes, when perhaps one might wish with it: indeed to Ungunsten of the strong ones, which privileged, the lucky exceptions. The kinds do not grow in the perfection: the weak ones become again and again over the strong ones gentleman, - which makes, them are the large number, them are also more intelligent... Darwin forgot the spirit (- that is English!, the weak ones have more spirit... One must have spirit noethig, in order to get spirit, - one loses him, if one does not have him any longer noethig. Who has the strength, entschlaegt itself the spirit (- "lass drive there! one thinks today in Germany - the realm must us nevertheless bleiben"...). I understand the caution, the patience, the ruse, the adjustment, the large self-control and everything that mimicry by spirit, as one see, is (to the latter a large Theil of the so-called virtue belongs).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Actually, reading this fairly quickly.  It sounds more like JAD than Nietzsche.  It just needs the proper flourish at the end.
Pick one:
  • I love it so!
  • Write it down!
  • How do you like them dung-dripping apples!

Posted by: VMartin on Nov. 19 2006,13:37

I do not see what is this thread is about - I see no arguments only "jokes" missing any meaning.
Arguments against Davison I do not see at all, not even against prominent scientists he cited. I cited also Punnet mentioned in Manifesto who did not believe in darwinian gradualism as sufficient explanation of mimicry. I suppose that you will ridicule also this response but anyhow I cannnot help myself but send it - I never suppose that prominent neodarwinian scientists would support their phatasy how mimicry evolve by "transvestite evolutionary step" in 21 century!

< http://www.nbb.cornell.edu/neurobio/BioNB420/Dardanus2003.pdf >


1)

   

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

The niobe phenotype can be obtained with the niobe allele of the mimicry locus (Hni) but also as a heterozygote between the planemoides and trophonius alleles (Hpl/HT), yielding the so-called synthetic niobe (Clarke and Sheppard 1960a).
 
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




I would say that color on back wings of niobe is distinctly different from that of plamenoides and trophonius. So from where this color came from?

2)

   

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

Our studies on the correlated variation of pattern elements revealed a substantial amount of phenotypic variability in the various forms of P. dardanus. Assuming a similar mutation load, patterns that are subject to strong selection should exhibit less genetic and phenotypic variability than patterns that are under weaker selection.
.
.
The absence of correlated variation among pattern elements in mimicking forms stands in contrast to the neighbor and regional correlations observed in the nonmimetic patterns.
 
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Again I would say - studying neodarwinian explanation of Batesian mimicry - that mimic should be protected against any shift of patterns and colors that would anyhow diminish its resemblance to distasteful model. I would also say that no such constrains would exist in nonmimetic patterns, while there I see no protection and subsequntly no selective pressure to look same. Yet the measured values for Papilio d. are exactly opposite to this consideration.

3)

There is accepted theory that even if males of P.d. look same throughout species its patterns and colors are not ancestral form - probably as I assume it would complicated neodarwinists phancy how to explain initial mutation from these ancestor to others mimic morphs. Instead according Nijhout archaic patterns look like P.phorcas. There should be than only 6 mutations that changed patterns on forewing - author probably forget on hindwings and colors - but even these 6 mutations occuring simultaneously from 12 measured patterns give probability 1/3.000.000.

What is more interesting is that supposed ancestor of P.d. morphs have 2 female morphs that are eatable so question aroses how it comes that these two morphs exists when there is no selective pressure? Neodarwinists do not lack phantasy at all:

   

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

The polymorphic female form of P. phorcas is believed to have originated as a male-mimicking ‘‘transvestitism’’ from a primitively sexually dimorphic color pattern (Vane-Wright 1976; Clarke et al. 1985).
 
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If you never heard about transvestite evolution than again:

   

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

This suggests that the species may initially have
been sexually dimorphic (with brown/yellow females and
black/green males) and that a so-called transvestite evolutionary
step (Vane-Wright 1976; Clarke et al. 1985) produced
male-like females and was the origin of the female color
 
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




So that is the modern, "scientific" neodarwinistic account for Papilio dardanus polymorphism - resting partly upon "transvestite evolutionary step" with subsequent "genetic effect of large magnitude".
Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 19 2006,14:29

Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 19 2006,13:37)
I do not see what is this thread is about - I see no arguments only "jokes" missing any meaning.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This thread is about DAJ, so that's rather appropriate, doncha think?
Posted by: VMartin on Nov. 19 2006,15:24

I would appreciate if you addressed my post on mimicry instead of talking on somebody who is banned and cannot defend himself. I agree with Davison Manifesto on Punnet and mimicry. I would appreciate any comment of this part on Davison Manifesto or on my previous post connected with it.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Nov. 19 2006,15:25

Dude, no one is paying any attention to you.  (shrug)
Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 19 2006,16:01

Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 19 2006,13:37)
Arguments against Davison I do not see at all
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


'Cause there's nothing at all in JAD's arguments, that's why.

"God 'dun it, then he died."
Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 19 2006,19:21

Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 19 2006,16:01)
"God 'dun it, then he died."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Thanks.

'Got that, and wrote that down.  :D

It's hard to believe, isn't it?"

:D
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Nov. 19 2006,20:03

Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 19 2006,19:21)
Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 19 2006,16:01)
"God 'dun it, then he died."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Thanks.

'Got that, and wrote that down.  :D

It's hard to believe, isn't it?"

:D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Aren't we forgetting something?

Something about apples? ? ? ?  :angry:
Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 20 2006,05:52

Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 19 2006,19:21)
Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 19 2006,16:01)
"God 'dun it, then he died."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Thanks.

'Got that, and wrote that down.  :D

It's hard to believe, isn't it?"

:D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I love it so!
Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 20 2006,05:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I would appreciate if you addressed my post on mimicry instead of talking on somebody who is banned and cannot defend himself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quote (Alan Fox @ Nov. 06 2006,12:04)
Posters at AvC seem already to have dealt quite adequately with your concerns. I doubt you will get any further here without some new material. I wouldn't rely on John to come up with anything original.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Nov. 20 2006,12:03

Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 19 2006,15:24)
I would appreciate if you addressed my post on mimicry instead of talking on somebody who is banned and cannot defend himself. I agree with Davison Manifesto on Punnet and mimicry. I would appreciate any comment of this part on Davison Manifesto or on my previous post connected with it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dude, do you honestly think we're going to argue about JAD's "theories" with you?  Are you serious?

Besides, this thread isn't about JAD's "theories" it's about his banning.

Got that?  Write it down!








ps - I love it so!
Posted by: VMartin on Nov. 20 2006,13:04



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

Dude, do you honestly think we're going to argue about JAD's "theories" with you?  Are you serious?

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



Darling I do not suppose you folks here are able  discuss any problem outlined by Davison.  Your discussion here is only childish mockery of Davison of no value. Whats more  he is banned and so unable defend himself.

Your mockery with naive and unscientific opinion on mimicry like this one from Jeannot Nov.5:



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

I don't see why the first steps of mimicry would require mutations of large effects in all species.

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



explain everything.

Enjoy your inane discussion!
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Nov. 20 2006,13:09

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 20 2006,12:03)
Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 19 2006,15:24)
I would appreciate if you addressed my post on mimicry instead of talking on somebody who is banned and cannot defend himself. I agree with Davison Manifesto on Punnet and mimicry. I would appreciate any comment of this part on Davison Manifesto or on my previous post connected with it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dude, do you honestly think we're going to argue about JAD's "theories" with you?  Are you serious?

Besides, this thread isn't about JAD's "theories" it's about his banning.

Got that?  Write it down!








ps - I love it so!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How do you like those road apples?
Posted by: REC on Nov. 20 2006,16:37

Vmartin,
I replied on page 2 of this topic. Perhaps you would care to reply directly? If I understand correctly, you have 2 points:

1) Mimicry is too complex to have evolved simultaneously.
2) Mimics defy natural selection

My complaint that a molecular understanding of mimicry is lacking stands. Your "BIG" genetic changes may be large in phenotypic consequence, but minor in actual genetic change (think HOX expression). The paper I found describes mimicry achieved by the altered expression of a single enzyme. This seems to support Jeannot's response, which you mock. Secondly, there seem to be only philosophical guesses at how many alterations yield a mimic-which without molecular backing are indeed guesses. You rest your complaint upon these...

As for the second point-that a mimic, once evolved, would not drift from mimicry, as this would put it at risk of being eaten. Interesting premise-but predation is only one variable. Suppose being a mimic decreases other fitness parameters-attractiveness to mates,  stress resistance, who knows what? Therefore, a more complex, multi-phenotypic species could persist.
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Nov. 20 2006,16:54

Vmartin, you need to read a book by evo-devo biologist Sean Carroll re evolution of butterfly wing markings, etc.:
Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo and the Making of the Animal Kingdom, W.W. Norton (2005).

It doesn't take a whole bunch of mutations to have a major impact on phenotypic patterns--it takes relatively small changes to signalling genes.

Do your research and then come back and talk about your questions.

On some relevant thread, which--as you will have gathered--this is not.
Posted by: VMartin on Nov. 21 2006,13:18

And why dont you read discussions on brainstorms?

< http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-forum-f-6.html >

Whats more - Davison has full access there and he also has some allies there - me too. Davison is right with his conclusion that "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
Posted by: Ichthyic on Nov. 21 2006,13:35

hey, VM:

If you think Davison is correct with his PEH, all you have to do is ask him why he, nor ANYBODY else, has EVER attempted to test any prediction resulting from it.

or even ask youself....

why there ARE no testable predictions to begin with.

or why it was never published in a credible peer reviewed journal (Hint:  Revista de Biologia is NOT a credible journal).

so yeah, we can just as easily make fun of your ability to rationally process information if you think Davison's PEH is any more credible or viable than the old creationist "front loading" meme.

get a clue.
Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 21 2006,14:15

Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 21 2006,13:18)
Davison is right with his conclusion that "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And he has shown that it's impossible to argue with him.

Davison : "I'm right and darwinism is wrong"
Sane person: "but look all these recent papers that prove YOU are wrong <insert references>"
Davison: "I don't read papers written by darwinists"

???
Posted by: REC on Nov. 21 2006,14:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Whats more - Davison has full access there and he also has some allies there - me too. Davison is right with his conclusion that "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then you should be well-versed, and fully prepared to rebut my posts. Got anything to say?

I've also posted directly to ISCID. We'll see what happens...
Posted by: VMartin on Nov. 21 2006,16:03



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

If you think Davison is correct with his PEH, all you have to do is ask him why he, nor ANYBODY else, has EVER attempted to test any prediction resulting from it.

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



Davison named his Manifesto "A NEW HYPOTHESIS FOR ORGANIC CHANGE". He is no way I dare say so arrogant as darwinists and communists to call his facts and very originally thoughts to be "scientifically proved".

Btw what are the tested prediction of darwinism and communism?

Why not go to Brainstorm where John Davison is not banned and can give you explanation personally?
Posted by: VMartin on Nov. 21 2006,16:11

Jeannot.

That is no argument what is written in darwinian books.
If Davison do not read them he might be right. Why to waste time with it? Here in Central and East Europe we were forced to read marxistic bullshits, in every University there was department of marx-leninism and people in Russia were prisoned as insane if they doubted on marx-leninism wordl-view.

Critics of communism were marked as "insane" - just like you marked Davison right now.

Do not forget that marxism and darwinism are similiar outdated naturalistic theories from mid 19 century.
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Nov. 21 2006,16:28

Yo, Vmartin, I gave you the book cite for the info you're going to need to even begin to discuss this mimicry issue intelligently.

And, take a hint, discussing it intelligently is not something that you are currently doing.

Get back to us when you know something.  Anything!  Until then, weg gehen, bitte sehr!
Posted by: VMartin on Nov. 21 2006,16:49

Steviepinhead.

Do not ridicule yourself with your "holy" book. There is interesting discussion on mimicry on EvC with people who underestand little bit of it and I hope it will be going on Brainstorm as well.

If you speak german (weg gehen) you can also scan book from Andreas Suchantke "Metamorphosen im Insektenreich". You will learn something interesting from modern author who dismissed neodarwinism as explanation of insect mimicry completelly.

If you have something say except of presenting books  for reading you are welcome. Try read my answer on Brainstorm to REC and give me some neodarwinistic arguments. Thanks.

< http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi....#000291 >
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Nov. 21 2006,17:16

The arguments are in the book, V.

When you are able to express that you understand them, I'll be happy to talk further with you.

Until then, ta ta.
Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 21 2006,17:36

Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 21 2006,16:11)
Jeannot.

That is no argument what is written in darwinian books.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, what an insightful answer.

I'm talking about evidence, facts... observations and results published in scientific journals. Like substitution rates indicating positive selection, fact that Davison willfully ignores.

But I'm not going to discuss anything with him. It's just impossible. He can't take any objection, but resorts to childish insults and cries for persecution. The man is insane. This isn't a metaphore. He's really insane.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Nov. 21 2006,17:55

I say VMartin is JAD in disguise.

Write that down.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 21 2006,18:23

No, it's even worse than that.

Conversations with DAJ go something like this....

DAJ: blah blah PEH. (quotes self repeatedly)
AnyoneElse: here's evidence that refutes your hypothesis.
DAJ: No one even dares to face my heresies! (quotes self repeatedly)
AE: Um, DAJ, I just DID.  If you think I'm wrong, explain why.
DAJ: EnyoneAlse has banned me like everywhere else!  I'm banned!  Dilliam Wembski sucks.  Elsy Wesberry sucks!  I'm the heretic that will be proven right someday! (quotes self repeatedly.)
AE: DAJ, you're not banned, could you just address my point?
DAJ: I am unrefuted!  Nobody dares print my heresies!  Spravid Dinger is the wart on a donkey's ass!  Your mother probably did him for pity!  (quotes self repeatedly)
AE:  Dr. Davison, you have said something in your PEH for which I've shown contrary evidence.  Could you please stop calling names and address the issue?
DAJ: Why you little mental midgets!  I knew you couldn't refute my PEH!  Elsey Wesberry and Spravid Dinger are probably f@#$ing each other right now!  You should join them, you're a ^&*%%$ and you probably $*(%$#@!, you blah blah blah....(quotes self repeatedly)
AE: Ok, you're gone, #######.
DAJ on ISCID: See?  Enybody Alse banned me for my heresies!  They are just like Spravid Dinger and Esley Wellsberry! They can't refute my PEH, so they ban me so the truth can't be told! (quotes self repeatedly)
Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 21 2006,18:26

With all due respect to the good Rev. Dr....

There's no WAY DAJ could go that long without quoting himself three or four times in one post.

Plus, he hasn't mentioned f'ing or reversed the letters in anyone's name.  He hasn't insulted Wes, DaveScot, or Dembski.  DAJ can't go two sentences without doing that.

And this quote...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He is no way I dare say so arrogant as darwinists and communists to call his facts and very originally thoughts to be "scientifically proved".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Clinches it.  If it were DAJ, he'd be screaming about having PROVED whatever it is he's yammering about.
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Nov. 21 2006,18:52

But, seriously, has anyone ever seen apples give birth to horses?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Nov. 21 2006,21:03

Plus I don't see Davison successfully suppressing that nerve disorder that makes him say 'I love it so!' at the end of every message.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But, seriously, has anyone ever seen apples give birth to horses?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If they did, then why do we still have apples?
Posted by: VMartin on Nov. 22 2006,14:59

Steviepinhead


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

It doesn't take a whole bunch of mutations to have a major impact on phenotypic patterns--it takes relatively small changes to signalling genes.

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



Vow - it seems you discovered America. Is this the "secret wisdom" from your extraordinary book of evo-devo?

Btw on talkreason.org the Carrolls book is marked as book "For the grown-up layman" .

So you are a layman very impressed by first book you read on hox genes. This partly explains your arrogance towards Davison and me. If you will have more knowledges  you would have appreciate more Davison Manifesto and his original conception of evolution.

You would also have read more carrefuly my remarks on mimicry of Papilio Dardanus and Nijhout genetic explanations of the phenomenon. Knowing more on topic you would realise that mimicry is no way to be reduced to genes and genetic backrounds and their regulation but to the fact that one species resemble other one to allegedly protect itself (however it is more claimed as proved)  and how this resemblance could be achieved by random mutation and natural selection. This process is hardly explainable by neodarwinism - even prominent contemporary neodarwinists resort in case of Papilio Dardanus to conceptions like "transvestite evolutionary step" with subsequent "genetic effect of large magnitude".

< http://www.ucl.ac.uk/taxome/jim/Mim2/dardanus.html >

< http://www.nbb.cornell.edu/neurobio/BioNB420/Dardanus2003.pdf >

Or even trying to explain hypothetical phantasy of evolution of P.dardanus from P.phorcas with dimorphic non-mimetic females - which should be explained of course while there is no selective advantage - their forged other phantasy how arouse male-like female form - Cook, et al. (1994) suggest that while male-like forms are more visible and prone to predation they may allow females to escape 'sexual harrasment' by males.    

Is there really any final wisdom of these phenomenons in your "compendarium" that enables you treat Davison and me with such an arrogance?
Posted by: REC on Nov. 22 2006,15:28

I can see we're not actually going to have a debate.

Essentially JADs entire hypotheisis is a collection of "wow, that's too complex for Darwinism." In any system molecular biology has touched, we've found master regulators and gene clusters-either of which could explain your  "genetic change of large magnitude" that to you reads 'supernaturally prescribed.' I have presented a paper showing the establishment of mimicry by downregulation of 1 enzyme. The particular butterfly you describe seems complex indeed. But your complaints about 'transvestite steps' (which just means males have female color patterns) and "BIG" genetic changes mean what exactly? Why can't a gene cluster, or a single master regulator be changed? Especially with interspecies breeding, predation, sexual pressure on mate selection, are we suprized complex traits emerge?

I will admit, the molecular biology of mimicry seems lacking-which makes it easy for you to rest your arguement that it looks "too complex" upon it. But seriously, there is no 'smoking gun' that smacks down evolution there!

But what does the butterfly data do for your side? Nomogenesis-evolution acording to laws, right? Happened in the past, 'creative phase' not present? So what universal 'rule' of creation led to butterfly species with mimics, pseudo-female males, etc. Why not all butterfly species? What does this suggest to you?
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Nov. 22 2006,15:59

Again, Vmartin, until you have established that you have some vague idea of what you are talking about--which repeatedly claiming supra-laymanesque levels of knowledge by comparing yourself to, koff koff, JAD hardly does--you've done nothing to warrant a response.

Particularly not on this thread.

Beyond that, you claim to have identified one case in which mimicry has not yet been reduced to natural selection.  Isolating one "problem" for such a strongly-supported theory hardly overturns it.  Nor is natural selection the only mechanism by which evolution proceeds.

But do drop me a line when the Martin-Davison collaboration is singled out by the Nobel prize committee...  I won't, however, be holding my breath until that ever-receding date arrives.
Posted by: Shirley Knott on Nov. 22 2006,17:20

But dearest vmartin -- the grounds for treating you and JAD with 'such contempt' is that...
you are both contemptible.
Got it?  Write it down!

What more grounds are needed?

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Nov. 22 2006,18:07

C'mon, VMartin is JAD.

'Fess up.


I like them kumquats.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Nov. 22 2006,22:39

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Nov. 22 2006,18:07)
C'mon, VMartin is JAD.

'Fess up.


I like them kumquats.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One possible reason that Lenny may be right is that otherwise we have to assume that Davison has actually found an apostle. Someone who actually takes him seriously. If you assume this is impossible, which I tend to lean towards, then yes, this is JAD pulling a tiresome prank.

There are some VMartin passages where Davison's voice seems to ALMOST poke through:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Vow - it seems you discovered America. Is this the "secret wisdom" from your extraordinary book of evo-devo?

Btw on talkreason.org the Carrolls book is marked as book "For the grown-up layman" .

So you are a layman very impressed by first book you read on hox genes. This partly explains your arrogance towards Davison and me. If you will have more knowledges  you would have appreciate more Davison Manifesto and his original conception of evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But I don't know whether JAD could fake Borat-like English like this:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Or even trying to explain hypothetical phantasy of evolution of P.dardanus from P.phorcas with dimorphic non-mimetic females - which should be explained of course while there is no selective advantage - their forged other phantasy how arouse male-like female form -
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But then, suddenly, he seems to become more fluent, which seems to indicate it's Davison and he can't stay in character:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Cook, et al. (1994) suggest that while male-like forms are more visible and prone to predation they may allow females to escape 'sexual harrasment' by males.    
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's kind of hard to believe he could pull off a sentence like that while elsewhere sounding like a 20-year-old from Bratislava who just had his first English lesson 2 months ago. UNLESS it was JAD faking it.

So Lenny, maybe you're right! If he ever uses the word 'darwimp', that'll be the dead giveaway.

I love it so!
Posted by: Zarquon on Nov. 23 2006,02:14

Is VMartin the same dork who was trolling as "Michael Martin" on the Pandas Thumb?
Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 23 2006,02:20

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 22 2006,22:39)
But I don't know whether JAD could fake Borat-like English like this:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Or even trying to explain hypothetical phantasy of evolution of P.dardanus from P.phorcas with dimorphic non-mimetic females - which should be explained of course while there is no selective advantage - their forged other phantasy how arouse male-like female form -
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But then, suddenly, he seems to become more fluent, which seems to indicate it's Davison and he can't stay in character:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Cook, et al. (1994) suggest that while male-like forms are more visible and prone to predation they may allow females to escape 'sexual harrasment' by males.    
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's kind of hard to believe he could pull off a sentence like that while elsewhere sounding like a 20-year-old from Bratislava who just had his first English lesson 2 months ago. UNLESS it was JAD faking it.

So Lenny, maybe you're right! If he ever uses the word 'darwimp', that'll be the dead giveaway.

I love it so!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I do remember JAD faking a german whose father was a soldier in WWII (or something) under the name of "phishiphred". His pseudo-Englisk was pathetic, even for me. We're not sure it was JAD himself, but it seemed highly probable provided he could manage not to end his posts by "I love it so".
And on Richard Dawkin's board, a few people noticed his bizarre English.

So we have the combination of:
- a supporter of the PEH (which in itself is pretty rare)
- an arrogant person
- a weird English writing (personaly, I can't tell)
Coincidences?
;)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Nov. 23 2006,12:02

Quote (Zarquon @ Nov. 23 2006,02:14)
Is VMartin the same dork who was trolling as "Michael Martin" on the Pandas Thumb?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I doubt it.  No preaching and no Bible verses.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Nov. 23 2006,12:09

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 22 2006,22:39)
One possible reason that Lenny may be right is that otherwise we have to assume that Davison has actually found an apostle. Someone who actually takes him seriously. If you assume this is impossible, which I tend to lean towards, then yes, this is JAD pulling a tiresome prank.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed.  Since JAD is, quite literally, nutty, I find it rather hard to believe that there is anyone else out there who is actually nutty enough to take him seriously.

But then, on the other hand, creationuts HAVE indeed been stupid enough to swallow all SORTS of silly nonsense, as long as someone tells them that it's "anti-evolution".  

So . . . . .
Posted by: VMartin on Nov. 23 2006,14:32

Hi folks. I am much impressed by your linguistic analysis of my poor english. Do you work like level-experts sorting pupils in Berlitz-school or something like that? Its big pleasure to discuss some mimicry issues with linguistic experts too.
   
--------------------------------------------------------------------

REC:



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

Why can't a gene cluster, or a single master regulator be changed? Especially with interspecies breeding, predation, sexual pressure on mate selection, are we suprized complex traits emerge?

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




Yes. Might be that modern neordarwinsts are not surprized but when the case of Papilio Dardanus was first published in 1868 it was shock to the scientific world.

I consider the case as something that can be hardly explained by random mutation and selection.

First I would like to notice again that male-like, mimetic and non-mimetic female morphs of P.dardanus live in the same region and make up the same race. You would probably agree that colors of mimetic trophonius and non- mimetic leighi are very different (even if they belong to the same group hippocoon according Nijhout.)But not only that, there are other forms in mentioned race (Shepard and Clarke 1959):



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

This race (cenea) inhabits South Africa, northwards to Delagoa Bay. The males are monomorphic, yellow, tailed and nonmimetic as they are wherever the species is found (Figure 1). The female forms that have been studied by us are the nonmimetic f. leighi, f. natalica and f. salaami and the mimics f. hippocoonides, f. cenea, f, trophonius (Figures 2-7) and a modification of f. trophonius in which the large apical spot on the forewings is buff and not the normal white (for a description of the forms, their models and their distribution see FORD19 36 and CLARKaEnd SHEPPAR1D9 59a).

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




Together with mentioned case in my previous post where male-like females make up 80% of population and mimetic females only 20% question stands like: How is it possible that mimetic form are not prevalent? If the mimic do not thrive better than non-mimic what forces had driven evolution of such a form? It was hardly selection due predation - predation on mimetic and non-mimetic forms seem to be same otherwise one of the form would die out. We see similar process in neodarwinistic icon peppered moths - there according scientists only small selective advantage of melanica vs.
typica would led in only few decades to their clear prevalence.

Explanation of mimicry that neodarwinists offer are that of batesian/mullerian mimicry. It should led to greater protection of mimetic form and subsequent survival.

As we clearly see this is not the case - non-mimetic forms thrive as well - even better!

Sole mutation of regulatory genes as you and some other people here proposed is without selection inconcievable - how it happens that random mutation of "master gene" alone would lead to the same wing patterns and colors distribution as exist in unpalatable species?
Btw. here comes neodarwinistic dialectic - first step was due "genetic effect of large magnitude" and than follow tuning of mimicry to the model via small mutations. You generally cannot argue with such a dialectic - neodarwinist would shift border between tham according situation.

Yet that such process would led to 14 different morphs in one species most of which are mimetic without any selective advantage over non-mimetic morphs - I would say that also hard-cored neodarwinist should be little surprised - expect he is the linguist-polyglot of course.

----
Summary: on my opinion chance and selection cannot play a role in the case of polymorphism of P.dardanus (Mocker Swallowtail). It is in accordance with professor John Davison claim that evolution was never driven by such forces.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Nov. 23 2006,14:36

Hey John, how they hangin'?

Your accent's almost disappeared there, John. You need to be more careful to stay in character.

Got that? Write it down!
Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 23 2006,14:51



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Together with mentioned case in my previous post where male-like females make up 80% of population and mimetic females only 20% question stands like: How is it possible that mimetic form are not prevalent?  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm curious, what is your explaination? What do you think controls the frequence of a phenotype/allele in a population if not its reproduction rate, hence selection (or drift)?
Do you think some individuals pop-up, created by the hand of the great Prescriber?

Even the most radical creationists don't contest population genetics.   :O
Posted by: VMartin on Nov. 23 2006,14:55

Takže mládenci ja Vám niečo poviem - nie som John Davison, ale vážim si jeho prácu "Evolutionary Manifesto". Je to jedna z najlepších vecí, ktoré som čítal z kritiky darwinizmu, kde cituje popredných vedcov na poli biológie a palentológie.
Podľa mojej mienky väčšina ľudí tu nesiaha Johnovi ani po päty  a bol by som radšej keby ste kritizovali niečo z jeho Manifesta , alebo z toho čo Vám píšem ja - toto je prázdne mlátenie sena.

So translate it from Slovak and let me know to which level you would put the author in Berlitz-school, hehe.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Nov. 23 2006,15:09

Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 23 2006,14:55)
Takže mládenci ja Vám niečo poviem - nie som John Davison, ale vážim si jeho prácu "Evolutionary Manifesto". Je to jedna z najlepších vecí, ktoré som čítal z kritiky darwinizmu, kde cituje popredných vedcov na poli biológie a palentológie.
Podľa mojej mienky väčšina ľudí tu nesiaha Johnovi ani po päty  a bol by som radšej keby ste kritizovali niečo z jeho Manifesta , alebo z toho čo Vám píšem ja - toto je prázdne mlátenie sena.

So translate it from Slovak and let me know to which level you would put the author in Berlitz-school, hehe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, John, I've changed my mind. I now think you're Bulgarian. Now please to translate that into Bulgarian. Using Cyrillic.

I love it so!
Posted by: guthrie on Nov. 23 2006,16:46

Given the transnational reality of the readership of this website, how soon before someone calls in a real Slovak speaker to check if that wasnt just run through babelfish?
Posted by: VMartin on Nov. 23 2006,16:57

jeannot


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

Do you think some individuals pop-up, created by the hand of the great Prescriber?

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



In case of mimetic females morphs of Mocker Swallowtail neodarwinists mantras can satisfy only worshippers of chance and selection. Sound mind would doubt such explanations in this case.

Better do not touch the problem and ridicule those who draw attention to it.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Nov. 23 2006,17:09

Quote (guthrie @ Nov. 23 2006,16:46)
Given the transnational reality of the readership of this website, how soon before someone calls in a real Slovak speaker to check if that wasnt just run through babelfish?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I assume that was a Babelfish translation, but I don't read Slovak, Slovak speakers aren't exactly lying around everywhere, and Russian isn't quite close enough to Slovak for me to just wing it.

I'm impressed that Javison went to all that trouble, tho!

So John, no Bulgarian version? :angry:

I love it so!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 23 2006,17:38

*rolls up sleeves*

Right, I'm here to sort this kerfuffle out.

VMartin - I don't like the cut of your jib. I don't think you've be hoisted by your own Davetard, but you do smell of urine and old folks homes. IS THAT YOU, DAVIDSON, YOU ODIOUS BELLEND?

Got that? Right it Down.
Posted by: VMartin on Nov. 23 2006,18:16



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

VMartin - I don't like the cut of your jib. I don't think you've be hoisted by your own Davetard, but you do smell of urine and old folks homes.

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




Kto ma poznat tu vasu hantyrku s tym KERFUFFLE alebo nebodaj DAVETARD ?  Myslis ze si mam cas tvoje dristy vyhladavat v nejakom slovniku aby som pochopil tvoj primestsky dialekt? Pokial budete pisat nezrozumitelnou predmestskou hantyrkou, budem vam odpovedat vo svojom jazyku takto - vyjde to na rovnako ta diskusia hlucheho s nemym.


Got it?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Nov. 23 2006,19:23

Okay, John, that's not Russian 'cuz Russian doesn't have 'h', and also it's not in Cyrillic, which disqualifies it for Russian or Bulgarian.

Try again. Maybe Romanian?

How do you like those cranberries?
Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 23 2006,19:48

Well, the English is definitely improving mysteriously in bursts, and we can all agree this person isn't what is presented here...

It IS pretty unlikely that anyone on earth really buys DAJ's bullshiite...

The childish arrogant attitude is certainly surfacing...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
neodarwinists mantras can satisfy only worshippers of chance and selection.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sounds DAJiesque enough...

And yet....

DAJ NEVER actually attempts to defend his PEH.  He just insults, swears, and babbles on about what a martyr he is.

He NEVER actually discusses biology, even remotely.

While I've backed way off my previous certainty that this isn't DAJ, I still don't think so.

Smells more like Paley to me.
Posted by: VMartin on Nov. 24 2006,00:21

Whats about issuing phenomenon of P.dardanus boys and looking on it from other view?
As you see there is no clear advantage to be mimic in the case. We can say that mimicry doesnot exist in this case. Something proposed by Franz Heikertinger who also - like many by Davison mentioned prominent scientists - accounted for internal factors too.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Nov. 24 2006,02:11

Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 24 2006,00:21)
Whats about issuing phenomenon of P.dardanus boys and looking on it from other view?
As you see there is no clear advantage to be mimic in the case. We can say that mimicry doesnot exist in this case. Something proposed by Franz Heikertinger who also - like many by Davison mentioned prominent scientists - accounted for internal factors too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So what's the deal? Are you Davison doing a sockpuppet routine, or Paley doing one of his Multiple Personality Disorder routines?

You don't need to keep up the Borat talk. It's not convincing.
Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 24 2006,02:18

Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 23 2006,16:57)
In case of mimetic females morphs of Mocker Swallowtail neodarwinists mantras can satisfy only worshippers of chance and selection. Sound mind would doubt such explanations in this case.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I repeat: what determines the frequences of existing alleles in a population, if not their reproduction rates?
Feel free to put forward any natural or supernatural mechanism.

Methinks you don't even have a hypothesis, and the lack of substance in your reply sure makes you sound like JAD.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Nov. 24 2006,02:25

Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 23 2006,16:57)
...

In case of mimetic females morphs of Mocker Swallowtail neodarwinists mantras can satisfy only worshippers of chance and selection. Sound mind would doubt such explanations in this case.

Better do not touch the problem and ridicule those who draw attention to it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bam!

Better get pen and paper ready. I am sure everyone will be instructed to take notes soon.
Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 24 2006,02:29

Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 23 2006,19:48)
Smells more like Paley to me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It can't be Paley. This one is dead an burried.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Nov. 25 2006,12:56

It looks like Davison is < talking to himself >:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Martin
Member
Member # 2001

 posted 21. November 2006 17:39                    
REC.

I would say that chance also play no role in polymorphism of Papilio Dardanus.

1) All males look identical, yet there are 14 different female mophs. Most of them are mimetic, but in some races coexist mimetic and non-mimetic forms. Even
quote:

The situation is different in Abyssinia where, unlike that in South Africa, 80 per cent of the females are male-like while 20 per cent are entirely distinct from them, being polymorphic and mimetic.
< http://www.bulbnrose.com/Heredity/Ford/FORD4.HTM >

On my opinion it is very hard for neodarwinist account for the fact that non-mimetic forms outnumbered better protected mimetic forms.

2) It is accepted theory that butterfly mimicry to be effective first step should be a "great" one to enable enough similarity to unpalatable species to confuse predator (birds with extraordinary good vision). To explain this step Nijhout(2003) proposed that polymorphism of P.dardanus evolved from P.phorcas - it is much more easily for neodarwinists assume this as assume that monomorphic P.dardanus males represent ancestral form. Yet then, why are only females of P.dardanus nowadays polymorphic?

According Darwin the phenomenon that males are rarely polymorphic as females are due the fact of sexual selection by females giving priority to ancestral males patterns. Yet if females polymorphism is advatageous for females it should not represent disatvantage for males if it occurs in males too - at least to say. So sexual preferation is the darwinian explanation of the fact. I would say that Nijhout weird conception of ancestor looking like P.phorcas is in contradiction with Darwin explanation - we should ask, why is it possible that female are polymorphic and males no? Because both of them have to undergone patterns/color changes to their nowadays "look" and females sexual preferention did not hindern males to change color/patterns. So why females admitted such non-mimetic change of males but do not admitted mimetic males change? We know that also male mimics in butterfly realm exist as well.

< http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/modern-science/chapter15.html >

These question are of such importance that neodarwinists are forced use very untraditional explanations like "transvestite evolutionary step", "females to escape 'sexual harrasment' by males" and so on.

It is really hard work to defend darwinism in case of Papilio dardanus.

They should be rather prepare to accept fact that behind some curious phenomenon of mimicry are no random mutation/selection but until today some unknown internal factors. Proposed by Punnet and cited by John Davison in his Manifesto.

Nijhout fancy on Papilio Dardanus evolution via "transvestite evolutionary step" and subsequent "genetic effect of large magnitude":

< http://www.nbb.cornell.edu/neurobio/BioNB420/Dardanus2003.pdf >

[ 21. November 2006, 17:42: Message edited by: Martin ]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Javison then THANKS HIMSELF:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Martin

Thank you for laying it on the "groupthinkers" over at the saloon. You have them on the run and I don't think they even realize it. "Prescribed" ideologues are like that. Thank you for doing that which they won't permit me to do so I will do it here where I am allowed. I hope they are listening.

ALL of both ontogeny and phylogeny has been the result of "internal factors." The environment has played no role whatsoever in either creative evolution or embryonic development beyond the rather trivial role of allowing a milieu for the expression of those strictly "internal factors" The generation of intraspecific varieties and strains, none of which represent incipient species in any event, are all that the Darwinian model has ever been able to achieve. The experimental laboratory has made this conclusion perfectly plain. Mendelian genetics, natural or artificial selection, allelic mutation and sexual reproduction can only maintain and extend evolutionary dead ends. None of these ever played a role in creative evolution, a phenomenon of the distant past. Trust me but of course no one will. That is fine too. I wouldn't have it any other way.

How does that grab the Darwinian mystics? I imagine it smarts a little. I certainly hope so!

As for asking me to make predictions, I already have. There is little now to predict because it is all over. Creative evolution is finished and has been for millions of years at the genus level and for thousands of years at the species level. That is perfectly obvious to any serious student of the living world, fossil or extant. Today only extinction can be documented.

Darwinism is without question the biggest ideologically driven hoax in the history of science.

I love it so!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



We all do, John. We all do.
Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 25 2006,15:06

It ain't chance.

It ain't selection.

It ain't God (because he's dead).

What else, then? :O
:D
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 26 2006,01:50

Oh man!

JAD and DaveTard have resumed their pissing contest over at ISCID

< ISCID >

They just chase each other around cyberspace, trying to get in the most insults!

It just doesn't get any better that this  :D  :D  :D  :D
Posted by: Alan Fox on Nov. 26 2006,04:37

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 25 2006,20:50)
Oh man!

JAD and DaveTard have resumed their pissing contest over at ISCID

< ISCID >

They just chase each other around cyberspace, trying to get in the most insults!

It just doesn't get any better that this  :D  :D  :D  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And see the last comment on < this > thread.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh hi, John. I wonder where you'd slunk off to after mailing that letter to O'Leary. She forwarded it to all the admins at UD. A couple of them, even Dembski, rose up in your defense.

They rose up, that is, until I emailed them a couple dozen choice quotes from your blog "newprescribedevolution" where you'd called Dembski all kinds of unflattering names. They then went from defending you to pitying you but agreeing that me banning you was the right thing to do. I didn't want to expose you in that way but you left me no choice.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: VMartin on Nov. 26 2006,15:12



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

I repeat: what determines the frequences of existing alleles in a population, if not their reproduction rates?

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




I wouldnt say question stands like that. Because female morphs of Papilio  
dardanus segregate clearly in given race/population it is necessary to recognize
existence of switch-gene. The switch-genes possess dominance hierarchy and determine which morhps in heterozygous female will segregate.

Question stands like this - how and when such switch-gene aroused? Surely it is hard to imagine that the switch-gene aroused after morphs were established. In other case morphs would intermingled.

Second possibility is that such gene with all genes of given morphs sprang up
sudenly by saltus hitting off the resemblance of mimetic model.

Third possibility is neodarwinian one - existence of switch-gene preceded existences of morphs.


Yet if such gene aroused then at beginning IMHO it had nothing to switch - or at least to switch between same possibilities of same patterns/colors of ancient monomorphic female. There was no selective pressure to switch-gene to exist and consequently it should cease to exist. Or at least there was no selective advantage having it and to spread over Papilio dardanus population - it was neutral. Such switch-gene at the beginning (where only one morph exist) contradicts in my opinion even to purpose of diploidy. Because the switch gene blocks expressing genes from other set of chromosomes. Subsequently such switch-gene would diminish variability and evolutionary development of wing color/patterns at the beggining when no mimetic forms exist.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Nov. 26 2006,15:27

Hey John, how they hanging?

Thanks for name checking me all over, but I think you kind of hurt Richard Hughes' feelings by leaving him out of that villain list. How about at least one message where you call him 'Hichard Rughes'?

Definitely keep harassing Spravid Dinger, tho. We'd all really miss that if you quit doing it.

Got that? Write it down!
Posted by: VMartin on Nov. 26 2006,15:58

As you know John is banned here. You should better write him an email or go to Brainstorm.

If you folks here think that John and I are the same person you are at great mistake. I suppose anyway that you choose such tactic (to hold me for John even if you clearly see it impossible - I can hardly compare myself with John as to the biological knowledges) to heal your
ego that other people can hold John Davisons Manifesto for one of the best antidarwinian work. Interesting and inspiring.

M.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Nov. 26 2006,18:05

Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 26 2006,15:58)
If you folks here think that John and I are the same person
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't flatter yourself.  No one here CARES who you are.  (shrug)
Posted by: VMartin on Nov. 27 2006,14:46



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

No one here CARES who you are.  (shrug)

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



No one here cares even what the true is. (shrug)
What do you really care of is how to denigrate professor Davison with your adolescent offences.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Nov. 27 2006,14:52

Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 27 2006,14:46)


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

No one here CARES who you are.  (shrug)

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



No one here cares even what the true is. (shrug)
What do you really care of is how to denigrate professor Davison with your adolescent offences.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


and?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Nov. 27 2006,14:55

Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 27 2006,14:46)


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

No one here CARES who you are.  (shrug)

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



No one here cares even what the true is. (shrug)
What do you really care of is how to denigrate professor Davison with your adolescent offences.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So how's Vermont this time of year, John?
Posted by: Alan Fox on Nov. 27 2006,15:04

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 27 2006,09:55)
Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 27 2006,14:46)
 

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

No one here CARES who you are.  (shrug)

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



No one here cares even what the true is. (shrug)
What do you really care of is how to denigrate professor Davison with your adolescent offences.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So how's Vermont this time of year, John?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not so sure it's John's hand up the sockpuppet, Arden. John has never to my knowledge been able to post a link, or cut and paste. Just out of curiosity, can't someone (calling Mr Story) check the ISP. Virtual six-pack says you're wrong.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Nov. 27 2006,15:39

Quote (Alan Fox @ Nov. 27 2006,15:04)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 27 2006,09:55)
   
Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 27 2006,14:46)
   

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

No one here CARES who you are.  (shrug)

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



No one here cares even what the true is. (shrug)
What do you really care of is how to denigrate professor Davison with your adolescent offences.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So how's Vermont this time of year, John?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not so sure it's John's hand up the sockpuppet, Arden. John has never to my knowledge been able to post a link, or cut and paste. Just out of curiosity, can't someone (calling Mr Story) check the ISP. Virtual six-pack says you're wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I already asked Steve whether 'VMartin's' ISP shed any light on this, but haven't heard back. Something smells rotten about his posts, since he can't even stay in character (watch his Borat accent go in and out), tho I agree these posts do seem to be beyond Javison's meager computer skills.

The fact of Javison being banned doesn't impress me as evidence, since, as GoP can tell you, all that means is you have to go down to your nearest library to post.

I don't think these posts are Paley, but I am sort of wondering if the ISP originates from, oh, I dunno, Austin, TX. I think we've seen this person under a different name.

I too want to know what the true is.  :p
Posted by: Alan Fox on Nov. 27 2006,15:44



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I too want to know what the true is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You unleshead beast, you! :D
Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 27 2006,15:45

Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 26 2006,15:12)


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

I repeat: what determines the frequences of existing alleles in a population, if not their reproduction rates?

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




I wouldnt say question stands like that. Because female morphs of Papilio  
dardanus segregate clearly in given race/population it is necessary to recognize
existence of switch-gene.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not convinced. Would you care to explain precisely why you came to that conclusion? What's a "switch gene" anyway ? I do some population genetics, but I never heard of that.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Because female morphs of Papilio dardanus segregate clearly in given race/population...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not sure what you mean by that.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Nov. 27 2006,16:17



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

No one here cares even what the true is. (shrug)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Omigod, he's saying "(shrug)"!

Maybe VMartin is actually Lenny Flank!

:O
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Nov. 27 2006,19:49

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 27 2006,16:17)


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

No one here cares even what the true is. (shrug)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Omigod, he's saying "(shrug)"!

Maybe VMartin is actually Lenny Flank!

:O
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm very careful what I   (shrug)   at.   ;)


But it is awfully funny to see, yet again, just how utterly incapable of originality the fundies are.  I don't think any of them have had an original thought in thirty years.  (shrug)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Nov. 27 2006,19:56

Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 27 2006,14:46)
No one here cares even what the true is. (shrug)
What do you really care of is how to denigrate professor Davison with your adolescent offences.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's right.  Neener, neener.  

JAD's a poopie-head!  JAD's  a poopie-head !!!!!

(puts thumbs in ears and wiggles fingers)

Nyah nyah nyah nyah.  Pththththttttttttttt.
Posted by: VMartin on Nov. 27 2006,23:54

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Nov. 26 2006,18:05:



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

Don't flatter yourself.  No one here CARES who you are.  (shrug)

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



and after 20 hours:



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

JAD's a poopie-head!  JAD's  a poopie-head !!!!!
(puts thumbs in ears and wiggles fingers)
Nyah nyah nyah nyah.  Pththththttttttttttt.

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



Arent such reactions something I would call bipolar?

Btw does bipolarity aroused via random mutation too and
was subsequently preferred by natural selection?
(shrug).
Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 28 2006,09:38

Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 28 2006,00:54)
Arent such reactions something I would call bipolar?

Btw does bipolarity aroused via random mutation too and
was subsequently preferred by natural selection?
(shrug).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Aren't you asking yourself a question?
Why don't you answer yourself?

Why don't you get a clue and read a little about bipolar in the first place?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Studies seeking to identify the genetic basis of bipolar disorder indicate that susceptibility stems from multiple genes. Scientists are continuing their search for these genes, using advanced genetic analytic methods and large samples of families affected by the illness.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipolar_disorder >

If you can navigate through the facts and come up with a mechanism for bipolar disorder then please let the scientists know.  They are searching too.

In fact, why don't you spend some precious brainpower and propose a new mechanism for this disorder using JAD methodology.  The subject is wide open at present since there seems (at least from the Wiki page) to be an opening for new and various ideas.

Put up or stop whining.

Mike PSS
Posted by: VMartin on Nov. 30 2006,15:37

O.K. Air seems to be clear, adolescent darwinists probably move to other forum (linguistic). And we may continue.

jeannot

 

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

What's a "switch gene" anyway ? I do some population genetics, but I never heard of that.

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



You should probably look into evo-devo article that address mimicry of butterflies of Heliconius. Article is from nature.com, 2006:

 

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

From an evo-devo perspective, the major interest lies in linking the loci underlying pattern change in Heliconius, the so-called switch genes, with the pathways involved in wing pattern development.

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



They use also "switch locus".I would say problem is important one while such switch gene hardly aroused after morphs were established - morhps patterns and colors would intermingled otherwise. That is also answer to your second question about "segregation". By segregation we means that morphs of given race segregate clearly, its A or B or C and seldom some hybrid between A and B. That means that different phenotyps of morhps of given species  (that often mimics other butterfly species) are switched or regulated by "switch gene". Origin of this switch gene is on my view more interesting as origin of regulated pathways and cascades it "switch on".

Problem persist as outlined partly in John Davison E.Manifesto that deals with Punnett view of role of selection on mimicry of butterflies. The problem is 100 years old and until now unresolved by neodawinists. No gradual evolution can account for such phenomenon as mimic morphs of the same species and "macromutaion" is needed. Even in that evo-devo article from nature.com 2006 they seem to admit it partly:  

 

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

Thus, evolution of the H. numata supergene could have involved elements of both the  'macromutationist' and the 'gradualist' positions in this historical debate.

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



< http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v97/n3/full/6800873a.html >
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Nov. 30 2006,18:02

I'm sorry, Martin, did you say something?  I, like everyone else, wasn't paying any attention to you.  (shrug)
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 30 2006,23:24

Ya know John, er, VMartin - if you'd drop that asinine pseudo-accent, people could at least decipher what you're babbling about.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 01 2006,00:12

So John, were you inspired to do this by the movie Borat? You know, the funny accent, 'care about the true', all that?

Are you using a computer at your local public library, or did you manage to get around your banning somehow, like Dave would do?

So how are you and Dave getting along these days? Better?

Do you love it so?
Posted by: Alan Fox on Dec. 01 2006,01:40

Come on Steve. Spill the beans on the ISP source.

BTW Martin,

I glanced through your linked article. I did not see anything that undermines the theory of evolution there. As you are making the claim, perhaps you could indicate the relevant passages that I must have missed
Posted by: Ved on Dec. 01 2006,12:48

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 01 2006,01:12)
So John, were you inspired to do this by the movie Borat? You know, the funny accent, 'care about the true', all that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What do you mean? Borat's the real deal, man. I mean, he's as real as Stephen Colbert's balls are big!

Wa wa wee wa!
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 01 2006,13:30

Occam's Aftershave
   

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

Ya know John, er, VMartin - if you'd drop that asinine pseudo-accent, people could at least decipher what you're babbling about.

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




Your problem probably consist in fact that you do not understand other language as english. You seems to have problem therefore to distinguish between analytical (e.g. german, english) and syntetical languages (as Latin, Greek and Slavonic languages).

Order of words in a sentence seems to be unsurmountable barrier for your underestanding. No wonder that only theory you are capable to comprehend is outdate darwinism from mid-19 century.

That many of folks here do not underestand any Slavonic language and not even written German is probably a fact. One of you used babelfish translator to translate Nietzsche german text with this curios outcome:    


   

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

... Gesammt aspect life is not Nothlage, which which sumptuousness, even the absurd verschwendung, - one fights where, one fights to hunger situation, rather the Reichthum, for power.
.
.
the weak ones become again and again over the strong ones gentleman
.

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



While Fridriech Nietzsche is promimenet atheist who ridiculed darwinism very I try to modify it for better underestanding:

   

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

Anti-Darwin: What concerns the famous struggle for life, then it seems to me meanwhile more stated than proved. It occurs, but as exception; general aspect of life is not dearthe, hunger or starvation but abundance, sumptuousness, even absurd wasting, lavishing - where fight occurs there one fights for power... One should not confound Malthus with nature. - Let us assume however, that this fight happens - and it really happens - then it runs out unfortunately in reverse as the school Darwin's wishes, when perhaps one might wish with it: indeed to detriment of the strong ones, the privileged, the lucky exceptions. The kinds do not grow in the perfection: the weak ones become again and again the masters of strong ones, - they have large numbers, they are also more intelligent... Darwin forgot the spirit (- that is english! ), the weak ones have more spirit... One must to have  need for spirit, in order to get spirit, - one loses him, if one does not need him any more. Who has the strength, get rid himself of spirit (- "go away! one thinks today in Germany - wee must keep the Reich"...). I understand as spitit the caution, the patience, the ruse, the adjustment, the large self-control and everything what mimicry is (to the latter a large part of the so-called virtue belongs).

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



Enjoy.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 01 2006,13:57

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 01 2006,13:30)
Occam's Aftershave
       

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

Ya know John, er, VMartin - if you'd drop that asinine pseudo-accent, people could at least decipher what you're babbling about.

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




Your problem probably consist in fact that you do not understand other language as english. You seems to have problem therefore to distinguish between analytical (e.g. german, english) and syntetical languages (as Latin, Greek and Slavonic languages).

Order of words in a sentence seems to be unsurmountable barrier for your underestanding. No wonder that only theory you are capable to comprehend is outdate darwinism from mid-19 century.

That many of folks here do not underestand any Slavonic language and not even written German is probably a fact. One of you used babelfish translator to translate Nietzsche german text with this curios outcome:    


       

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

... Gesammt aspect life is not Nothlage, which which sumptuousness, even the absurd verschwendung, - one fights where, one fights to hunger situation, rather the Reichthum, for power.
.
.
the weak ones become again and again over the strong ones gentleman
.

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



While Fridriech Nietzsche is promimenet atheist who ridiculed darwinism very I try to modify it for better underestanding:

       

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

Anti-Darwin: What concerns the famous struggle for life, then it seems to me meanwhile more stated than proved. It occurs, but as exception; general aspect of life is not dearthe, hunger or starvation but abundance, sumptuousness, even absurd wasting, lavishing - where fight occurs there one fights for power... One should not confound Malthus with nature. - Let us assume however, that this fight happens - and it really happens - then it runs out unfortunately in reverse as the school Darwin's wishes, when perhaps one might wish with it: indeed to detriment of the strong ones, the privileged, the lucky exceptions. The kinds do not grow in the perfection: the weak ones become again and again the masters of strong ones, - they have large numbers, they are also more intelligent... Darwin forgot the spirit (- that is english! ), the weak ones have more spirit... One must to have  need for spirit, in order to get spirit, - one loses him, if one does not need him any more. Who has the strength, get rid himself of spirit (- "go away! one thinks today in Germany - wee must keep the Reich"...). I understand as spitit the caution, the patience, the ruse, the adjustment, the large self-control and everything what mimicry is (to the latter a large part of the so-called virtue belongs).

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



Enjoy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You never said, John, how's Vermont about now? I mean, I realize it's too late for the leaves to change color and all, but I imagine the snow on the trees and all must be kind of pretty.

As an aside, John, your imitation of incompetent English is kind of iffy. Sometimes you sound like someone whose first English lesson was a month ago, and sometimes just like yourself with the person marking removed from a few verbs just for appearance's sake. (I mean, 'chance worshipper'? Please.) You have to keep up a consistent voice, as they say in literary criticism.

Anyway, I'm glad you found a library not too far from your house to post from.

What are your feelings about Spravid Dinger these days?

How do you like them road apples?

PS: German is not a 'syntetical' language, John.
Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 01 2006,14:02

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 27 2006,16:39)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Nov. 27 2006,15:04)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 27 2006,09:55)
   
Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 27 2006,14:46)
     

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

No one here CARES who you are.  (shrug)

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



No one here cares even what the true is. (shrug)
What do you really care of is how to denigrate professor Davison with your adolescent offences.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So how's Vermont this time of year, John?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not so sure it's John's hand up the sockpuppet, Arden. John has never to my knowledge been able to post a link, or cut and paste. Just out of curiosity, can't someone (calling Mr Story) check the ISP. Virtual six-pack says you're wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I already asked Steve whether 'VMartin's' ISP shed any light on this, but haven't heard back. Something smells rotten about his posts, since he can't even stay in character (watch his Borat accent go in and out), tho I agree these posts do seem to be beyond Javison's meager computer skills.

The fact of Javison being banned doesn't impress me as evidence, since, as GoP can tell you, all that means is you have to go down to your nearest library to post.

I don't think these posts are Paley, but I am sort of wondering if the ISP originates from, oh, I dunno, Austin, TX. I think we've seen this person under a different name.

I too want to know what the true is.  :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


VMartin might obviously be Davison or someone, I don't know. I checked the IP and it's somewhere it Europe, which means little. Davison is insane but in a boring way like Larry Falafelman, so I don't read his posts, or this thread, enough to detect if VMartin is him. Or Larry.
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 01 2006,14:22



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

Anyway, I'm glad you found a library not too far from your house to post from.

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



Do you mean that the mentioned library is connected to inet via slovak-telecom? You seem to be an expert not only in darwinism but also in internet topology.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Dec. 01 2006,15:00

John

I will open a thread for you < here > if you like, on the understanding that profanity and obscenity is not acceptable.
Posted by: REC on Dec. 01 2006,15:11

I was going to post this Nature Review to this website:
"Heliconius wing patterns: an evo-devo model for understanding phenotypic diversity"
< http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v97/n3/full/6800873a.html >

But Vmartin beat me to the punch!

Which is curious, as is essentiall refutes his use of butterfly mimicry in support of JADs PEH hypothesis.

Some highlights:
"A long history of genetic studies has showed that pattern variation is based on allelic combinations at a surprisingly small number of loci"

(note small number-far from the "genetic change of large magnitude" that Vmartin seems to stumble on)

"Fine-scale genetic mapping studies have shown that a shared toolkit of genes is used to produce both convergent and divergent phenotypes. These exciting results and the development of new genomic resources make Heliconius a very promising evo-devo model for the study of adaptive change."

So, Vmartin, where in this paper is the arguement against standard evolution? How does it defend your position? Your precious mimics are becoming model organisms for the evo-devo crowd....
Posted by: Alan Fox on Dec. 01 2006,15:26



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I checked the IP and it's somewhere it Europe, which means little.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It might mean little to you colonials, but some people live here!
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Dec. 01 2006,15:28

On the one hand, it's really not appropriate for us to make fun of you simply because English is not your native language.  Assuming you aren't Old Horseapples and that you really are a non-native speaker trying to conduct a debate about evolutionary science on an English-speaking forum, then we can say:

1. You certainly write better English than I do Slavonian (or German, or whatever your native language may be).

2. Despite your commendable confidence in your ability, however, your written English is simply not good enough to conduct this debate in a fashion understandable to native English, non-Slavonian speakers.

Here's a recent quote from you, followed by my best attempt to render it into "good enough" written English:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your problem probably consist in fact that you do not understand other language as english. You seems to have problem therefore to distinguish between analytical (e.g. german, english) and syntetical languages (as Latin, Greek and Slavonic languages).

Order of words in a sentence seems to be unsurmountable barrier for your underestanding. No wonder that only theory you are capable to comprehend is outdate darwinism from mid-19 century.

That many of folks here do not underestand any Slavonic language and not even written German is probably a fact. One of you used babelfish translator to translate Nietzsche german text with this curios outcome.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Your problem probably consists in the fact that you do not understand other languages as well as you do English. You seems to be having problems, therefore, in distinguishing between analytical (e.g., German or English) and syntetical (as Latin, Greek and Slavonic languages) languages.

The order of words in a sentence seems to be an insurmountable barrier for your underestanding. No wonder that [b/the[/b] only theory you are capable of comprehending is outdated Darwinism from the Mid-19th Century.

That many of the folks here do not underestand any Slavonic language and do not even understand written German is probably a fact. One of you used the
B
abelfish translator to translate Nietzsche's German text with this curious outcome:

What we see, therefore, is that "word order" is not really your problem.  Your problems are multiple, but include your failure to use necessary articles and connectives, your failure to appropriately capitalize and punctuate, your uncertain grasp of word endings, your misspellings, your mishandling of the possessive, your failure to use parallel construction, and your numerous other minor-but-cumulative errors.

I could have similarly "corrected" your attempt to "improve" on Babelfish's translation of Nietzsche, which was notably unsuccessful.

Nobody here claimed to understand written German or whatever Slavonic language you are operating from.

You apparently believe, however, that your slightly-broken English--which might well be adequate for picking up girls in a bar--is sufficient for a technical-scientific debate of this kind.

I'm sorry to inform you that it's simply not, although with further practice--which I encourage you to obtain in some less-demanding forum--it may well become adequate before very much longer.

You inability to efffectively deploy logic and evidence in scientific debate, however, is not so easily addressed, but I wish you luck with that as well.

Sincerely, Stevie
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 01 2006,17:15

Hey "VMartin":

Next time you see John A. Davison, ask him why he pussed out and ran away fron defending his PEH over at TheologyWeb - one of the few places still left where his obnoxious personality hasn't gotten him banned yet.
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 02 2006,16:42



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

Your problems are multiple, but include your failure to use necessary articles and connectives, your failure to appropriately capitalize and punctuate, your uncertain
grasp of word endings, your misspellings, your mishandling of the possessive, your failure to use parallel construction, and your numerous other minor-but-cumulative errors.

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



Sorry. Going home from the bar yesterday I lost somewhere all of my english articles and connectives and also some capital letters. I still cannot find them.

   

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

You apparently believe, however, that your slightly-broken English--which might well be adequate for picking up girls in a bar--is sufficient for a technical-scientific debate of this kind.

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



You wouldnot believe me but females in bar preffered rednecks with oxford english yesterday. Females wanted to hear story how Mankind aroused via random mutation from ancient fish. So I had no chance yesterday at all.

And how I was scared when arriving at home I found that one neodarwinist checked my post for grammar mistakes - so much I am scared of english language teachers still.

Anyway thanks for your acute remark, that " JAD was banned again from UD..., " in the -After the bar closes- is a challenging technical-scientific  debate.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Dec. 02 2006,19:07

Geez, is Martin STILL blithering . . . .?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 02 2006,20:39

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Dec. 02 2006,19:07)
Geez, is Martin STILL blithering . . . .?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, and he still can't stay in character.
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Dec. 02 2006,20:40

Eh, blithering or not, I detect the glimmerings of a sense of humor.

Which, even if it leaves Davisonsout of the equation,  still brings Vmartin no closer to an understanding of how scientific explanations work.
Posted by: Ichthyic on Dec. 03 2006,01:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
From an evo-devo perspective, the major interest lies in linking the loci underlying pattern change in Heliconius, the so-called switch genes, with the pathways involved in wing pattern development.

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



Is he trying for Hox genes by chance?  typically Hox gene complexes are involved in limb development.

It's pretty clear whoever it is hasn't the slightest clue what they are on about, in any case, so I guess the question isn't even worth asking.

forget it.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So I had no chance yesterday at all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



or the day before that...
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 03 2006,03:55



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

...still brings Vmartin no closer to an understanding of how scientific explanations work.

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



What "technical-scientific debate" in this "high-demanding forum" are you still raving about? If somebody uses sentences like:

 

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

I'm not so sure it's John's hand up the sockpuppet, Arden.

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

 

 

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

I now think you're Bulgarian. Now please to translate that into Bulgarian. Using Cyrillic.

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



 

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

I don't think you've be hoisted by your own Davetard, but you do smell of urine and old folks homes.

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



and you hold them to be fit for this high "demanding forum" just because you found the english articles and connectives placed in the right positions! It might be (as you seem to occupy yourself with medieval english literature predominantly) that it is enough for you to consider such bullshits for "evidence in scientific debate".


Most of you have not even slightest anticipation of the complex phenomenon of the mimicry. I have given you an example (discovered by Poulton) of two butterflies living in the different areas where mimicry should be established and maintained by the migratory birds(!;). Thats the "effectively deployed logic" as neodarwists presents us. But as latest researches showed it would probably be not the correct explanation - birds taste and check unpalatable butterflies from time to time regularly.

Mimicry of butterflies and other insects is far too complex problem to be "explained" away by darwinistic natural selection. Such opinion held for instatnce prominent Austrian entomologist Freinz Heikertinger or also by Davison mentioned Punnet. I found out that even Goldschmidt was of the same opinion. From modern scientist it is Andreas Suchantke.

So it is not as clear as you here would like to see it and ridicule over.

That 14 morphs of P.Dardanus and other aroused via natural selection is hardly to believe. There should be at least some predispostion of the process in some species
- be it switch genes that enabled such development of morphs. Process is unthinkable without switch genes that aroused and started do their job long before any differences (especially mimic ones) in wing patterns/colors evolved.

You should be aware also that many morhphs are Mullerian mimics. It means that evolution should happened relatively fast and by no way using darwinistic-gradual step by step process. If we are talking about genotypic mutation with large phenotypic effect (evo-devo) we should have always in mind that such "random
mutation" of regulatory genes somehow succeeded exactly hitting the existing wing appearence of unpalatable model! For the mind that is not preoccupied with neodarwinism it is hardly an acceptable explanation (considering all of existing uncountable wing patterns and colors).        

And do not forget that Papilio dardanus is also according Punnet (2003) "one of the most puzzling cases of evolution in animal world.". If it is not puzzling for you should be accounted more for your conceit as for your wisdom. I would say.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Dec. 03 2006,05:21



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hey "VMartin":

Next time you see John A. Davison, ask him why he pussed out and ran away fron defending his PEH over at TheologyWeb - one of the few places still left where his obnoxious personality hasn't gotten him banned yet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Occam's Aftershave,

Professor Davison is currently visiting < here >, so you could ask him yourself.

(Tumbleweed, crows, my foot, Arden & Rich)
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 03 2006,05:41

Alan FoX wrote to Professor Davison on his own forum:


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

allows idiots such as Walter ReMine, Peter Borger, Bruce Fast, Sal Cordova, David Hagen (and yourself)...

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



instructed yesterday John Davison that:



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

I would ask that you remain civil to any posters that choose to engage with you, and that anyone else posting here do the same...

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



Would you beleive it?
Posted by: jeannot on Dec. 03 2006,05:55

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 03 2006,05:41)
Would you beleive it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's hard to believe, isn't it?
Posted by: Alan Fox on Dec. 03 2006,06:04

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 03 2006,00:41)
Alan FoX wrote to Professor Davison on his own forum:
 

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

allows idiots such as Walter ReMine, Peter Borger, Bruce Fast, Sal Cordova, David Hagen (and yourself)...

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



instructed yesterday John Davison that:

 

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

I would ask that you remain civil to any posters that choose to engage with you, and that anyone else posting here do the same...

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



Would you beleive it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're welcome to add your 2 cents, Martin. The context of that remark was the draconian moderation policy at ISCID, which incidentally, John has not been too flattering about recently.

I am an optimist, I think I can restrain myself, and hope others do, because...

I love it so!

So, < Sock it to me! >
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 03 2006,11:42



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
and you hold them to be fit for this high "demanding forum" just because you found the english articles and connectives placed in the right positions! It might be (asyou seem to occupy yourself with medieval english literature predominantly) that it is enough for you to consider such bullshits for "evidence in scientific debate".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Um, John Martin, WHO supposedly "occupies himself with medieval english literature"? I have no idea who you're referring to, and if it's me you're WAY off base.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That 14 morphs of P.Dardanus and other aroused via natural selection is hardly to believe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's hard to believe, isn't it? :p


 

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

allows idiots such as Walter ReMine, Peter Borger, Bruce Fast, Sal Cordova, David Hagen (and yourself)...

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



I don't know about the rest of those names, but Sal Cordova really is an idiot. That's a simple statement of fact, not an opinion.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 03 2006,11:48

I thought this was quite stylish:



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

Now where is the biggest cowardly blowhard in cyberspace, the creep that bans people at the drop of the hat? I want a piece of Dembski's nasty, degenerate, foul-mouthed two-faced lying Chihuahua. You know, the one who signed off at me at "brainstorms," the most civilized forum in the internet, with "GFY" - that one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'd make this my sig, but I'm still really fond of the one I already have...  :p
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Dec. 03 2006,11:55

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 03 2006,11:48)
I thought this was quite stylish:



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

Now where is the biggest cowardly blowhard in cyberspace, the creep that bans people at the drop of the hat? I want a piece of Dembski's nasty, degenerate, foul-mouthed two-faced lying Chihuahua. You know, the one who signed off at me at "brainstorms," the most civilized forum in the internet, with "GFY" - that one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'd make this my sig, but I'm still really fond of the one I already have...  :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Close but the siggy you have now is best. It was Springers last salvo before getting banned and resorting to anonymous posting. It's historical ;)
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 03 2006,12:11

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Dec. 03 2006,11:55)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 03 2006,11:48)
I thought this was quite stylish:

 

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

Now where is the biggest cowardly blowhard in cyberspace, the creep that bans people at the drop of the hat? I want a piece of Dembski's nasty, degenerate, foul-mouthed two-faced lying Chihuahua. You know, the one who signed off at me at "brainstorms," the most civilized forum in the internet, with "GFY" - that one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'd make this my sig, but I'm still really fond of the one I already have...  :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Close but the siggy you have now is best. It was Springers last salvo before getting banned and resorting to anonymous posting. It's historical ;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed. If the history of the Intelligent Design movement is ever written, Dave's quote should be the epigraph.  :p
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 03 2006,14:09

A new Javison < nugget > from Brainstorms:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425

 posted 01. December 2006 16:10                    
Denigration is all that those animals at the "Slippery Floors Saloon" know. You have them on the run Martin. Believe me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Omygod, it's MARTIN! Run for it!!!!!
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Dec. 03 2006,15:24

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 03 2006,14:09)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425

 posted 01. December 2006 16:10                    
Denigration is all that those animals at the "Slippery Floors Saloon" know. You have them on the run Martin. Believe me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Well, if Martin is *not* really JAD, then JAD must be about ready to cum in his pants, since Martin seems to be the only fool in recent history who actually takes JAD's ramblings seriously, and who *doesn't* think JAD belongs in a padded room with lots of Thorazine.

Even the IDers think JAD is a nutter.  And THAT is saying a lot.


Got it?  Write that down.
Posted by: Kristine on Dec. 03 2006,23:08



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I cannot answer your question because no one knows how many times life was created, how many Creators there were, how many front loadings took place or when they took place.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wha-?

The universe is the result of a (or several) brainstorming session between creators, who all then died off--am I understanding this correctly?

So who front-loaded the front-loaders? Perhaps someone has already asked this...

"Got that?" [No.] "Write that down!" [Okay..."I can't answer your question..."] I love it so! [But what "it" is, I'm not quite sure.]
Posted by: Lou FCD on Dec. 04 2006,07:18

Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 03 2006,23:08)
...I love it so! [But what "it" is, I'm not quite sure.]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


His peepee, of course.
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 04 2006,12:34

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posted: Dec. 03 2006,15:24



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

...then JAD must be about ready to cum in his pants, since Martin...

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




First I thought you are a bipolar scribbler  - but I see now that you are only dirty scabby darwinistic pig.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 04 2006,12:39

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 04 2006,12:34)
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posted: Dec. 03 2006,15:24

 

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

...then JAD must be about ready to cum in his pants, since Martin...

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




First I thought you are a bipolar scribbler  - but I see now that you are only dirty scabby darwinistic pig.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Would you go so far as to say he's a DARWIMP, John VMartin?

PS: How could you possibly know whether Lenny is scabby?  :p
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 04 2006,12:44

Since the folks here like nice english, I dug out something from prominent writer and former scientist Nabokov on mimicry - of course attitude is antidarwinian one -



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

The mysteries of mimicry had a special attraction for me. Its phenomena showed an artistic perfection usually associated with man-wrought things. Consider the imitation of oozing poison by bubblelike macules on a wing (complete with pseudo-refraction) or by glossy yellow knobs on a chrysalis ("Don't eat me – I have already been squashed, sampled and rejected"). Consider the tricks of an acrobatic caterpillar (of the Lobster Moth) which in infancy looks like bird's dung, but after moulting develops scrabbly hymenopteroid appendages and baroque characteristics, allowing the extraordinary fellow to play two parts at once … that of a writhing larva and that of a big ant seemingly harrowing it. When a certain moth resembles a certain wasp in shape and color, it also walks and moves its antennae in a waspish, unmothlike manner. When a butterfly has to look like a leaf, not only are all the details of a leaf beautifully rendered but markings mimicking grub-bored holes are generously thrown in. "Natural selection," in the Darwinian sense, could not explain the miraculous coincidence of imitative aspect and imitative behavior, nor could one appeal to the theory of "the struggle for life" when a protective device was carried to a point of mimetic subtlety, exuberance, and luxury far in excess of a predator's power of appreciation. I discovered in nature the non-utilitarian delights that I sought in art. Both were a form of magic, both were a game of intricate enchantment and deception. (Nabokov's Butterflies 85-86)

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


Posted by: Steviepinhead on Dec. 04 2006,14:30

(Sigh.)  I was waiting for the inevitable Nabakov quote from the moment our butterfly mimicry troll first surfaced.

Why are these people so utterly predictable?

I retract my remark that this guy showed a glimmer of a sense of humor.

Not all that glisters is gold...

How do you like them turnip-greens!
Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 04 2006,15:04

Speaking totally O/T (like there has been one recently).

I wonder why Steviepinhead hasn't taken an Avatar when there are so many choices and styles too.
From the innocent....

To the insane....


Is it because they're not named 'Steve'?
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Dec. 04 2006,15:24

Re avatars--stevie is a pinhead and doesn't know where to go get them (or is too lazy to google "avatar" and see what happens...).

But if the smarty darwinistic people stoop to helping pinheaded atavistic stevie, then...who knows, maybe pictures start popping out like horseapples after snowmelt!

Or oxford-english speaking darwin-loving redneck babes in Slovakian bars!

Or...
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 04 2006,15:30

Quote (Steviepinhead @ Dec. 04 2006,15:24)
Re avatars--stevie is a pinhead and doesn't know where to go get them (or is too lazy to google "avatar" and see what happens...).

But if the smarty darwinistic people stoop to helping pinheaded atavistic stevie, then...who knows, maybe pictures start popping out like horseapples after snowmelt!

Or oxford-english speaking darwin-loving redneck babes in Slovakian bars!

Or...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wikipedia has all kinds of great avatar images:


Posted by: Steviepinhead on Dec. 04 2006,16:11

Uh, we need to start much simpler for stevie.  If I go to Wikipedia and search "avatar," I don't get a selection of samples, I get an article about avatars...!

Even if I find a sample image, where does it get hosted, how do I link it, etc., etc....

Remember the third and fourth syllables in the screenname!

???
Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 04 2006,16:29

Quote (Steviepinhead @ Dec. 04 2006,17:11)
Uh, we need to start much simpler for stevie.  If I go to Wikipedia and search "avatar," I don't get a selection of samples, I get an article about avatars...!

Even if I find a sample image, where does it get hosted, how do I link it, etc., etc....

Remember the third and fourth syllables in the screenname!

???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


First, find an image you like and copy the URL (a right-click on the image and opening 'Properties' will get you the image path from the middle of a web page).

Click on Your Control Panel at the top of the page.
Then click on Personal Info Tab.
Then click on Avatar Options.
At the bottom of that page is a place to paste the path of your avatar.
Select size (64x64 is max size) and click on the button below the path you just pasted.
Happy avatar.

I just inserted Patrick.gif as an example just now.
Mike PSS
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Dec. 04 2006,17:44

Oookay, let's see what happens...

Ah, now we're talking!   :p
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 04 2006,18:14

Quote (Steviepinhead @ Dec. 04 2006,17:44)
Oookay, let's see what happens...

Ah, now we're talking!   :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gabba gabba we accept you we accept you one of us!
Gabba gabba we accept you we accept you one of us!

Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Dec. 04 2006,18:25

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 04 2006,12:34)
First I thought you are a bipolar scribbler  - but I see now that you are only dirty scabby darwinistic pig.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nuh-uh, I'm a dirty scabby NEWTONISTIC pig.

And EINSTEINISTIC pig.

And FARADAYISTIC pig.

So there.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 04 2006,18:33



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I see now that you are only dirty scabby darwinistic pig.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No! DaveScot say, I am church burning Ebola boy!
Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 04 2006,18:45

Quote (Steviepinhead @ Dec. 04 2006,18:44)
Oookay, let's see what happens...

Ah, now we're talking!   :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The pinhead is outed.

Is there anything else you wish to publicaly confess?

A-a-a-a-a-n-n-n-n-n-y-t-h-i-n-n-n-n-n-g-g-g-g??
Posted by: Lou FCD on Dec. 04 2006,18:54

Church Burnin' Ebola Boy.  No g, get it right.
Posted by: Kristine on Dec. 04 2006,21:08

Sorry that I missed this from VMartin:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Since the folks here like nice english, I dug out something from prominent writer and former scientist Nabokov on mimicry - of course attitude is antidarwinian one -
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hey literary giant: Nabokov's real point was that mimicry involved deception, but not necessarily strict duplication.

I'm afraid that he may have anthropomorphized his butterflies and perhaps attributed intentionality to them, but it hardly stacks up to intelligent design, as in G*d. Nice try.
Posted by: Ichthyic on Dec. 04 2006,22:22



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Or oxford-english speaking darwin-loving redneck babes in Slovakian bars!

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



Is it possible that Borat has invaded this little forum?

:p

hey Borat:  I have a question for you, and it's about mimicry:

Why don't you explain to the nice folks here the difference between mullerian and batesian mimicry, and the currently accepted (and supported)hypotheses explaining the evolution and maintenance of these traits.  While you're at it, cite some good examples of field experiments regarding the evolution of either type of mimicry as well.

that would give you some "street cred" if you actually want to talk about the science behind the study of mimicry.

otherwise, admit you haven't a clue what yer on about, in any language, and kindly STFU.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 05 2006,09:02

Personally, my own moment when little Borat here jumped the shark was when, early on, he cited as one of his big grievances against 'Darwinism' the fact that the Communist goverment back in Albania or Moldova or Slovakia or wherever the fuck he supposedly grew up advocated Darwinism. So now he's convinced that Darwinism is Stalinist, in much the same way that O'Leary and Co.'s big beef against Darwinism is its perceived wicked materialist 'atheism'. Another cartoon caricature of 'Darwinists' that's offered up as 'scientific evidence' against it.

Sorry, when an argument like that is offered up, you lose. Sorry the commies were mean to you back where you grew up, but if you can't understand why that's irrelevant to a discuission of evolution, you might as well hang a big sign around your neck saying "I AM AN IDIOT, KICK ME NOW".

It didn't help when the greatest scientists he could summon up to support his arguments were Nietzsche, Nabokov, and, Bog Help Us, Javison.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Dec. 05 2006,10:47

I never realised Vladimir Nabokov was also a distinguished lepidopterist. Lolita is one of the landmark novels of my youth.
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 05 2006,11:04



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

Personally, my own moment when little Borat here jumped the shark was when, early on, he cited as one of his big grievances against 'Darwinism' the fact that the Communist goverment back in Albania or Moldova or Slovakia or wherever the fuck he supposedly grew up advocated Darwinism. So now he's convinced that Darwinism is Stalinist, in much the same way that O'Leary and Co.'s big beef against Darwinism is its perceived wicked materialist 'atheism'. Another cartoon caricature of 'Darwinists' that's offered up as 'scientific evidence' against it

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



Are all the folks here so stupid and ignorrant like you?
During stalinism and later only accepted theory was lysenkism. Lysenko contradicted Darwin. Lysenko claimed that only environment forms living beings and he tried his theory with catastrofical outcome in prax. All the time they denigrated morganism.
If you at that time  had tried contradict Lysenko with darwinism you would ended in Gulag, you stupid american villager.
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 05 2006,11:11

Steviepinhead


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

Or oxford-english speaking darwin-loving redneck babes in Slovakian bars!

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



In your country you are probably accustomed to such plump ladies that they need two bar stools
for they fat asses.
No wonder there is not enough place left for you at the bar. So its hard to start your favorite heartbreaker how a sorcerer  RandomMutat  changed swimming Yogi-bear into huge huge whale Willy.

Your frustration seems to ventilate here on "the challenging scientific-technical forum"  After the bar closes.

Because you are not familiar with topic you either evaluate wit of posts or you check english grammar.

Why dont you rather go to forest behind your village house?
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 05 2006,11:35

John 'Borat' Davison-Martin
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In your country you are probably accustomed to such plump ladies that they need two bar stools
for they fat asses.
No wonder there is not enough place left for you at the bar. So its hard to start your favorite heartbreaker how a sorcerer  RandomMutat  changed swimming Yogi-bear into huge huge whale Willy.

Your frustration seems to ventilate here on "the challenging scientific-technical forum"  After the bar closes.

Because you are not familiar with topic you either evaluate wit of posts or you check english grammar.

Why dont you rather go to forest behind your village house?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gee John, your accent keeps getting more and more weird.  Do you need to up your dosage of Lithium?

Why did you ignore Ichthyic's request for info on mullerian and batesian mimicry?
Posted by: pwe on Dec. 05 2006,11:46

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 05 2006,11:04)
During stalinism and later only accepted theory was lysenkism. Lysenko contradicted Darwin. Lysenko claimed that only environment forms living beings and he tried his theory with catastrofical outcome in prax. All the time they denigrated morganism.

If you at that time  had tried contradict Lysenko with darwinism you would ended in Gulag, you stupid american villager.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But what then was 'Darwinism' to Stalin and Lysenko?

It's near impossible to figure out, what people mean by 'Darwinism', although I have spent some time trying.

According to Richard Weikart, Hitler was a 'social darwinist'. Usually, 'social Darwinism' refers to laissez-faire liberalism, which is for a minimal state, whose only rôle is to protect the weak against the strong. Hardly descriptive of a totalitarian ideology as Nazism.

Anyway, Darwin wasn't opposed to the idea that environment played a rôle; his pangenesis theory of inheritance stated that germ cells contained information from the entire body, even such as was due to environmental influences on the individual.


- pwe
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 05 2006,12:09

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 05 2006,11:11)
Steviepinhead
 

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

Or oxford-english speaking darwin-loving redneck babes in Slovakian bars!

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



In your country you are probably accustomed to such plump ladies that they need two bar stools
for they fat asses.
No wonder there is not enough place left for you at the bar. So its hard to start your favorite heartbreaker how a sorcerer  RandomMutat  changed swimming Yogi-bear into huge huge whale Willy.

Your frustration seems to ventilate here on "the challenging scientific-technical forum"  After the bar closes.

Because you are not familiar with topic you either evaluate wit of posts or you check english grammar.

Why dont you rather go to forest behind your village house?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Een Soviet Union, TV watches you!"



Okay, now I'm back to thinking that 'VMartin' is just G.O.Paley fucking with us. No way he's who he says he is, but this might be a little too elaborate to actually be Davison.
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 05 2006,12:35

PWE.


Problem is complex one. According Lysenko "Genetics is pseudoscience".

"Removing from biology mendelism-morganism-weismanism we made biology get rid of chance." (1951)

Yet his mixture of lamarckism + dialectic marxism + darwinism and vitalism seems to be the definition of the "lysenkism". Darwinism (they thought neodarwinism) was too plain, frigid. Inheritance should be explained via "creative darwinism".  Inheritance is due lamarckism that mendelists-morganists threw away.

You see that this have nothing to do with new synthesis or neodarwinism at all.
Posted by: ScaryFacts on Dec. 05 2006,13:29

Since everyone seemed to be avatar crazy, I decided to make one.  Enjoy.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 05 2006,14:08

Quote (ScaryFacts @ Dec. 05 2006,13:29)
Since everyone seemed to be avatar crazy, I decided to make one.  Enjoy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 05 2006,14:11

Arden Chatfield:


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

Okay, now I'm back to thinking that 'VMartin' is just G.O.Paley fucking with us.

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


Occam Aftershave:


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

Gee John, your accent keeps getting more and more weird.

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


Jeannot:


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

It can't be Paley.

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


Arden Chatfield:


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

Maybe VMartin is actually Lenny Flank!

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


Richardthughes:


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

...but you do smell of urine and old folks homes. IS THAT YOU, DAVIDSON, YOU ODIOUS BELLEND?

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



and last but not at least:


"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank


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

Don't flatter yourself.  No one here CARES who you are.  (shrug)

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




Oh boys, you should see Cage of fools movie. Its about you.
Or better you should play in your own stage play.
The name of stage play: "Darwinistic idiot with Pandas thumb in ass".

Success of such a play even in Brodway is unquestionable (supposing you will use your idiotic nicks there too).
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 05 2006,14:34



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
supposing you will use your idiotic nicks there too).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Go back to your dictionary, that sentence doesn't mean anything.

I love it so!

It's hard to believe, isn't it!

How do you like them apples?

Got that? Write it down!
Posted by: Alan Fox on Dec. 05 2006,16:06

Martin,

What about the connection between Lysenko and Berg. Does Leo Berg bear some responsibility for the deaths of approximately 30 million Ukrainians?
Posted by: deejay on Dec. 05 2006,17:02

Delurking to vote that VMartin = GOP.  I could easily be wrong on the specific accusation, but I'm quite confident that Mr. Martin is a sock puppet.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 05 2006,17:56

Quote (deejay @ Dec. 05 2006,17:02)
Delurking to vote that VMartin = GOP.  I could easily be wrong on the specific accusation, but I'm quite confident that Mr. Martin is a sock puppet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed, the main remaining question is whether Martin = one of Paley's two known personalities, or whether he reflects a third, hitherto-unknown Paley personality.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 05 2006,18:28

Has anyone tallied John A. Davison's score on the Crackpot Index for Biology yet?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The CRACKPOT Index

A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to biology.

1. A -5 point starting credit.

2. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

3. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

4. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

5. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.

6. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.

7. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).

8. 5 points for each mention of "Heackel", "Dawkin", "Steven Gould" or "Eldridge".

9. 10 points for each claim that genetics or evolution is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

10. 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity. An extra 5 points for citing your engineering, dentistry, medical or computing degree as authoritative in biology. An extra 5 points for a pseudomedical qualification (such as homeopathy or holistic massage).

11. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it.

12. 10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.

13. 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory, or to anyone who can prove evolution is true.

14. 10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at genetics, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".

15. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.

16. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".

17. 10 points for each claim that Punctuated Equilibrium Theory, or some similar recent view in biology, is evidence of creationism (or some similar view such as Intelligent Design), or claim that modern biology is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

18. 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift" and that we need to go beyond Darwinism.

19. 20 points for suggesting that you or your hero deserve a Nobel prize.

20. 20 points for every use of religious or science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.

21. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.

22. 20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary" or "Darwinist establishment" or cognates.

23. 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy" or cognates.

24. 30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported (e.g., that Darwin recanted on his deathbed).

25. 30 points for suggesting that some major scientist, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.

26. 30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by a pre-industrial culture (without good evidence).

27. 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, eugenicists, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.

28. 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

29. 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.

30. 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant, especially after their death, or for announcing the "death of Darwinism".)

31. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions, formal models, or exact hypotheses.

32. 10 points for every claim of lurker e-mail support.

33. 100 points for asserting that molecular evolution of complex proteins is impossible because of the large neutral gaps that selection would have to cross, or that there are boundaries between species or other groups of organisms that evolution cannot breach.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I get him at somewhere around 700 points.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Dec. 05 2006,20:18

You guys are all just bandwagon Martin=GOPs.

I was there when the idea wasn't popular.

Losers.

:D
Posted by: Kristine on Dec. 05 2006,21:06



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Lolita is one of the landmark novels of my youth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Mine too!

Got that? Love it down.

I write it so!

(Someone help me.)  :D
Posted by: pwe on Dec. 06 2006,07:14

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 05 2006,12:35)
Problem is complex one. According Lysenko "Genetics is pseudoscience".

"Removing from biology mendelism-morganism-weismanism we made biology get rid of chance." (1951)

Yet his mixture of lamarckism + dialectic marxism + darwinism and vitalism seems to be the definition of the "lysenkism". Darwinism (they thought neodarwinism) was too plain, frigid. Inheritance should be explained via "creative darwinism".  Inheritance is due lamarckism that mendelists-morganists threw away.

You see that this have nothing to do with new synthesis or neodarwinism at all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, Lysenko was primarily against Mendelian genetics - which was considered to be similar to believing in fairies, since genes could not be seen back then.

Interesting that Lysenko was against chance. That moves him into line with the IDists, doesn't it?


- pwe
Posted by: Ichthyic on Dec. 06 2006,14:18



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Because you are not familiar with topic you either evaluate wit of posts or you check english grammar.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



hey you slopeheaded slovak!

I AM more than familiar with the topic, and you not very judiciously avoided what should have been a simple question for someone claiming expertise in the evolution of mimicry.

why is that, I wonder?
Posted by: Alan Fox on Dec. 06 2006,15:03



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
why is that, I wonder?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Cognitive dissonance?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 06 2006,15:29



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

hey you slopeheaded slovak!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah, about that...

"VMartin" was not the first one to mention Slovakia. I was. I made a wisecrack about him "sounding like a 20-year-old from Bratislava who just had his first English lesson 2 months ago", and then VM kind of ran with it, never once saying he IS from Slovakia, but never quite denying it either. I had no evidence for him being from Slovakia, and suddenly, whaddaya know, my wildass guess is supposedly true. I have a hard time believing it's true, and he's never denied it or properly confirmed it. So I think that's another bit of proof that we have a troll here, probably someone we know under some other name.

I love it so!
Posted by: Faid on Dec. 06 2006,16:03

Um, as a person living in a non-english speaking country, I feel I should point out that the way this "VMartin" talks is NOT the way people uneducated in English do. You know, skipping articles while keeping his grammar perfect, etc.

It's the way Stupid english-speaking people think stupid non-english speaking people should talk.

Not that anyone had any doubts, but still.
Posted by: jeannot on Dec. 06 2006,16:52

Quote (Faid @ Dec. 06 2006,16:03)
Um, as a person living in a non-english speaking country, I feel I should point out that the way this "VMartin" talks is NOT the way people uneducated in English do. You know, skipping articles while keeping his grammar perfect, etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's exactly what I think.

It reminds me of that "phishyphred" who came trolling here once.

The question is : why would you act this way? What is VMartin hiding?
He could really be JAD after all. Can there be two supporters of the PEH that have some sort of mental problem? Coincidence or correlation?
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 06 2006,17:26

Kudos to you Alan for giving JAD a chance at your blog, but it looks like he's had another foot-stamping spittle-flying hissy fit meltdown.  That seems to happen to him everywhere he goes, normally triggered by someone asking him for the most basic clarification of his PEH.

You've gotta feel sorry for the guy - he's got some serious mental problems that he's not dealing with very well.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 06 2006,19:39

Indeed, let's try analyzing a randomly chosen chunk of 'VMartin's' English, shall we?

 

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

Are all the folks here so stupid and ignorrant like you?
During stalinism and later only accepted theory was lysenkism. Lysenko contradicted Darwin. Lysenko claimed that only environment forms living beings and he tried his theory with catastrofical outcome in prax. All the time they denigrated morganism.
If you at that time  had tried contradict Lysenko with darwinism you would ended in Gulag, you stupid american villager.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now, here's what I would consider to be an idiomatically correct version of the preceding:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are all the folks here as stupid and ignorant as you? During stalinism and later the only accepted theory was lysenkoism. Lysenko contradicted Darwin. Lysenko claimed that only the environment forms living beings and he tested his theory with catastrophic outcome in prax [? ?]. All the time they denigrated morganism.
If you at that time had tried to contradict Lysenko with darwinism you would have ended up in the in Gulag, you stupid american villager.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Okay, let's analyze this.

Note that the great majority of things that had to be corrected were little grammatical particles: missing definite articles (3 times), missing infinitive 'to' (once), missing 'have' (once), missing prepositions (two), a couple ostentatious misspellings ('catastrofical' ) and one or two screwy word choices ('tried' for 'tested'.) Mostly SUPER basic stuff.

(Then of course he throws in "you stupid american villager" for that snappy little Borat touch, like the cherry atop the sundae.)

However, note what he does NOT get wrong: basic word order, basic syntax, complex verb tenses, and complicated words like 'accepted', 'catastrofical', 'denigrated', 'outcome' and 'contradict'. All fluent.

So he's screwing up the really basic stuff, stuff an English speaker trying to sound 'funny foreign' would screw up, but the syntax and most of the sophisticated vocabulary is perfectly fine.

Doesn't add up. If you haven't mastered super basic shit like articles, you're not going to get complex syntax and verb tenses right.

So he's a faker, a troll. The only questions is who. Again, I'd bet a lot of money that it's someone who's already spent time here under a different name.
Posted by: Henry J on Dec. 06 2006,20:45

Kristine,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mine too!

Got that? Love it down.

I write it so!

(Someone help me.)  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Er, help you do what, exactly? :)

Henry
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Dec. 06 2006,20:47

Let's watch it with the cracks about "slopeheads," by the way...

???
Posted by: Ichthyic on Dec. 06 2006,22:18

...I blame your new avatar as having planted the idea in my head subliminaly.
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 06 2006,23:55

Ichthyic


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

hey you slopeheaded slovak!

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



Drž hubu pomajbo. Používaj spisovné výrazy, spisovnú angličtinu a k veci. Nie som tu aby si ma skúšal, na svoje priblblé otázky si nájdi odpoveď na wikipedii. Potom sa prípadne ozvi, alebo si prečítaj moje hodnotenia komplexného javu napodobovania v prírode (údajného) a ak máš niečo k tomu, čo som napísal, tak odpíš, ale spisovne prosím.
 

O.K.?
Posted by: Ichthyic on Dec. 07 2006,00:24

nope.  not OK.

get lost, faker.

as i suspected, you haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Dec. 07 2006,07:12

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 06 2006,23:55)
Drž hubu pomajbo. Používaj spisovné výrazy, spisovnú angličtinu a k veci. Nie som tu aby si ma skúšal, na svoje priblblé otázky si nájdi odpoveď na wikipedii. Potom sa prípadne ozvi, alebo si prečítaj moje hodnotenia komplexného javu napodobovania v prírode (údajného) a ak máš niečo k tomu, čo som napísal, tak odpíš, ale spisovne prosím.
 

O.K.?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Pi&#269;ovina.

Cho&#271; do pi&#269;e, sra'c.
Posted by: jeannot on Dec. 07 2006,09:12

I think it's time to close this thread.

???
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 07 2006,11:30

Jeannot,

why do you want close the bar that have already been closed? Anyway, you cannot supress Davisons work to influence more and more people. His Manifesto summarized best antidarwinian thoughts from prominent scientists and his theory of derepression of pre-loaded potencialities via chromosome inversion during meiosis is his addition to their work.

He and his Manifesto become more and more known and neodarwinists seem to loosing nerves - let me cite from article from American Chronicle (March 2006):

 

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

Needless to say, Davison had to pay a price for his dissent from the Darwinian doctrine. He was subjected to harassments by various members of the faculty, and his salary remained frozen at the 1995 level. Eventually he retaliated by publishing ?What It Means to Be an AntiDarwinian at the University of Vermont.?

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



And not only that, he is denigrated on forums he has no access to.

Interesting article on darwinism mentioning Davison
"The Evolutionist Campaign to Suppress the Truth"
from Kazmer Ujvarosy is on:


< http://www.americanchronicle.com/article....ID=6623 >
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 07 2006,11:56

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 07 2006,11:30)
Jeannot,

why do you want close the bar that have already been closed? Anyway, you cannot supress Davisons work to influence more and more people. His Manifesto summarized best antidarwinian thoughts from prominent scientists and his theory of derepression of pre-loaded potencialities via chromosome inversion during meiosis is his addition to their work.

He and his Manifesto become more and more known and neodarwinists seem to loosing nerves - let me cite from article from American Chronicle (March 2006):

   

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

Needless to say, Davison had to pay a price for his dissent from the Darwinian doctrine. He was subjected to harassments by various members of the faculty, and his salary remained frozen at the 1995 level. Eventually he retaliated by publishing ?What It Means to Be an AntiDarwinian at the University of Vermont.?

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



And not only that, he is denigrated on forums he has no access to.

Interesting article on darwinism mentioning Davison
"The Evolutionist Campaign to Suppress the Truth"
from Kazmer Ujvarosy is on:


< http://www.americanchronicle.com/article....ID=6623 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The accent is a LITTLE better, John, but keep working on it. Mostly I'd say you need more consistency.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 07 2006,12:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Interesting article on darwinism mentioning Davison
"The Evolutionist Campaign to Suppress the Truth"
from Kazmer Ujvarosy is on:


< http://www.americanchronicle.com/article....ID=6623 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A few tidbits from that article you cite:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To come to the point, whereas the evolutionist speculation fails to meet the basic demand of science that an explanation must be based on observable evidence capable of being touched or tested, the theory of creation from Christ's body satisfies that rational requirement. After all neither Darwin's natural selection nor his imaginary simple beginning or common ancestor is observable and capable of being touched or tested. In contrast Christ, the actual Creator of the universe, made himself available for observation, and was being touched and tested. What is more, he made the prediction that in due time he's going to live with us again.

Now, if evolutionists keep insisting that Christ is not the Creator or universal common ancestor of the cosmic system, we should demand from them to make available their natural selection and common ancestor for observation, touching, and experiments.

To conclude, when next time Eugenie Scott and similarly deluded evolutionists parrot the bold-faced lie that we have no scientific theory of creation, remember to remind them that it is in the Bible. In reality the theory that Christ constitutes the seed of the universe, or the genotype of the phenotype universe, is incomparably more scientific and fact-based then the alternative explanations invented by evolutionist biologists and cosmologists. It identifies Christ as the seed of the universe, and human beings as Christ's reproductions. Because Christ is our universal common ancestor, and because he got in touch with us, and promised to live with us in the future, Darwin's imaginary common ancestor is a parody of Christ.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Last I heard, Javison didn't have much use for fundies like this, either.

So are you actually Kazmer Ujvarosy, Martin?
Posted by: bwee on Dec. 07 2006,12:11


Frontloader
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 07 2006,12:49

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 07 2006,11:30)
why do you want close the bar that have already been closed? Anyway, you cannot supress Davisons work to influence more and more people. His Manifesto summarized best antidarwinian thoughts from prominent scientists and his theory of derepression of pre-loaded potencialities via chromosome inversion during meiosis is his addition to their work.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Since you seem to be so up on JAD's work, maybe you can answer a few questions.  These were asked directly to JAD on another forum, but he was too much of a sniveling coward to deal with them himself.  

From JAD's 'manifesto'
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thus, this model provides a rational explanation for the absence of intermediates both in contemporary and in fossil species.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What is your definition of an intermediate, and how would you recognize one if you saw it? There are literally hundreds of well defined ‘transitional’ series in the fossil record, with plenty of scientifically recognized intermediates in each lineage. Why do you agree there are no intermediates?

From JAD's 'manifesto'
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Such a mechanism does not depend on the production of new information but rather on information already present in the genome i.e. preformed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How do you define ‘information’ in a genome? How would you know ‘new information’ if you saw it? When a genetic copying error is introduced into a genome, and the new genome produces a novel change in a phenotype, why is that not new information?

I'll be awaiting your answers.
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 07 2006,13:57



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

What is your definition of an intermediate, and how would you recognize one if you saw it?

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



First of all we should define what intermediate is and if we know at least one. I have a long discussion on slovak-forum one year ago. I disputed with one darwinist about Ambulocetus that darwinists consider as "proved" intermediate between halfbear-halfwolf-halfcow creature Pakicetus and a modern whale. As you know Pakicetus means  "Pakistan cetacea" or pakistan whale - even though  Pakicetus lived on ground and do not swim at all - it has hoofs like Ambulocetus. Ambulocetus is then in translation "walking whale". Funny no?
The skeleton of Ambulocetus is so incomplete that Gingerich dismissed it from his research on supposed transition row from ground mammals to whale.
Yet the nomenclatura of "walking whale" is not the only fraud. They present us in museums this skeleton of Ambulocetus, walking whale with hoofs:

< http://www.researchcasting.ca/ambulocetus.htm >

and whad Thewissen really found:

< http://www.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Hans/AmbulocetusPhoto.jpg >
   

------

Same is applicable on mimicry. We know some insects that mimic ants in movement but they do not see like ants at all so no creatute can be mislead by such a mimic. Anyway darwinists claim that we are witnissing ongoing transition insect form to ant mimic!
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 07 2006,14:15

Funny, VM's accent seems to go up and down every day. I wonder if it's connected with the tides wherever he lives?
Posted by: Shirley Knott on Dec. 07 2006,14:17

To assert that no creature is fooled by mimicry, especially on the tawdry grounds you advance, is absurd.
Not least, it betrays a total ignorance of inter-genera mimicry in service of reproduction, as is well-known and well-documented in the world of orchidaceae.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 07 2006,14:21

VMartin, the questions were

What is your definition of an intermediate, and how would you recognize one if you saw it?

also

How do you define ‘information’ in a genome? How would you know ‘new information’ if you saw it?

JAD was too much of a coward to try an answer, now your attempt at evasion is noted.  Care to answer the questions?
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 07 2006,14:38

Do you think we are at school and you are some kind of teacher giving questions hehe? Now you are teaching informatics instead english?

Define what "information" is and we can continue.

Be aware that in the text there should be information that we are not aware of - like in hebrew Bible where reading text backwards you obtain answer to question you are actually reading (see Umberto Eco: Quest for a lost languages). So information in genetic code may be same - combinations of exons in same gene give us different outcome. In that sense I do not see obstacles to Davison conception of pre-loaded information. Just rearrangemets of existing code can lead to new species. Its like text which give no sense - junk DNA - (or only few pages are readable). Then reshuffling words (no by chance, but using some key) hidden text reappear as was written originally (and other hitherto readable text may become unreadable at the same instance or change meaning).
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Dec. 07 2006,15:56

VMartin, you are nothing but a monkey man with potty mouth!
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Dec. 07 2006,18:05

I still think Martin is JAD.  No two people in the world could both be this nutty.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Dec. 07 2006,18:11

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 07 2006,13:57)


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

What is your definition of an intermediate

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



First of all we should define what intermediate is
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep, that's about the level of conversation I've come to expect from creationists . . . .  (shrug)
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Dec. 07 2006,18:46

Using Vmartin's "clue" that the information contains its own front-loaded key to decoding the true message, we take "Vmartin" as our initial text.

The "V" is in the "exposed" initial position and is further marked out by its uppercase nature.  The "t" also sticks up out of the crowd of more compact letters.  These clues seem to be telling us that overly-tall elements are exposed to danger and damage, like weeds sprouting above the grass-tips in a lawn about to be mowed.

Deleting these vertically-"exposed" letters yields "_mar_in."

Since we started with the consonants, let us inspect the remaining "m," "r," and "n," applying our hypothesized vertical-shearing force as a "selective pressure."  Note that each of the surviving consonants has a smoothly-arching horizontal feature, which we may analogize to a protective "roof."  In the case of the "m" and "n," this barrel-vault is carried all the way down to the "ground," providing the "roof" with maximum support and the internal space or "territory" occupied or bounded by the letter's margin with a maximum of protection from the harsh vertical forces of the environment.

The roof of the "r" furnishes less than ideal support and protection, but is not overly-cantilevered.  In short, while less than ideal, this appears to be a survivable variant of the "roof" design.

Let's now turn our attention to the vowels.  Clearly, vowels are needed to form a viable word; we cannot simply eliminate them all, however undesirable.  Likewise, while we have dispensed with certain undesirable consonants, doing so has not altered the essential structure ('kind") of the word, which still possesses two syllables, and still begins and ends in consonants.  To eliminate the remaining vowels entirely, however, would threaten this core structure or "bau-plan," generating an entirely non-viable "sport" or monster.

Yet the remaining vowels are far from ideal in a vertically-challenging environment.  While not projecting as boldly above the protection of its fellows as the "V" or "t," the "i" does still project into the slipstream.  

And the "a," while superficially appearing to, er, mimic the arching roof of the surviving consonants, carries this roof over and down, not to the ground, but to a weirdly-truncated--heck, let's just come right out and call it deformed--stub.  This stub, like a floating rib in a boxing match, is clearly vulnerable to being "plucked up" by wayward vertical forces.  Once sprung open, this deformed roof would stand revealed as yet another flagpole-like vertical projection.  While not immediately lethal, we are certainly warranted in viewing the "a" as a latent or sub-lethal variant of the fatal vertical mutation.

Since we do not have the luxury of entirely dispensing with the vowel forms, we are forced to substitute from the remaining vowels of "e," "o," and "u."  Of these three, "o" obviously exhibits the ideal compact and protective form--it is "all-roof"!

"U," on the other hand, affords no vertical protection whatsoever--its internal territory is entirely open to the ravages of the vertical forces.

The "e," like the previously-examined and rejected "a," superficially seems to exhibit the smoothly-arching "roof" feature.  However, rather than terminating smoothly after achieving horizontal "coverage," or continuing on down to the safety and support of the ground, the roof of the "e" tucks back under in an awkward and ungainly fashion, leaving "exposed" territory below the roof projection.  Unlike the "a," even, this territory is not enclosed.  And, unlike the "r," the exposed structure of the "e" is not firmly rooted, but exhibits an unstable "rocking" base formation.  While the "e" might arguably be a survivable variant, clearly it cannot compete alongside the "o."

Whether we imagine our procedure proceeding directly from the current noncompetitive vowel forms to the "o" in one step, or proceeding instead via the temporary "way-station" of the "e," obviously the "o" will be the ultimate destination in our transformational series.

Thus, employing an entirely consistent procedure, all aspects of which, upon careful inspection and consideration, arose naturally out of the initial state of the information "specified" and "front-loaded" in the message transmitted by the code's designer, we have gone in an entirely-legitimate--indeed, compelling and inevitable!--step-by-step manner from "Vmartin" to "_mor_on."  Eliminating the spacer or placeholder symbols ("_"), which temporarily represented the most-vulnerable and inessential "projecting" letters in the original message, which have since been deleted by the harsh forces of our microcosmos, our decoding yields as its eminently-satisfying and inexorably-logical final product "Vmartin ==> moron."

Indeed, we love it so!
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 07 2006,20:31

VMartin dodges again with
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Define what "information" is and we can continue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You're the one supporting JAD's idiotic claims that "there are no transitional fossils" and "new information can't be produced".  You're the one who needs to supply your definitions.

If you're so ignorant that you can't even define 'transitional fossil' or 'new information' for us, how can you expect anyone else to believe the claims that such things don't exist?  You're so ignorant that you wouldn't know them if you saw them, right?

Tell me VMartin:

How would you recognize a 'transitional fossil' if you saw one?

How would you recognize 'new information' in a genome if you saw it?


They're simple questions, why are they giving you such problems?

Funny, you sound just like JAD, with your constant evasions and cowardly refusal to back up your claims.  Is that just coincidence?

How do you like them road apples?  :p
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 08 2006,11:03



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

Tell me VMartin:
How would you recognize a 'transitional fossil' if you saw one?
How would you recognize 'new information' in a genome if you saw it?
They're simple questions, why are they giving you such problems?

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


Questions are not simple - they are stupid.
Let me change them a little bit in order to make them what they really are.

How would you recognize a 'dog fart' if you heard one?
How would you recognize 'neutron' in a nucleus if you saw it?
How would you recognize  'acrid odour' if you saw one?

****************
And now more seriously:
   

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

If you're so ignorant that you can't even define 'transitional fossil' or 'new information' for us, how can you expect anyone else to believe the claims that such things don't exist? You're so ignorant that you wouldn't know them if you saw them, right?

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



I am not the one who claimed that transitional fossil exist. I am also not the one who claimed that there exist a trasitional particle between electrone and positrone. So why should I even try to define such a transitional particle (transitional fossil)?

As to the "new information" - I gave you example that information can be in a text if you read the text backwards. The question  How would you recognize 'new information' in a text if you saw it? has no sense. You and I see the TEXT - not information.  The text I  may underestand but you may not (or vice versa). I would say  the same process we may find in genome. Information written in DNA is the function of "reading frame" - each different reading frame read different information. I have read that in some cases information in a gene is overlappinig. Reading and underestanding of what has beed coded is what matters. For instance you do not underestand Magyar and let say you have a magyar book. Do you think that information is there or not? I suppose that to decide such a question would require to learn Magyar first. Observer (reading frame) is for recognising of information crucial.

---
Summary - I dont know what does it mean to "see information" in genome as much as I do not know what does it mean to "smell information" in genome. You might be probably aware that DNA is not information - DNA is only bearer, carrier of information and not the information itself.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 08 2006,11:58

Hey, 'VMartin', you never said whether you agree with Kazmer Ujvarosy's following statements:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To come to the point, whereas the evolutionist speculation fails to meet the basic demand of science that an explanation must be based on observable evidence capable of being touched or tested, the theory of creation from Christ's body satisfies that rational requirement. After all neither Darwin's natural selection nor his imaginary simple beginning or common ancestor is observable and capable of being touched or tested. In contrast Christ, the actual Creator of the universe, made himself available for observation, and was being touched and tested. What is more, he made the prediction that in due time he's going to live with us again.

Now, if evolutionists keep insisting that Christ is not the Creator or universal common ancestor of the cosmic system, we should demand from them to make available their natural selection and common ancestor for observation, touching, and experiments.

To conclude, when next time Eugenie Scott and similarly deluded evolutionists parrot the bold-faced lie that we have no scientific theory of creation, remember to remind them that it is in the Bible. In reality the theory that Christ constitutes the seed of the universe, or the genotype of the phenotype universe, is incomparably more scientific and fact-based then the alternative explanations invented by evolutionist biologists and cosmologists. It identifies Christ as the seed of the universe, and human beings as Christ's reproductions. Because Christ is our universal common ancestor, and because he got in touch with us, and promised to live with us in the future, Darwin's imaginary common ancestor is a parody of Christ.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Except for all the Jesus bothering, he sounds just like you. Are you sure you're not him?
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 08 2006,12:05

VMartin continues his cowardly evasions
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am not the one who claimed that transitional fossil exist. I am also not the one who claimed that there exist a trasitional particle between electrone and positrone. So why should I even try to define such a transitional particle (transitional fossil)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because you (and JAD) are the ones trying to support his goofy 'manifesto' claims.  The burden of proof is on you to define your terms and provide your positive evidence, not me.

It's obvious you can't provide any support at all for his brain damaged ideas about 'no transitionals' and 'no new information', and are just doing the standard semantic soft-shoe and evading the questions.  In fact, the 'manifesto' claims are so vacuous that he/you can't even define the terms you are using. :D

JAD's just another harmless crackpot stringing together sciency-sounding buzzwords that mean absolutely nothing unless they are defined.  Only an idiot would latch on to such unsupported garbage.  Just like you have done.
Posted by: BWE on Dec. 08 2006,13:42

Does that ringing in my ears bother you?
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Dec. 08 2006,15:32

Uh, Vmartin, I applied your "key is in the text" malarkey using your screen-name as the text, remember.

Like, yesterday.

Remember what we came up with, way back on yesterday?

Vmartin ==> moron.

Dude, you're a sockpuppet.  Nobody who was for "real" would call themselves a moron!!

That's be like somebody coming right out and calling themselves a pinhead!!

How stupid do you think we are, huh?
Posted by: Kristine on Dec. 08 2006,21:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Kristine,

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 
Mine too!

Got that? Love it down.

I write it so!

(Someone help me.)    
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 

Er, help you do what, exactly?  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 

Surprise me!  :D

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I still think Martin is JAD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



He isn't enough of a skirt-chaser to be JAD. (Or else he's been burned where it don't show.)
Posted by: pwe on Dec. 09 2006,05:58

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 08 2006,11:03)
As to the "new information" - I gave you example that information can be in a text if you read the text backwards. The question  How would you recognize 'new information' in a text if you saw it? has no sense. You and I see the TEXT - not information.  The text I  may underestand but you may not (or vice versa). I would say  the same process we may find in genome. Information written in DNA is the function of "reading frame" - each different reading frame read different information. I have read that in some cases information in a gene is overlappinig. Reading and underestanding of what has beed coded is what matters. For instance you do not underestand Magyar and let say you have a magyar book. Do you think that information is there or not? I suppose that to decide such a question would require to learn Magyar first. Observer (reading frame) is for recognising of information crucial.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


VMartin,

do you know that only prokaryotes use frame shifts? Eukaryotes do not.

Is this behavioral difference encoded in DNA or is it not?

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 08 2006,11:03)
Summary - I dont know what does it mean to "see information" in genome as much as I do not know what does it mean to "smell information" in genome. You might be probably aware that DNA is not information - DNA is only bearer, carrier of information and not the information itself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Could you be more specific here? Is it like Richard Dawkins making a distinction between DNA molecules and DNA patterms?


- pwe
Posted by: Henry J on Dec. 09 2006,15:42

Re "do you know that only prokaryotes use frame shifts?"

Really? If that means what I think it means, that's just... weird. Does that really mean that in bacteria the reading of the gene might start at any base pair, even if two genes start at positions that aren't separated by a multiple of three?

Henry
Posted by: Ichthyic on Dec. 09 2006,20:19

Is this guy the eastern european version of AFDave?

He keeps touting Davison's "manifesto", but hints suggest he thinks in terms of "frontloading", which really isn't the point of Davison's idiotic PEH, strictly.

so what of it, Slopey?  Do you really understand what JAD is blathering about?  do you think it really is all about frontloading (make that pantloading)?

why do you think Davison himself has NEVER been able to make one, single, testable prediction based on his "manifesto", eh?

the reason he gets repeatedly banned from sites, is because after the first few posts he makes, he just endlessly repeats himself, getting ever more obtuse and rude in the process, as he fails to realize he is repeating himself and saying nothing of substance in the process.

are you really as clinically insane as Davison, Slopey?
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 10 2006,13:20



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

Does that really mean that in bacteria the reading of the gene might start at any base pair, even if two genes start at positions that aren't separated by a multiple of three?

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



Thats right. There is documented case where reading frame is shifted only by 1 nucleotide to obtain different outcome and then again by 1 nucleotide to obtain another different outcome! It was observed in bacterial virus sigmaX184.
All three results of the reading are fully functional!

1. ABC ABC ABC ABC ABC ABC
2. (A) BCA BCA BCA BCA BCA BCA
3.  (AB)C CAB CAB CAB CAB CAB...

So you see that exegese or interpreation or hetmeneutic
is what is important. Even if someignorants here insist
that I am evading the "simple" question how would I "see" new infrormation in genome (???).
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 10 2006,14:38

VMartin continues to fart and bluster:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Even if someignorants here insist
that I am evading the "simple" question how would I "see" new infrormation in genome (???).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's right -  you're still cowardly evading the simple questions about JAD's manifesto.  Since you are now using semantics an an excuse, I'll reword them and add clarification:

What is your definition of a transitional fossil?   Is it different from the one accepted by the scientific community? If so, how?

How would you decide or not if a fossil belonged to a transitional series?

What is your definition of information as it applies to biological structures such as a genome?  Is it merely the determination of the genetic sequence as proposed by Crick?  If not, how is it different?

What is your definition of 'new information', and how do you determine if the 'information' in a genome is 'new' or not?  

They're still simple questions, and you're still cowardly avoiding them.

Should we assume that you think JAD's nonsense is indefensible, but your ego is too big to admit you backed a fool?
Posted by: pwe on Dec. 11 2006,11:14

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 10 2006,13:20)
So you see that exegese or interpreation or hetmeneutic
is what is important. Even if someignorants here insist
that I am evading the "simple" question how would I "see" new infrormation in genome (???).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, but bacteria do not interpret their genome at will, so what's your point?

Of course, on its own, a genome means nothing, it carries no information (except the information about its particular sequence of base pairs), so where do the interpretative rules reside?


- pwe
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 11 2006,14:45



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

Of course, on its own, a genome means nothing, it carries no information (except the information about its particular sequence of base pairs), so where do the interpretative rules reside?

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



So your opinion seems to be correct - information is non-material and as a such we cannot see it (Shaved Occam is incapable to underestand this and he hunts me with his stupid question how would I "see" new information).

I would say that interpretative rules reside in the organism as a whole or more specifically at the beginning in zygote. Without zygote is interpetation impossible. My opinion is that DNA is not enough to create life - even if we would have complete DNA from marsupial wolf we would never recreate one without its zygote - which we do not have.

Anyway Davison observation that development of gonads in different species seems to be unexplainable from common ancestor is interesting.
It would mean that zygotes between species differ more
than darwinists believe.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 11 2006,15:00



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So your opinion seems to be correct - information is non-material and as a such we cannot see it (Shaved Occam is incapable to underestand this and he hunts me with his stupid question how would I "see" new information).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now we see VMartin is both a coward and a liar.  I clarified and asked you for your definition of biological information, and how you would determine (not "see") if new information was present.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is your definition of information as it applies to biological structures such as a genome?  Is it merely the determination of the genetic sequence as proposed by Crick?  If not, how is it different?

What is your definition of 'new information', and how do you determine if the 'information' in a genome is 'new' or not?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You have no answers to this or the asinine "no transitional fossils" claim.  You're a liar, and an idiot, and a troll.  Have fun under the bridge.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 11 2006,15:00

another duplicate post -???
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Dec. 11 2006,18:50

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 11 2006,14:45)
Anyway Davison observation that development of gonads
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nahhhhhhh . . . . .  too easy . . . . . .
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 12 2006,00:02

Shaved Occam ravage:


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

Now we see VMartin is both a coward and a liar.  I clarified and asked you for your definition of biological information, and how you would determine (not "see") if new information was present.

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



Everybody on this thread can check your stupid questions:



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

How would you know ‘new information’ if you saw it?

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




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

How would you recognize 'new information' in a genome if you saw it?

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



So who is a liar? Or are you as bipolar as Rev Dr Frank?
Posted by: Ichthyic on Dec. 12 2006,00:16

wow, he's still around?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Shaved Occam ravage:

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



there's some evidence in support of him being a sock puppet of JAD, who also seemingly enjoys lackwit attempts at name re-arrangement.

the fact he won't actually answer legitimate questions is another.

OTOH, come to think of it, so does Robert Obrien, so it could be him.

ready to discuss the evolution of mimicry yet?

or are you still trying to figure out the difference between Mullerian and Batesian?

bwahahaha!

by this time, i would have at least expected you to do a google on it and spew out something that sounded at least plausible.

here's a hint for you:

mimicry is the same problem for evolutionary theory that aposematic coloration is.

c'mon slopey!  that's what you came here for wasn't it?  to argue that mimicry disproves the ToE?

get to it, faker!
Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 12 2006,00:19

VMartin,

I haven't been following this thread, but what are you going on about in that last post?  Honestly, I don't understand what you're trying to say.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 12 2006,00:31

JAD's alter-ego VMartin vomits up
       

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

So who is a liar? Or are you as bipolar as Rev Dr Frank?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are VMartin, and a chickensh*t coward to boot.

Why are you so obsessed with John Davison's gonads?  :p

Here's a picture of you, JAD, and his supporters. You must be the big one, right?  Pick me a winner!



Oh, I forgot.  You're still too much of a cowardly ass to answer these simple questions
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is your definition of information as it applies to biological structures such as a genome?  Is it merely the determination of the genetic sequence as proposed by Crick?  If not, how is it different?

What is your definition of 'new information', and how do you determine if the 'information' in a genome is 'new' or not?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


:D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D
Posted by: pwe on Dec. 12 2006,06:49

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 11 2006,14:45)
I would say that interpretative rules reside in the organism as a whole or more specifically at the beginning in zygote. Without zygote is interpetation impossible. My opinion is that DNA is not enough to create life - even if we would have complete DNA from marsupial wolf we would never recreate one without its zygote - which we do not have.

Anyway Davison observation that development of gonads in different species seems to be unexplainable from common ancestor is interesting.
It would mean that zygotes between species differ more
than darwinists believe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ok, but from whence then the first zygotes?

Do you suggest that all species have a different origin?


- pwe
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 12 2006,09:04



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
OTOH, come to think of it, so does Robert Obrien, so it could be him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I thought of that too -- especially since ROB takes a great deal of adolescent pride in being able to post in places where he's unwanted or outright banned. But the language doesn't really indicate it's him, and the emphasis on discussion of science (barmy as it is), is also out of character for him. ROB's specialty is more pretentious insulting of people who aren't as religious or rightwing as him. Still, it's not impossible.
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 12 2006,12:23

Shaved Occam

I am much impressed by your exceptional ability to "see" information in a genome. Its a big gift, do not waste it.

Anyway John has something to tell you:



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

Since I cannot post at After The Bar Closes, please post this for Occam's Aftershave (whoever that is) as a response to what Francis Crick believed.

"But according to Darwinian doctrine and Crick's central dogma, DNA is not only the depository and distributor of the information but its SOLE CREATOR. I do not believe this to be true."
Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, page 224, his emphasis.

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


Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 12 2006,12:38

Cowardly liar VMartin sings "troll, troll, troll yer boat...."
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am much impressed by your exceptional ability to "see" information in a genome. Its a big gift, do not waste it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not nearly as impressive your ability to see the inside of your rectum from where you have your head lodged  :D

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Anyway John has something to tell you:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



JAD is a doddering old codger with serious mental health issues.  I feel sorry for him, making such a fool out of himself in so many public forums.  You, however, are just a flaming assho1e troll.  It's fun seeing how much I can get you to do your troll-y dance. :p

Got that?  write it down!
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 12 2006,12:46

You want to hear something about Batesian mimicry boys? So Nabokov ridicules darwinistic logic behind the phenomenon by these words - enjoy:    

 

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

...pursuing this goal consciously, having conferred beforehand with the model and determined that the latter, during the full number of centuries required by the toiler at evolution toward a gradual attainment of resemblance, would remain unchanged (in the kind immobility that a painter demands of his model).

The process would accelerate further if the model just as consciously indulged the imitator by mutating part way in proportion to the mime's mutations, or if the very goal of the imitator were to change concomitantly with the evolutionary metamorphoses of the model, in the same way a painter, having begun a nude of a young female model, might strive for a likeness with such ardor that, as he tirelessly recorded every trait, he would, in the end, find that he was depicting the old woman into which the model had evolved during her plurennial pose.

Yet the concept of evolution in no way presupposes either the existence of a conscious and focused will within a developing creature, or a coordination of actions between two creatures or between a creature and its environment.

As for the presumption that nature mesmerizes subjects selected for mimetic study, influencing them to perform specific roles, that notion must be relegated to fantasy, for where are the anchor points for the cobweb of hypnosis?

The same variations that might result from a blind struggle for survival, no matter how credible their results may appear … endlessly retard the putative course of a given evolutionary process, for it is here that the element of happenstance reappears. (Nabokov's Butterflies 225)

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



Be sure Nabokov was an expert - he also supposed that patterns on wing cells are independent of each other what was ridiculed at his time. Yet new research approved his concept (see Nijhout).
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 12 2006,13:09

AfterShaved Occam

O.K. Ill try to respond to your intelligent question:



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

How would you know ‘new information’ if you saw it?

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



Answer:
New information has red color and looks like a cube.
Are you satisfied?
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Dec. 12 2006,14:36

Yo, you complete self-annointed moron (since, leave us not forget, that's what rigorous application of Vmartin's "key-within-the-text" as applied to the text of Vmartin's self-selected screen-name led us to), Nabakov qualifies at most as a distinquished lay "expert" in butterfly--a high-level hobbyist.

His true expertise was literature.  As a butterfly hobbyist, he may have been superb at identification and collection.  As an evolutionary biologist, he has no credentials whatsoever.

Natural selection coordinates the environment with the creature and natural selection coordinates one creature with another.  End of that story.

There is nothing "happenstance" about natural selection.  Go step off a precipice and then come back to report whether there was anything "happenstance" about your demise and your failure to contribute further to the gene pool.  

The remarkably productive field of evo-devo spells doom for arguments as repetitively moronic as your own.  Further "contributions" from you, or from your proxies, Nabokov and Davison, should simply be ignored.  They afford no learning opportunities, even for fence-sitting lurkers, because they lack any utile coherence whatsoever.
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 12 2006,14:41

PWE

 

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

Do you suggest that all species have a different origin?

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



I suppose that fact of missing links is accepted - it were Eldredge and Jay Gould who wanted to solve the problem by "punctuated equilibrium".

So either are correct Creationists or Davison who represent tradition of Nomogenesis and macroevolutionary saltationism.

My opinion is - and its thanks Davisons Manifesto -
that evolution is a fact. But it WAS driven by forces we are not aware of. Forces that probably are not in effect nowadays. I do not believe with Davison in random mutation and natural selection as forces behind evolution of mankind.

I agree with great Russian philosopher S.Bulgakov that evolution is driven by inteligentsia and in some point of development man obtained spirit. Spirit present itself in language.

Language and speech of mankind cannot evolve by random mutation and natural selection too. It is also  Noam Chomsky opinion.
(some folks here like linguists very).
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 12 2006,14:41

Hey, 'VMartin', you STILL haven't said whether you agree with Kazmer Ujvarosy's following statements:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To come to the point, whereas the evolutionist speculation fails to meet the basic demand of science that an explanation must be based on observable evidence capable of being touched or tested, the theory of creation from Christ's body satisfies that rational requirement. After all neither Darwin's natural selection nor his imaginary simple beginning or common ancestor is observable and capable of being touched or tested. In contrast Christ, the actual Creator of the universe, made himself available for observation, and was being touched and tested. What is more, he made the prediction that in due time he's going to live with us again.

Now, if evolutionists keep insisting that Christ is not the Creator or universal common ancestor of the cosmic system, we should demand from them to make available their natural selection and common ancestor for observation, touching, and experiments.

To conclude, when next time Eugenie Scott and similarly deluded evolutionists parrot the bold-faced lie that we have no scientific theory of creation, remember to remind them that it is in the Bible. In reality the theory that Christ constitutes the seed of the universe, or the genotype of the phenotype universe, is incomparably more scientific and fact-based then the alternative explanations invented by evolutionist biologists and cosmologists. It identifies Christ as the seed of the universe, and human beings as Christ's reproductions. Because Christ is our universal common ancestor, and because he got in touch with us, and promised to live with us in the future, Darwin's imaginary common ancestor is a parody of Christ.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Except for all the Jesus bothering, he sounds just like you. Are you sure you're not him?

How about an answer, 'VMartin'? Is 'Darwin's imaginary common ancestor is a parody of Christ'? Is it a bad thing 'if evolutionists keep insisting that Christ is not the Creator or universal common ancestor of the cosmic system'? Does 'the theory of creation from Christ's body' satisfy 'rational requirements'?

Do tell.
Posted by: Ichthyic on Dec. 12 2006,15:00

it is JAD.  I'm convinced now.

BTW, John, this:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The process would accelerate further if the model just as consciously indulged the imitator by mutating part way in proportion to the mime's mutations, or if the very goal of the imitator were to change concomitantly with the evolutionary metamorphoses of the model, in the same way a painter, having begun a nude of a young female model, might strive for a likeness with such ardor that, as he tirelessly recorded every trait, he would, in the end, find that he was depicting the old woman into which the model had evolved during her plurennial pose.

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



does not distinguish between batesian and mullerian mimicry, nor does it actually go into anything actually resembling science.

I gave you all the hints necessary to track the issue back to after Fisher introduced his model, so you could see what came after that fully explained the evolution of mimicry, but no, you are too addled to even recall your basic training on the theories any more.

the mere fact that you think the quote above deals conceptually or scientifically with the issue of mimicry simply further indicates your degrading mental status.

get help.

really.

btw, Nabakov's dithering on this subject is no more informed than Nietsche's ditherings on malthus and evolution.

aren't you proud to be promulgating such drivel?

as to this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My opinion is - and its thanks Davisons Manifesto -
that evolution is a fact. But it WAS driven by forces we are not aware of. Forces that probably are not in effect nowadays. I do not believe with Davison in random mutation and natural selection as forces behind evolution of mankind.

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



*ahem*:

< http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=124611 >

you have a lot of work to do to show how ALL of these peer reviewed articles (the ones not dealing with fossils, anyway) are NOT evidence of current evolution (and those are but a very small subset of all the recent articles out there on the subject).

you're brain dead.  hasn't anybody told you that zombies belong in "b" movies, at best?
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Dec. 12 2006,16:14

If Vmartin's moronicity is any example of the level of "discussion" we would be inviting via JAD's return, then on the underlying question, my vote is NAY.

How do you like chomping on THOSE horseapples?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 12 2006,16:26



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Language and speech of mankind cannot evolve by random mutation and natural selection too. It is also  Noam Chomsky opinion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Good lord, I really hope you don't think this is some kind of profound statement (or that it actually means something)...
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Dec. 12 2006,17:34

(yawn)

If VMartin and his recycled thirty-year-old "anti-evolution arguments" are the best that ID/creationism has to offer, then it's no *wonder* that no one pays any attention to them (or to JAD) any more.  (shrug)
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 13 2006,00:20



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

< http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=124611 >

you have a lot of work to do to show how ALL of these peer reviewed articles (the ones not dealing with fossils, anyway) are NOT evidence of current evolution (and those are but a very small subset of all the recent articles out there on the subject).

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



I looked in the link and I found there this:



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

Nature 434, 973 (21 April 2005)

Insect behaviour: Arboreal ants build traps to capture prey

Dejean et al

To meet their need for nitrogen in the restricted foraging environment provided by their host plants, some arboreal ants deploy group ambush tactics in order to capture flying and jumping prey that might otherwise escape. Here we show that the ant Allomerus decemarticulatus uses hair from the host plant's stem, which it cuts and binds together with a purpose-grown fungal mycelium, to build a spongy 'galleried' platform for trapping much larger insects. Ants beneath the platform reach through the holes and immobilize the prey, which is then stretched, transported and carved up by a swarm of nestmates. To our knowledge, the collective creation of a trap as a predatory strategy has not been described before in ants.

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



Really - it seems to me that random mutation is better explanation like intelligence behind such phenomen, hehe. It really support darwinism excellently hehe.
Posted by: Ichthyic on Dec. 13 2006,00:25



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Really - it seems to me that random mutation is better explanation like intelligence behind such phenomen, hehe. It really support darwinism excellently hehe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



...and you're completely insane, aren't you.

hehe
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 13 2006,08:52

I can't help but notice that every day the number of questions 'VMartin' ignores goes up. It seems to be running about 95% now.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Dec. 13 2006,12:38

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 13 2006,08:52)
I can't help but notice that every day the number of questions 'VMartin' ignores goes up. It seems to be running about 95% now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think VMartin is JAD. Either that or somebody doing a parody of JAD. I think the 1st is most likely.

Mr. Davison. Why do you never answer a straight question?
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 13 2006,14:23



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

Mr. Davison. Why do you never answer a straight question?

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



I am not John Davison. If you know something more about internet topology you would know that nobody in USA would access internet through slovak-telecom and pay for it.

I dont know what question I am supposed to answer:

1) How would I recognize information if I "see" one?

2) Whats the difference between Batesian/Mullerian mimicry?

Such stupid questions are not worth to answer. Anyway you can "see" that I answered pwe who knows something about evolution and what information is.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Dec. 13 2006,14:31

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 13 2006,14:23)


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

Mr. Davison. Why do you never answer a straight question?

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



I am not John Davison. If you know something more about internet topology you would know that nobody in USA would access internet through slovak-telecom and pay for it.

I dont know what question I am supposed to answer:

1) How would I recognize information if I "see" one?

2) Whats the difference between Batesian/Mullerian mimicry?

Such stupid questions are not worth to answer. Anyway you can "see" that I answered pwe who knows something about evolution and what information is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you for fairly lucid answer.
I bow to your greater knowledge and admit that I am not worthy of a response.
I congratulate you on your greater use of the English language though. You are a very quick learner.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 13 2006,15:23

Hey, 'VMartin', you STILL haven't said whether you agree with those Kazmer Ujvarosy statements I listed.

How about an answer? Is 'Darwin's imaginary common ancestor is a parody of Christ'? Is it a bad thing 'if evolutionists keep insisting that Christ is not the Creator or universal common ancestor of the cosmic system'? Does 'the theory of creation from Christ's body' satisfy 'rational requirements'?

Ujvarosy seemed to impress you in other ways, I was wondering how you felt about some of the bits you didn't quote.

Saying they're 'stupid questions' doesn't impress anyone, by the way. Just ask Javison.
Posted by: Ichthyic on Dec. 13 2006,15:32



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Such stupid questions are not worth to answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



that's a really stupid way of saying "I don't know the answer"

...and since you don't know the answer, or even the relevance, you have admitted defeat.

but, in hopes you might actually WANT to have a clue, here's another hint:

frequency dependent selection

Since you haven't the slightest clue about how the ToE explains mimicry, or aposematic coloration, just admit it and move on with the rest of your idiocy, so we can all laugh at something new.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Dec. 13 2006,19:26

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 13 2006,14:23)
I am not John Davison.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hard to believe that there are TWO such nutcases in the world, huh.
Posted by: Ichthyic on Dec. 13 2006,22:42

no, not really, and this one has gotten just as boring.

BTW, i could easily imagine John, desperate for attention as he is, actually paying to get access to this blog via slovak telecom.

really.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 13 2006,23:18

Hey VMartin

It's apparent that you can't defend any of JAD's stupidity about 'no transitional fossils' or 'no new information'.  He11, you even have a hard time keeping your accent going. ;)  Since you seem to be so tight with JAD (sorta like Bruce Wayne is to Batman)  maybe you can post this over at ISCID for me.

"John Davison, why are you such a coward and intellectual lightweight who refuses to defend your own ideas?"

Like the good little lickspittle you are, I'll wait for you to bring JAD's reply here.
Posted by: pwe on Dec. 14 2006,10:18

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 12 2006,14:41)
My opinion is - and its thanks Davisons Manifesto -
that evolution is a fact. But it WAS driven by forces we are not aware of. Forces that probably are not in effect nowadays. I do not believe with Davison in random mutation and natural selection as forces behind evolution of mankind.

I agree with great Russian philosopher S.Bulgakov that evolution is driven by inteligentsia and in some point of development man obtained spirit. Spirit present itself in language.

Language and speech of mankind cannot evolve by random mutation and natural selection too. It is also  Noam Chomsky opinion.
(some folks here like linguists very).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am aware that some Russian (and other) linguists for some reason assumed biological evolution and language evolution to follow the same rules.

But language is learned, while you don't learn your biology. Two peoples interacting with each other will tend to adopt words from each other.

Nut whales didn't learn to swim by taking lessons from fish, or did they?

Apparently the problem is due to a non-Darwinian idea of evolution anf inheritance.

See for instace my article about < Johann Gottlieb Fichte > for an example of, what the linguists are arguing against.

I know that some Darwinists claim that biological inheritance and cultural inheritance can be described similarly, e.g. in a cladiogram; but I think they are wrong.

I live near an airport, but believe me: I don't have wings  ;)


- pwe
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 14 2006,11:54

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Dec. 13 2006,23:18)
Hey VMartin

It's apparent that you can't defend any of JAD's stupidity about 'no transitional fossils' or 'no new information'.  He11, you even have a hard time keeping your accent going. ;)  Since you seem to be so tight with JAD (sorta like Bruce Wayne is to Batman)  maybe you can post this over at ISCID for me.

"John Davison, why are you such a coward and intellectual lightweight who refuses to defend your own ideas?"

Like the good little lickspittle you are, I'll wait for you to bring JAD's reply here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Surely I can:



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

Would you please explain to Occam's Aftershave (whoever that is) that I don't need to defend my ideas as they are published. Furthermore, if the folks at ATBC want to know what I think, they only have to permit me to express myself in that venue.

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



So let  John Davison full access to this "high demanding scientifically-technical forum" and he can answer your "questions" himself.
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 14 2006,12:01

Quote (Steviepinhead @ Dec. 12 2006,14:36)
Yo, you complete self-annointed moron (since, leave us not forget, that's what rigorous application of Vmartin's "key-within-the-text" as applied to the text of Vmartin's self-selected screen-name led us to), Nabakov qualifies at most as a distinquished lay "expert" in butterfly--a high-level hobbyist.

His true expertise was literature.  As a butterfly hobbyist, he may have been superb at identification and collection.  As an evolutionary biologist, he has no credentials whatsoever.

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




Certainly folks here consider themselves to be experts on batesian and mullerian mimicry and consider themselves to be prominent lepidopterists too.

The lepidopterist "hobbyist" Nabokov who  worked at the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University have no chance in such a noble society.
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 14 2006,12:08

Quote (Ichthyic @ Dec. 13 2006,22:42)
no, not really, and this one has gotten just as boring.

BTW, i could easily imagine John, desperate for attention as he is, actually paying to get access to this blog via slovak telecom.

really.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Certainly it will bring you some relief if you let your fart go out through your arse instead of mouth. Maybe you should try to pull out the Pandas thumb from your ass for a moment.

Then you can put it again so deep as you prefer.

And you can come back on this "demanding technical-scientific forum" and give me some
stupid darwinistic questions.

Like:
"Did you ever see a new information? How does it look like?"

"Can you explain us what the Batesian mimicry is?"

"Can you explain us what frequency dependent selection means?"
Posted by: Ichthyic on Dec. 14 2006,12:26



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Certainly it will bring you some relief if you let your fart go out through your arse instead of mouth. Maybe you should try to pull out the Pandas thumb from your ass for a moment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



YEEEAWWWN

nice try, John.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 14 2006,12:37

Hey, John, answer my questions about Kazmer Ujvarosy, you worthless weasel.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 14 2006,13:53



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So let  John Davison full access to this "high demanding scientifically-technical forum" and he can answer your "questions" himself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


John Davison still has full, uncensored access to several technical discussion forums, including Alan Fox's blog dedicated just to JAD, and the TheologyWeb Natural Sciences section.  In both those places JAD refused to answer the most basic of questions about his PEH, choosing instead to rant wildly and fling his own poo.

So John, er, VMartin - "Why is JAD such a coward and intellectual lightweight who refuses to defend his own ideas on those forums where he has free, uncensored access?"
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Dec. 14 2006,17:57

Hey Martin, why don't you tell your, uh, hero Dr Davison to go work at the DI's Biologic Institute.

I hear they're looking for some qualified scientists.

(snicker)  (giggle)
Posted by: jupiter on Dec. 14 2006,20:31



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I can't help but notice that every day the number of questions 'VMartin' ignores goes up. It seems to be running about 95% now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Which means he's still lagging behind AntiFactDave, the world champeen, who's clocking in at 99.9999999% questions ignored.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The lepidopterist "hobbyist" Nabokov who worked at the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University have no chance in such a noble society.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Of course not! Mr. so-called lepidoperist Nabokov never bothered to make understood in the English! That why he is correct and deservedly is forgotten!

Okay, so now we know that VMartin composes its posts as I did with the previous paragraph: writing them in English, running them through Babelfish to Russian and then back again. Wah-lah! Impervious shield against any and all criticism. Laffs all around.

Wouldn't we all rather talk about Nabakov? Yes, he was a passionate < lepidopterist >, with a particular interest in < American blues >. Lolita is his best-known novel, wonderful and terrible, and the 1962 Kubrick movie is... iconic.



I suspect that many readers here, familiar as they are with academe, would appreciate < Pale Fire >. Hilarious, sad, recursive -- not as much female nubility, though. Sorry.

Speaking, as we are, of astonishing works written in English by non-native speakers: < Heart of Darkness >. Maybe you "read" it in high school -- you were too young and stoopid. Read it again.

Oh, I'm OT? Well... JAD might benefit from a stint on a tramp steamer headed for the Congo. Or in a butterfly net. Or, ideally, both.
Posted by: Kristine on Dec. 14 2006,22:45

*Ring! Ring!*

VMartin: Hello? JAD, it's for you. It's the guys [hey!] at the Slippery Floor Saloon.

[Better than sticky, I say.]

JAD: < Tell those worthless uncredentialed lesbos that I'm not home. >

VMartin: He says he's not home. *Hangs up*

JAD: We have them on the run, Martin!
Posted by: mcc on Dec. 15 2006,00:17

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 12 2006,16:26)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Language and speech of mankind cannot evolve by random mutation and natural selection too. It is also  Noam Chomsky opinion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Good lord, I really hope you don't think this is some kind of profound statement (or that it actually means something)...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wait. I'm no linguist, but isn't Noam Chomsky's big thing that all language can be derived from simple generative grammars?
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Dec. 15 2006,08:39

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2006,11:54)
...

So let  John Davison full access to this "high demanding scientifically-technical forum" and he can answer your "questions" himself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Except he wont. JAD never answers tricky questions does he/you?

Every thread JAD posts on follows the same old routine. He declares his hypothesis is great. Constantly quotes himself. Claims he is victimised. Hurls insults willy nilly untill either he manages to get himself banned or storms off in a hissy fit while claiming victory.

He is only any use as comedy value. He is a master at comedy, fruit lists and loving things so. I got that and wrote it down.
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 15 2006,12:33

Kristine wrote:
       

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

*Ring! Ring!*

VMartin: Hello? JAD, it's for you. It's the guys [hey!] at the Slippery Floor

Saloon.

[Better than sticky, I say.]

JAD: Tell those worthless uncredentialed lesbos that I'm not home.

VMartin: He says he's not home. *Hangs up*

JAD: We have them on the run, Martin!


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



Kristine you are witty.  

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

Anyway there is no need for John Davison to explain his view outlined in Manifesto.
All that he has written there seems to be correct. First I was struck by his claim (or better his citation of Broom) that evolution is finished.  Brooms claim:

         

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

In Eocene times -- say between 50,000,000 and 30,000,000 years ago -- small primitive mammals rather suddenly gave rise to over a dozen very different Orders -- hoofed animals, odd-toed and even-toed, elephants, carnivores, whales, rodents, bats and monkeys.  And after this there were no more Orders of mammals ever evolved.  There were great varieties of evolution in the Orders that had appeared, but strangely enough Nature seemed incapable of forming any more new Orders...
                               (1951), page 107

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



I checked it in modern sources and I found this:

         

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

"..i.e., euprimates: lemurs, tarsiers, monkeys, and apes) and Perissodactyla (odd-toed ungulates such as horses, tapirs, and rhinos)-also appeared abruptly and in abundance in early Eocene Holarctic deposits, with little indication of their ancestry."

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



Darwinists to defend their views use a claim that "the mammalian Orders" is a human invention and in fact such division does not exist in Nature (its btw old philosophical dispute between nominalism vs. realism). Anyway its hardly to believe that mammalian families are also the human invention. Yet:    

         

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

"A number of mammal orders show peaks of family diversityaround the Eocene-Oligocene boundary, such as Soricomorpha, Rodentia, Primates, Artiodactyla and Proboscidea."

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



         

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

The great diversity of Holarctic primates during the
Eocene indicates that at least 90% of modern diversity
would already have been reached by the Middle Eocene.

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



         

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

Perissodactyls were once much more diverse...Only seventeen species of perissodactyls remain on the Earth today, a shadow of the group's former glory.

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



and much much more that supports Brooms and John Davisons conclusion that evolution is finished.

John Davison need not search sources that support his claims. Internet is full of them. Just check it yourself.

***

And you as a perfect woman might know that according Heidegger poets are pillars on which the history stands. So I would not ridicule prominent writers as Nietzsche or Nabokov who ridiculed darwinism. Their views have certainly more to do with intuition but  good Art is much more closed to the truth as science.

I am only surprised that the greatest writer of modern era Fyodor Dostoevsky did not adressed problem of darwinism. He as a pneumatolog (he was no way "psycholog" as is common view) adressed atheistic and communist thinking in his novel The Possessed.
Why he did not addressed darwinism at all I do not know.
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 15 2006,14:19

Should be I am wrong:



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

Dostoevsky's general attitude towards Darwin is reflected in an article from his Diary of a Writer (1873) entitled "One of the Contemporaneous Falsehoods":

Please note, gentlemen, that all of these high European teachers, our light and our hope -- all those Mills, Darwins and Strausses — sometimes consider the moral obligations of modern man in a most astonishing manner. (13)

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



< http://www.utoronto.ca/tsq/DS/09/063.shtml >
Posted by: jeannot on Dec. 15 2006,14:20

No new "order" is being created, indeed. Heck, have you ever met a new order of mammals in your garden? And I'm pretty sure no new empire will appear before the end of the year. We'll be stuck with those darn bacteria, archea and eukaryotes.
Man, evolution must be finished, hence it was prescribed.

I'm convinced.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 15 2006,16:29

John DaviMartinson boasts
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Anyway there is no need for John Davison to explain his view outlined in Manifesto.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


True, but if he at least tried then there's a small chance he wouldn't be considered such a senile old crank with serious mental problems.  As it stands now, it's 100% that he's considered a senile old crank with serious mental problems.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
All that he has written there seems to be correct.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Except the large sections that are laughably, demonstrably wrong.  Like the part where he claims there are 'no transitional fossils' but he can't even tell us what he thinks a transitional fossil is.  Or the equally stupid 'evolution can't produce new information' where not only can't he define 'biological information', he can't tell how to measure or even detect its presence.  Or his 'evolution has stopped' brain fart, when there are dozens of papers written every week describing ongoing examples of evolutionary processes.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
John Davison need not search sources that support his claims. Internet is full of them. Just check it yourself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We have, which is why we know JAD's loony ideas just don't fly.  JAD is just an ill tempered, foul mouthed old fruitcake, just like his alter-ego VMartin is a moronic flaming assho1e.

Write that down!
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 15 2006,16:59

Shaved Occam still having darwinistic Pandas thumb in his ass wrote:

   

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

Or his 'evolution has stopped' brain fart, when there are dozens of papers written every week describing ongoing examples of evolutionary processes.

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



Really?

     

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

By the middle of the Eocene epoch (45 MYBP), most of the twenty or so present-day mammalian orders are identifiable, including forms as diverse as Chiroptera [bats] descended from Protoeutheria and Cetacea [whales] descended from Condylarthra.

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





Adaptive Radiation of Mammalian Orders

modern chart (2005) that unequivocally supports Robert Brooms and John Davisons  claim:

< http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Mammalian_Adaptive_Radiation.htm >

Enjoy.


*****************
and the biggest Occams Aftershave fart:


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

...where not only can't he (professor Davison) define 'biological information', he can't tell how to measure or even detect its presence.

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



I have already told you that you are a kind of prophet: you can "see" new information in genome. Great gift.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Dec. 15 2006,17:59

Martin why on earth are you wasting your time with us incompetent dolts who are obviously too dense to appreciate your (and JAD's) genius, when you *could* be working for the Biologic Institute, right this minute, doing all the rigorous scientific lab work to prove you (and JAD) right, in front of the whole world?

What are you waiting for, Martin?  That next Nobel Prize awaits.  I'm sure JAD would share it with you.
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 15 2006,18:12

Rev Dr" Lenny Flank.

Do you have another serious bipolar attack? Try to calm down reading some Goulds treatise on Pandas thumb.
Posted by: Ichthyic on Dec. 15 2006,23:09

the concerns over mimicry VMartin are thinking of were dealt with as early as 1927 by Fisher.

here's some light reading for ya:

< http://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/coll/special/fisher/59.pdf >

now stop trying to play biologist and go back to lurking like a good boy.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 16 2006,00:20



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(OA:)  Or his 'evolution has stopped' brain fart, when there are dozens of papers written every week describing ongoing examples of evolutionary processes.

(JohnDaviMartinson:) Really?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes John, really.  Do you actually think the process of evolution totally stopped 40 million years ago? How do you explain the branching fossil record for horses, and whales, and hominids since then? What reasons can you give us for why you think evolution has to continue to produce new mammalian orders after all the available ecological niches were filled?  

BTW John, do you think the theory of plate tectonics has been destroyed because there have been no new continents produced in the last 100 million years?  :D :D :D

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have already told you that you are a kind of prophet: you can "see" new information in genome. Great gift.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All I can see is a big mouthed fool tap dancing and evading simple questions about his PEH.  Do tell us John, how do you define 'biological information', and how do you detect the presence of new information?
Posted by: Alan Fox on Dec. 16 2006,05:12

Occam's Aftershave,
Re:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
All I can see is a big mouthed fool tap dancing and evading simple questions about his PEH.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



[irony]It is a bit unfair castigating John on a thread where he cannot respond directly.[/irony]. I am sure John is ready and willing to tackle your doubts regarding his PEH < here. >
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 16 2006,09:03



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
[irony]It is a bit unfair castigating John on a thread where he cannot respond directly.[/irony]. I am sure John is ready and willing to tackle your doubts regarding his PEH here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


JAD seems to have no trouble communication through his alter-ego 'Martin'.   ;)   Problem is, he has absolutely nothing worth saying.  Besides, I've already seen JAD do his cowardly evasion on too many other boards.  From your own blog:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(JAD in full rant mode)

I am here not to defend my several papers or my PEH. That material is now published and is for all time. I stand by every word of it. I am supremely confident of it all or I would never have published it. The best evidence I am right is that I am being treated exactly the same way that my sources were treated. The "professional Darwinians" have always pretended that they never had any critics. Do you know why? I will tell you why. It is because they were scared to death of them that is why. That is as true today as it was in Goldschmidt's time, 66 years ago or in Schindewolf's time, 56 yers ago, or Grasse's time 30 years ago. It is even more significant now as every thing we are learning from molecular biology and chromosome stucture points to a predetermined emergent evolution in which chance has played no role whatsoever.

It is only on shabby little internet forums where mostly anonymous little lightweights relieve their frustrations by asking stupid questions that one will find any mention of either myself or my several sources every one of whom was a real scientist and not one of whom was either a Darwinian mystic or a Protestant Fundamentaist. The real battle which is going on is between atheism and Christian dogma, between what I call the Darwimps and the Fundies.

Now let me tell you why I AM here at Alan's blog or at "brainstorms" or at any other other venue from which I have not yet been banned. I am here to expose these two factions for what they really are - pseudo-intellectual, uneducated, natural born, "prescribed," helpless ideologues unable to see what I and all my sources have always seen. There is no place for chance in either ontogeny or phylogeny and there is no place for a personal God in any aspect of science. There never has been and there never will be. Got that? Write that down.

So don't expect me to defend my papers because the place for that is in journal publication and I will be happy to do so the moment someone has the courage to challenge my work in a refereed journal. I sure as #### am not going to do it on some internet blog where I am treated with contempt by the likes of Spravid Dinger, the biggest two-faced bully of all time, or a homozygous Darwimp like Pott L. Scage who has never published a word on the mechanism of organic evolution because he already knows all about it. What losers they both rfeaally are!

So now you know why I am here. It is to expose you all as just a bunch of illiterate gossips venting your pathetic spleens in the meaningless ephemeral idiotic vacuum of cyberspace.

How does that grab you and what do you intend to do about it? Ban me? That will only prove what it always proves. You are afraid of me, of my sources and of the truth. I have been through the mill of internet bigotry and intolerance on both sides of the fence and I woudn't give you a nickel for either faction. The forums are dominated by egocentric uneducated blowhards and con artists of every conceivable variety ranging from closet Baptist Bible-banging pseudo-scientists like Dilliam Wembski to rabid ultra-atheist crackpots like Dichard Rawkins. Both sides in this idiotic ideological war are full of it right up to to their nostrils and I am here to tell the whole world all about it. The truth lies elsewhere and I am convinced that I know where that is. It is summarized in my papers and in the publications of my sources some of the finest biological minds of two centuries, sources that made my own contributions possible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The man's got serious mental health issues, and for that I feel sorry for him.  However, he's also quite dishonest and disingenuous, and that makes him fair game.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Dec. 16 2006,09:19



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Problem is, he has absolutely nothing worth saying.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I can see that is a bit of a snag. :D
Posted by: Ichthyic on Dec. 16 2006,14:13

alan, for some bizarre reason, you seem to think that hearing JAD say, "I'm batshit insane" over and over and over again has some value.

It doesn't
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 16 2006,14:25

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 15 2006,18:12)
Rev Dr" Lenny Flank.

Do you have another serious bipolar attack? Try to calm down reading some Goulds treatise on Pandas thumb.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, 'VMartin', you STILL haven't said whether you agree with those Kazmer Ujvarosy statements I listed.

How about an answer? Is 'Darwin's imaginary common ancestor is a parody of Christ'? Is it a bad thing 'if evolutionists keep insisting that Christ is not the Creator or universal common ancestor of the cosmic system'? Does 'the theory of creation from Christ's body' satisfy 'rational requirements'?

Ujvarosy seemed to impress you in other ways, I was wondering how you felt about some of the bits you didn't quote.

Saying they're 'stupid questions' doesn't impress anyone, by the way. Just ask Javison.

Incidentally, on the off chance you're not actually Javison, and you're actually, heaven forbid, SINCERE in your admiration for him, I should warn you, you couldn't possibly have picked a worse 'scientist' to glom onto, unless you too want to end up as another embittered, irrelevant laughing stock crackpot like John has.

If you ARE Javison, the act's getting old, John.

And yes, we've gotten that & written it down.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Dec. 16 2006,18:35

What, Martin?  You're STILL here?

Why aren't you and JAD rushing right over to Biologic Institute to disprove Darwinism?

They desperately need real scientists like you.
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 17 2006,05:51

Gad-fly Arden Chatfield:
 

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

How about an answer? Is 'Darwin's imaginary common ancestor is a parody of Christ'?

Is it a bad thing 'if evolutionists keep insisting that Christ is not the Creator

or universal common ancestor of the cosmic system'? Does 'the theory of creation

from Christ's body' satisfy 'rational requirements'?

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




Surely my opinion is that it is creative force that stands behind the life. I do not believe that
mankind aroused via random mutatation and natural selection from an ancient fish.
I do believe with Carl Gustav Jung that every human creature possess spirit.

As to the naturalistics belief from midsts 19 century that mankind aroused via RM and NS from primitive cell I can agree with Ujvarosy. Such a conception is really some gogolian devil parody to the depth of the life.


 

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

Incidentally, on the off chance you're not actually Javison, and you're actually, heaven forbid, SINCERE in your admiration for him, I should warn you, you couldn't possibly have picked a worse 'scientist' to glom onto, unless you too want to end up as another embittered, irrelevant laughing stock crackpot like John has.

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



I dont care about your warning. Allmost all of here (some rare exception of course) do not have nothing to offer  me(except stupid denigration). If you denigrate Davison you denigrate also many prominent sources his conception rest upon.
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 17 2006,06:24

Occam wrote:


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

BTW John, do you think the theory of plate tectonics has been destroyed because there have been no new continents produced in the last 100 million years?

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



I have already told you - your "vision" is exceptional. You do not only "see" new information in genome long before it is expressed, you can also see that Davison and I are the same person! Unbelievable.

To your intelligent observation I would apply neodarwinism - new geological plates cannot arise while they do not have enough "ecological niches" for themselves.
 

I would even say that new planets do not arise nowadays in such a hurry as they aroused after Bing-bang. They simply do not have enough "ecological niches" now in space.
The same is applicable to Mendelejevs chemical particles - all niches in his table are full.

Anyway it might be that neodarwinism put a some kind of blindness before eyes. Neodarwinists probably do not see that the 9-months physical development of human embryo is something different from 9 month physical period of an adult. Forces behind embryonal development are not in force in the adult. Yet the darwinist would claim that the adult would further develop neverthenless - he just do not have "ecological niche". Internal forces exist for them neither in ontogeny nor in phylogeny.



   

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

What reasons can you give us for why you think evolution has to continue to produce new mammalian orders after all the available ecological niches were filled?  

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



Why not? As you know there were much more mammalian families in Eocene as today are.
Do you mean that there were much more "ecological niches" at that time comparing nowadays?
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 17 2006,06:43

Ichthyic seems to be after attack:
 

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

the concerns over mimicry VMartin are thinking of were dealth with as early as 1927 by Fisher.

here's some light reading for ya:

< http://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/coll/special/fisher/59.pdf >

now stop trying to play biologist and go back to lurking like a good boy.

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




A such article can persuade only those already persuaded. There was a long dispute between Punnet and Poulton and Fisher only added some new arguments - that more common species in mullerian mimicry can tend to resemble lesser common species while changes are undirectional and those changes towards lesser common unpalatble species are preferred. Anyway the main problem persist in Batesian mimicry - are predator really such stupid that they can be deceived by small gradual mutation? Do not forget that birds have much more acute vision as humans and see also in UV having four-colored rod-sensitive vision.


REC and I gave here some materials and I cited Nijhout too. From these modern materials it is clear that first step of palatble butterfly towards unpalatable model species have to be great enough to decept a predator. Such gradual step development as proposed by Fisher in 1927 is unthinkable in insect mimicry (unless you are hard-core neodarwinist of course).
Posted by: Alan Fox on Dec. 17 2006,09:18

Quote (Ichthyic @ Dec. 16 2006,09:13)
alan, for some bizarre reason, you seem to think that hearing JAD say, "I'm batshit insane" over and over and over again has some value.

It doesn't
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


@Tom

The conclusion may have been obvious, but at least John can no longer claim censorship prevents him from promoting his PEH. Besides since ID was effectively finished at Harrisburg, things have been a little slow here until chipmunkgate.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 17 2006,10:31

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 17 2006,05:51)
Gad-fly Arden Chatfield:
     

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

How about an answer? Is 'Darwin's imaginary common ancestor is a parody of Christ'?

Is it a bad thing 'if evolutionists keep insisting that Christ is not the Creator

or universal common ancestor of the cosmic system'? Does 'the theory of creation

from Christ's body' satisfy 'rational requirements'?

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




Surely my opinion is that it is creative force that stands behind the life. I do not believe that
mankind aroused via random mutatation and natural selection from an ancient fish.
I do believe with Carl Gustav Jung that every human creature possess spirit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Um, you didn't answer the question, John 'VMartin'.

Tho that shouldn't surprise anyone.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 17 2006,12:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Um, you didn't answer the question, John 'VMartin'.

Tho that shouldn't surprise anyone.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Looks like we may have to start a list of 'questions JAD VMartin was too afraid to answer', just like AFDave.

Oh, I just couldn't let this piece of stupidity slide:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(JAD VMartin):  Anyway the main problem persist in Batesian mimicry - are predator really such stupid that they can be deceived by small gradual mutation? Do not forget that birds have much more acute vision as humans and see also in UV having four-colored rod-sensitive vision.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Of course ToE doesn't say that every single predator must be completely fooled by every small mutation. All that has to happen is that the mutation gives a small survival advantage, even as little as 0.01, to its possessors.  Insects that look a teeny bit more like undesirable prey than other insects have a teeny bit better chance of surviving and passing along their genes (along with the mutation) and having the mutation become fixed in the population.  Given a population size of billions, and millions of generations, it's a virtual certainty that will occur.

That's Basic Biology 101, but apparently VMartin is too much of an intellectual lightweight to get it.
Posted by: Kristine on Dec. 17 2006,13:20



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Kristine you are witty.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because I still have my wits.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So I would not ridicule prominent writers as Nietzsche or Nabokov who ridiculed darwinism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then quit associating Nietzsche or Nabokov with your ridiculous ideas. Nabokov especially were he alive would have a lot of fun ridiculing you. Read Despair and see yourself in the character Hermann (especially appropriate here for choosing and failing to pass himself off as another character in the book).

Oh. By the way:
If Truth is a woman, what then?
—Friedrich Nietszche :D
Posted by: Faid on Dec. 17 2006,14:06

Guys,

You do realize that you're trying to have a reasonable conversation with someone who cuts off articles to pretend he's foreign, right?

I mean, come on.
Posted by: Ra-Úl on Dec. 17 2006,14:55

Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 17 2006,13:20)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Kristine you are witty.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because I still have my wits.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So I would not ridicule prominent writers as Nietzsche or Nabokov who ridiculed darwinism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then quit associating Nietzsche or Nabokov with your ridiculous ideas. Nabokov especially were he alive would have a lot of fun ridiculing you. Read Despair and see yourself in the character Hermann (especially appropriate here for choosing and failing to pass himself off as another character in the book).

Oh. By the way:
If Truth is a woman, what then?
—Friedrich Nietszche :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm. . . wasn't V.N. an expert in the evolution of blues? Never,to my admittedly spotty recollection, read him ridiculing Darwin. Do recollect reading that he had a project in mind to study paintings of butterflies through the centuries to see traces of evolution (Shades of the Vane sisters. . .) in action. Also, Gould had some criticism of VN's low opinion of the place of genetics in taxonomy; ah, the passion of science, the precision of poetry. Pity some people will experience neither.

Ra-Úl
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Dec. 17 2006,18:05

What, Martin, you are STILL here?  STILL wasting your time here lecturing us halfwitted morons who are obviously too stupid and narrowminded to recognize your shining genius?  Haven't you and JAD rushed off YET to Biologic Institute to do the scientific research that will prove you right and stun the world of science?

What are ya waiting for, a written invitation?

Go.  That next Nobel Prize awaits.
Posted by: Louis on Dec. 17 2006,18:14

Why do I get the impression, when I read what VMartin has written, that any moment now I and others are going to be asked how we like some species of fruit? Quite probably apples.

Louis
Posted by: Ichthyic on Dec. 17 2006,21:52



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There was a long dispute between Punnet and Poulton and Fisher only added some new arguments
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



those new (at the time) arguments, that if you had any education on the subject at all, you could have followed to see how the actual testing of the models Fisher proposed worked out quite well for mimicry, and later fine tuned by Hamilton, not only made great explantory models for the trait under discussion, but made fantastic predictive models as well.  Hence, the reason we still use them to this day, and still get good results with them.

NOTHING you have put forward so far has even come close to having actual explanatory or predictive power, regardless of how you misinterpret what Nabokov was saying.

as expected, you merely cut and paste without having the slightest clue what you are on about.

whatever.

I'm sure this is the MOST attention that's ever been paid to you, so there seems little point in continuing.

you simply have no clue what you are talking about, as everyone here seems well aware, so...

have fun with your insanity.  

you do seem to enjoy it so.
Posted by: Ichthyic on Dec. 17 2006,22:00



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
but at least John can no longer claim censorship prevents him from promoting his PEH.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



that's ridiculous.

he had years to discuss it on PT before he was finally banned from there for his complete insanity, whereupon he moved to what should have been a more "friendly" environment, and after posting his PEH there, via sidebar no less, STILL was unable to answer even the simplest of questions from UDites (the simplest of minds).  He then proceeded to be banned from there not once but TWICE because of his ridiculously insane and aggressive posting behavior.

he's had more than ample opportunity to state his case.

nobody gives a shit any more, and you trying to give him "equal time", only makes people wonder about your reasons for doing so.

HE'S BATSHIT INSANE.  the insane will say anything to be heard.  Is there a reason for anyone to be subjected to it for any reason?

this thread, for example, would not exist without you, and nobody here would have been subjected to the JAD sockpuppet of Vmartin.

If you think that's a good thing, then i genuinely worry for you.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Dec. 18 2006,04:20

Tom,

just a few points:

I did not instigate this thread

I stopped responding to VMartin after pointing out his trolling behaviour in another forum

I set up my own blog partly to demonstrate beyond doubt that John's censorship complaints were unfounded

I seriously believe we should take the moral high ground over freedom of expression

ID is finished, John never really got started, and if you feel the same, then why not ignore this thread in future as John or his ideas are no threat to anyone, unless Springer gets within shotgun range. :)
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Dec. 18 2006,04:27

Quote (Ichthyic @ Dec. 17 2006,22:00)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
but at least John can no longer claim censorship prevents him from promoting his PEH.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



that's ridiculous.

he had years to discuss it on PT before he was finally banned from there ...

this thread, for example, would not exist without you, and nobody here would have been subjected to the JAD sockpuppet of Vmartin.

If you think that's a good thing, then i genuinely worry for you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why such a harsh tone?
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Dec. 18 2006,08:26

Is there any chance at all that Dr. JAD is a parody? I am not sure if it is possible for anyone to exhibit signs of being as divorced from reallity as him and still be able to find the button to turn a PC on. Then again, he has been incredibly consistent for years.

Confusing.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 18 2006,09:55

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Dec. 18 2006,08:26)
Is there any chance at all that Dr. JAD is a parody? I am not sure if it is possible for anyone to exhibit signs of being as divorced from reallity as him and still be able to find the button to turn a PC on. Then again, he has been incredibly consistent for years.

Confusing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I still think there's a third possibility, that 'VMartin' is neither a surly young dimbulb from Bratislava nor Dohn Javison, but someone like DaveTard, Paley, or O'Brien with WAY too much time on his hands, doing some piece of low-rent performance art.
Posted by: Kristine on Dec. 18 2006,10:20



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
still think there's a third possibility, that 'VMartin' is neither a surly young dimbulb from Bratislava nor Dohn Javison, but someone like DaveTard, Paley, or O'Brien with WAY too much time on his hands, doing some piece of low-rent performance art.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not sure about that. I can't see those people referring to Nabokov and Nietzsche and Heidegger et al., even to misrepresent them.

"Perfect woman"! *Sneer*  :angry:
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 18 2006,11:33

Occam Aftershave:

 

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

Of course ToE doesn't say that every single predator must be completely fooled by every small mutation. All that has to happen is that the mutation gives a small survival advantage, even as little as 0.01, to its possessors.  Insects that look a teeny bit more like undesirable prey than other insects have a teeny bit better chance of surviving and passing along their genes (along with the mutation) and having the mutation become fixed in the population.  Given a population size of billions, and millions of generations, it's a virtual certainty that will occur.

That's Basic Biology 101, but apparently VMartin is too much of an intellectual lightweight to get it.

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



I would say in a such case the model species  would obtain selective advantage also - having mutation that put them away from their mimics, dont you think?

I suppose mutations like you - but it give advantage
greater than 0,01% while it still resemble original.

We do not talk on Mullerian mimicry but on Batesian one - so the model has no way tendency to resemble mimic but in contrary (only if they make with mimics some agreement, as ridiculed Nabokov).
 
Do not forget that we often observe that mimics are much more common as their models, that they outnumber theirs model in many areas. I would say that there should be strong advantage for models that develop traits having no counterpart in mimic. Such mutation is much more probable (because should be undirectional, only different from mimic patterns) that directional mutation in mimic that lead mimic to the same pattern as possessed by model. Other mutations that do not resemble model also do not have selective advantage.

At last but not at least it is very funny that Ichthyic (btw. having probably bipolar fit again) asserts us that problem was solved by Fisher. It was only few years ago  observed that birds taste unpalatable butterflies repeatidly during their life so all Mullers math models (that birds teach from first tasting) seems to be wrong.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 18 2006,11:37

It was this piece of babbling....
 
Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 15 2006,13:33)
Anyway there is no need for John Davison to explain his view outlined in Manifesto.
All that he has written there seems to be correct. First I was struck by his claim (or better his citation of Broom) that evolution is finished.  Brooms claim:

             

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

In Eocene times -- say between 50,000,000 and 30,000,000 years ago -- small primitive mammals rather suddenly gave rise to over a dozen very different Orders -- hoofed animals, odd-toed and even-toed, elephants, carnivores, whales, rodents, bats and monkeys.  And after this there were no more Orders of mammals ever evolved.  There were great varieties of evolution in the Orders that had appeared, but strangely enough Nature seemed incapable of forming any more new Orders...
                               (1951), page 107

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



I checked it in modern sources and I found this:

             

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

"..i.e., euprimates: lemurs, tarsiers, monkeys, and apes) and Perissodactyla (odd-toed ungulates such as horses, tapirs, and rhinos)-also appeared abruptly and in abundance in early Eocene Holarctic deposits, with little indication of their ancestry."

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



Darwinists to defend their views use a claim that "the mammalian Orders" is a human invention and in fact such division does not exist in Nature (its btw old philosophical dispute between nominalism vs. realism). Anyway its hardly to believe that mammalian families are also the human invention. Yet:    

             

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

"A number of mammal orders show peaks of family diversityaround the Eocene-Oligocene boundary, such as Soricomorpha, Rodentia, Primates, Artiodactyla and Proboscidea."

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



             

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

The great diversity of Holarctic primates during the
Eocene indicates that at least 90% of modern diversity
would already have been reached by the Middle Eocene.

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



             

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

Perissodactyls were once much more diverse...Only seventeen species of perissodactyls remain on the Earth today, a shadow of the group's former glory.

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



and much much more that supports Brooms and John Davisons conclusion that evolution is finished.

John Davison need not search sources that support his claims. Internet is full of them. Just check it yourself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Along with this follow-up babbling ....  
Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 17 2006,07:24)
 

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

What reasons can you give us for why you think evolution has to continue to produce new mammalian orders after all the available ecological niches were filled?  

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



Why not? As you know there were much more mammalian families in Eocene as today are.
Do you mean that there were much more "ecological niches" at that time comparing nowadays?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


that convinced me that VMartian can't think his way out of an open closet with the light on because a white robe is coverring him.

My only sensible question to Mr. Martian is to explain how Australia native species are holding up to invasions of external species brought into the environment.  Then to compare this to the plate conditions 30mm to 50mm years ago.  Will the number of mammillian species increase or decrease in the world after this "competition" for ecologic niches reaches it's eventual conclusion over time.

And I didn't have to open a book or find a reference to come up with this little challange.

I don't expect a cogent response to this at all.  More handwaving, semantics and convolusions are expected from VMartian considerring his past behaviour.

Mike PSS
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 18 2006,11:39

And John asked me on ISCID to add also some compliment for you:

 

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

"Natural selection is a real factor in connection with mimicry, but its function is to conserve and render preponderant an ALREADY EXISTENT LIKENESS, not to build up that likeness through the accumulation of small variations as is so generally assumed."
Reginald C. Punnett, Mimicry in Butterflies, page 152, my emphasis.

In other words - in complete accord with the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.

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


Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Dec. 18 2006,12:32

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 18 2006,09:55)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Dec. 18 2006,08:26)
Is there any chance at all that Dr. JAD is a parody? I am not sure if it is possible for anyone to exhibit signs of being as divorced from reallity as him and still be able to find the button to turn a PC on. Then again, he has been incredibly consistent for years.

Confusing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I still think there's a third possibility, that 'VMartin' is neither a surly young dimbulb from Bratislava nor Dohn Javison, but someone like DaveTard, Paley, or O'Brien with WAY too much time on his hands, doing some piece of low-rent performance art.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am fairly sure that JAD=VMartin. Not certain but fair sure.

What I was asking was wether there was any chance that the (what we consider to be) real JAD was just a parody/joke/wind-up.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 18 2006,12:51

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Dec. 18 2006,12:32)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 18 2006,09:55)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Dec. 18 2006,08:26)
Is there any chance at all that Dr. JAD is a parody? I am not sure if it is possible for anyone to exhibit signs of being as divorced from reallity as him and still be able to find the button to turn a PC on. Then again, he has been incredibly consistent for years.

Confusing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I still think there's a third possibility, that 'VMartin' is neither a surly young dimbulb from Bratislava nor Dohn Javison, but someone like DaveTard, Paley, or O'Brien with WAY too much time on his hands, doing some piece of low-rent performance art.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am fairly sure that JAD=VMartin. Not certain but fair sure.

What I was asking was wether there was any chance that the (what we consider to be) real JAD was just a parody/joke/wind-up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Were that it were so, but Javison is very well documented. Photos, resume, a chronology of his career.

As for whether John is real but he's just putting us on, I can't believe that, either. His insanity is far too detailed and over far too long a period.

I'm afraid Javison is the real deal.  :O
Posted by: VMartin on Dec. 18 2006,14:59

Stephen Elliott, Chatfield:

I would prefer if you at least have tried to rebut my latest post (or Davison citation of Punnett view on mimicry) as these feeble-minded posts.

But your only methods of discussion are these - neglect or haughty denigration of your oponents.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 18 2006,16:17

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 18 2006,14:59)
Stephen Elliott, Chatfield:

I would prefer if you at least have tried to rebut my latest post (or Davison citation of Punnett view on mimicry) as these feeble-minded posts.

But your only methods of discussion are these - neglect or haughty denigration of your oponents.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, you want people to answer your questions? ?

Dimwit, I would remind you, you STILL haven't said whether you agree with those Kazmer Ujvarosy statements I listed.

Again: Is 'Darwin's imaginary common ancestor is a parody of Christ'? Is it a bad thing 'if evolutionists keep insisting that Christ is not the Creator or universal common ancestor of the cosmic system'? Does 'the theory of creation from Christ's body' satisfy 'rational requirements'?

You went so far as to cite Ujvarosy approvingly, I was wondering if you agreed with that, as well.

Probably best if you dealt with the backlog of others' questions you're ignoring first, before trying to change the subject, genius.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Dec. 18 2006,18:23

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 18 2006,11:33)
I would say in a such case
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why on earth should anyone CARE what you say, Martin?

You are an utter nobody.  Just like JAD.  (shrug)
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 18 2006,21:02



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I would say in a such case the model species  would obtain selective advantage also - having mutation that put them away from their mimics, dont you think?

I suppose mutations like you - but it give advantage
greater than 0,01% while it still resemble original.

We do not talk on Mullerian mimicry but on Batesian one - so the model has no way tendency to resemble mimic but in contrary (only if they make with mimics some agreement, as ridiculed Nabokov).

Do not forget that we often observe that mimics are much more common as their models, that they outnumber theirs model in many areas. I would say that there should be strong advantage for models that develop traits having no counterpart in mimic. Such mutation is much more probable (because should be undirectional, only different from mimic patterns) that directional mutation in mimic that lead mimic to the same pattern as possessed by model. Other mutations that do not resemble model also do not have selective advantage.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope.  Once the original/mimic relationship has been established in the local ecology, any selection pressure that drives the original away from the mimic (for whatever reason) will create new selection pressure on the mimic to follow / track changes in the original.  The two will be fairly closely coupled until some major ecological shift breaks the loop.

Besides, according to your PEH there are no mutations that could create such changes, and no more evolution.  Now you are saying there ARE mutations that add information (as manifested in changed phenotypes) and there IS still evolution going on.

Which is it John?
Posted by: REC on Dec. 20 2006,15:10

Hey...vmartin/JAD.....in light of your atheism, how do you like that your old stomping ground (Uncommon Descent) has turned into a Christian, anti-atheist love fest?

p.s. Please don't suggest I'm on your side. The line that: you and I have posted material makes it sound like we are allied. in fact, I posted the Nature paper in refutation of your claims....to which I find no response....
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 20 2006,15:27

Quote (REC @ Dec. 20 2006,15:10)
Hey...vmartin/JAD.....in light of your atheism, how do you like that your old stomping ground (Uncommon Descent) has turned into a Christian, anti-atheist love fest?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Javison has made that abundantly clear over and over and over and over and over and over again: he hates fundie Creationists just as much as he hates us 'Darwimps'. Check out his rants in Alan Fox's blog for more of a taste than you'll ever need.

He hates them so!

PS: Isn't JAD's 'theological' principle that "Goddidit, then he died?"
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Dec. 20 2006,17:50

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 20 2006,15:27)
PS: Isn't JAD's 'theological' principle that "Goddidit, then he died?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who knows?  JAD's nuttier than squirrel poop, and I long ago gave up trying to figure out what any of his incoherent rants involving fruit, actually mean.  (shrug)
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 20 2006,19:24

Yep, it's official - VMartin and JAD are one and the same!   :D :D :D

Check this out - I was debating with 'VMartin' here about his ideas on mimicry, but I purposely called him 'John' just to see if he'd take the bait:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
VMartin:  I would say in a such case the model species  would obtain selective advantage also - having mutation that put them away from their mimics, dont you think?

I suppose mutations like you - but it give advantage
greater than 0,01% while it still resemble original.

We do not talk on Mullerian mimicry but on Batesian one - so the model has no way tendency to resemble mimic but in contrary (only if they make with mimics some agreement, as ridiculed Nabokov).

Do not forget that we often observe that mimics are much more common as their models, that they outnumber theirs model in many areas. I would say that there should be strong advantage for models that develop traits having no counterpart in mimic. Such mutation is much more probable (because should be undirectional, only different from mimic patterns) that directional mutation in mimic that lead mimic to the same pattern as possessed by model. Other mutations that do not resemble model also do not have selective advantage.

OA:  Nope.  Once the original/mimic relationship has been established in the local ecology, any selection pressure that drives the original away from the mimic (for whatever reason) will create new selection pressure on the mimic to follow / track changes in the original.  The two will be fairly closely coupled until some major ecological shift breaks the loop.

Besides, according to your PEH there are no mutations that could create such changes, and no more evolution.  Now you are saying there ARE mutations that add information (as manifested in changed phenotypes) and there IS still evolution going on.

Which is it John?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



He did.  :D  Over at < ISCID >, John Davison finally slips, forgetting that he was in his 'VMartin' character and answers me directly, acknowledging that I was talking directly to him!  :D

     
Quote (John A Davison @ 20 December 2006 19:29)
Listen to this folks.

Occam's After Shave (how is that for a cowardly alias) is now claiming that I have reversed my position and am now saying that evolution is going on. That is a flaming lie. I have repeatedly joined with both Robert Broom and Julian Huxley in agreeing that a new Genus has not appeared in two million years. Grasse too suggested as much. I have further extended that to claim that a new experimentally verified true species has not appeared in historical times, a position I still hold. As is typical, the Darwinians must resort to flagrant lies to preserve their foolish paradigm, the most failed hypothesis in the history of science.

It is sad that I must respond here since they have made it impossible for me to respond in their own venue. Cowardly ideologues are like that of whatever persuasion, whether it be atheist Darwinism or Protestant Fundamentalism. Once someone is banned, no further comments about that person should be emanating from a source that practices such tactics. That is the height of cowardice and ethical malfeasance.

What does Occam's After Shave think I mean with my signature?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Davison/VMartin gets PWNED! :D :D :D :D

How do you like them rutabagas!
Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 20 2006,20:11

Davison/VMartin is banned.

Got that? Write that down.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Dec. 20 2006,21:51

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Dec. 20 2006,19:24)
Yep, it's official - VMartin and JAD are one and the same!   :D :D :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I, for one, am shocked.  Utterly shocked.  Shocked, I say.

Well, not really.  There can't POSSIBLY be  **two**  people as nutty as JAD.
Posted by: Kristine on Dec. 20 2006,22:09

No-lady Lolita here wonders how many other personalities there are that share the body. Maybe only one of them knows and has interacted with Kazmer Ujvarosy. It would seem that JAD is not the personality in possession of all the memories and thus is not the memory for The Others.

I wonder which personality plays the piano. (Ardalion? Humbert Humbert?) Well, without hypnosis I guess we'll never know.
Posted by: Faid on Dec. 21 2006,03:07

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 20 2006,15:27)
PS: Isn't JAD's 'theological' principle that "Goddidit, then he died?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is-is JAD a Gnostic? Whoa.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Dec. 21 2006,06:02

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Dec. 20 2006,21:51)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Dec. 20 2006,19:24)
Yep, it's official - VMartin and JAD are one and the same!   :D :D :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I, for one, am shocked.  Utterly shocked.  Shocked, I say.

Well, not really.  There can't POSSIBLY be  **two**  people as nutty as JAD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I also believe JAD and VMartin to be the same person but I don't see conclusive proof yet.

The thing that niggles me is that according to people who have access to the information, JAD and VMartin are using different ip adresses. I know this can be "fudged" but doubt if JAD has the computing expertise to achieve it.

So although I think that JAD=VMartin, it is entirely possible that this is incorrect. If it is JAD sockpupetry, JAD probably has a little helper. That leads to the question "who is so dimwitted/underemployed that they would have some competence in IT skills and the time+inclination to be JADs lacky"?
Posted by: jujuquisp on Dec. 21 2006,06:09



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If it is JAD sockpupetry, JAD probably has a little helper. That leads to the question "who is so dimwitted/underemployed that they would have some competence in IT skills and the time+inclination to be JADs lacky"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



DAVESCOT
Posted by: Lou FCD on Dec. 21 2006,07:13

I agree, Stephen.  JAD can't even cut and paste, even though the concept has been explained to him in little bitty words.

Ditto making a second thread on a blogspot blog.

JAD doesn't read for comprehension, it doesn't surprise me that he may have read OA's comment and responded to it like he did.

juju may have just the fella.

I can definitely see the bored UberTard doing VMartin for kicks.  From his perspective, he'd be f'ing with us and with JAD at the same time.

Two birds, one stoner.

Dave once pointed Janie to an anonymizer by email.  It uses a limited number of IP addresses and locations, which I would be happy to provide for comparison to VMartin's IP address if anyone's bored enough to care.  Dave may be rich and have a bazillion IQ as measured by SAT scores and SciAm subscriptions, but he's also lazy.  He still uses the same one to visit UDoJ.

I'm not ruling out Paley, though, either.

Just so y'know.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 21 2006,08:03

Lou: yeah, I have a few lists of anonymizers as well (8 different ones), and there's lots of public listings of available proxies -- ####, I have a list of 28 different sites that post up proxy IP's that I'm looking at in my files now. Dunno how many of the sites are still alive, but I'd bet most of them are -- they've mostly been around a while.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Dec. 21 2006,08:53

Yeah, but Davey only uses one on a regular basis.

Like I said, he may be a super duper whiz bang genius according to his SAT scores, but he's as lazy as the rest of us.

For the record, Janie didn't use it on the few (three, I think) occasions when she posted here.

She just drove over to KaylaFace's friend's house (the same friend whose legs feature in those pics addressed to you!;) and posted from there.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 21 2006,09:34

Another thing that might well point to Sergeant Tard as the culprit here is motive: it would obviously be revenge for being suckered by Janie.

I also think this is the kind of thing Paley would do, but I think he's less likely to know how to mask his ISP no. to make it look like it comes from Europe. That little gesture has Dave Tard written all over it.

Mr. High-SAT-Scores is starting to look very plausible.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dave once pointed Janie to an anonymizer by email.  It uses a limited number of IP addresses and locations, which I would be happy to provide for comparison to VMartin's IP address if anyone's bored enough to care.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm bored enough. :p
Posted by: Lou FCD on Dec. 21 2006,11:19

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 21 2006,09:34)
I'm bored enough. :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK.

Dallas, TX 208.101.10.52

That's one.  It's being a little schitzy today.

Off the top of my head, there's one from Bankok and one from London Ontario Canada.

I'll try again later.

[EDIT: ooo.. new version... didn't see that at first...I'll have to check this out later.]
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Dec. 24 2006,12:57

Quote (Alan Fox @ Dec. 16 2006,05:12)
Occam's Aftershave,
Re:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
All I can see is a big mouthed fool tap dancing and evading simple questions about his PEH.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



[irony]It is a bit unfair castigating John on a thread where he cannot respond directly.[/irony]. I am sure John is ready and willing to tackle your doubts regarding his PEH < here. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now David Scot/Springer has turned up posting nonsense. The man is shameless.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Dec. 25 2006,11:07

JAD makes an apearance on
< http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe....strable >

Bloody ####. JAD on a site aimed at teens? What a thought.
Posted by: Kristine on Dec. 27 2006,15:03

Poor JAD. He's obviously nuts and I do really feel sorry for him.

It was amusing for a while but then he started in with the nastiness (and from what, may I ask, was I supposed to "bleed to death"? Don't tell me. I don't want to know.) :O
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Dec. 27 2006,15:15

Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 27 2006,15:03)
Poor JAD. He's obviously nuts and I do really feel sorry for him.

It was amusing for a while but then he started in with the nastiness (and from what, may I ask, was I supposed to "bleed to death"? Don't tell me. I don't want to know.) :O
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


JAD was a real genuine scientist. Something has gone wrong though. You might have noticed.

He is clever BTW, but it is almost inpossible to hold a rational conversation with him. Again, you might have noticed.

Don't let his (JAD's) vitriol get to you. He is just ill (I think). Lenny describes it well "nuttier than squirel shit". Poor man.

No doubt I wil be lambasted for this post over at Alan's blog. Still, never mind.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Dec. 27 2006,18:50

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Dec. 27 2006,15:15)
Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 27 2006,15:03)
Poor JAD. He's obviously nuts and I do really feel sorry for him.

It was amusing for a while but then he started in with the nastiness (and from what, may I ask, was I supposed to "bleed to death"? Don't tell me. I don't want to know.) :O
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


JAD was a real genuine scientist. Something has gone wrong though. You might have noticed.

He is clever BTW, but it is almost inpossible to hold a rational conversation with him. Again, you might have noticed.

Don't let his (JAD's) vitriol get to you. He is just ill (I think). Lenny describes it well "nuttier than squirel shit". Poor man.

No doubt I wil be lambasted for this post over at Alan's blog. Still, never mind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And try not to get angry with him. What he does to himself every minute of every day is vastly worse than anything we could ever do to him.

Consider him an object lesson of what NOT to do with your old age.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Jan. 11 2007,10:55

Looks like the forums that have banned him (all that he's been on for more than 10 posts, I'll wager) have driven JAD to some clueless right-wing rag:

< http://www.americanchronicle.com/article....D=18813 >

Just shows that you can't keep a mumbling old sot down.  

Glen D
Posted by: slpage on Jan. 17 2007,13:25

Get a load of this < meeting of the minds > - a lunatic, an asthma researcher, a retired actuary, and an IT technician, all pontificating on evolutionary biology as if they actually understand it...
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Mar. 06 2007,09:57

Jad found a buddy who < even quotes him > in an online article.
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 06 2007,11:31

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Mar. 06 2007,09:57)
Jad found a buddy who < even quotes him > in an online article.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


EEWWWW - JAD's buddy is the guy that thinks man-goo will cure cancer!  I wish I would have thought of that great line back before I was married though...
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Mar. 06 2007,11:53

Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 06 2007,11:31)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Mar. 06 2007,09:57)
Jad found a buddy who < even quotes him > in an online article.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


EEWWWW - JAD's buddy is the guy that thinks man-goo will cure cancer!  I wish I would have thought of that great line back before I was married though...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did you date a lot of women with cancer?
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 06 2007,12:19

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Mar. 06 2007,11:53)
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 06 2007,11:31)
 
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Mar. 06 2007,09:57)
Jad found a buddy who < even quotes him > in an online article.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


EEWWWW - JAD's buddy is the guy that thinks man-goo will cure cancer!  I wish I would have thought of that great line back before I was married though...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did you date a lot of women with cancer?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was thinking about being a real dick and saying "yes", I loved dating women with cancer, but then I would have to ban myself from here and go open an account at UD -
A fate worse than death.

And speaking of cancer, I wonder if DaveScot is feeling any backlash from his DCA whipping by Orac?  Well, if the DCA doesn't work out for Dave, maybe he and Bill can "experiment" with JAD's new friend's cancer treatment...
Posted by: Kristine on Mar. 06 2007,13:24

The two amigos < sure got mad > (heh) when I won at Pharyngula! :D
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 20 2007,13:35

Uh oh. Looks like Javison < is desperate for attention again. >

(Thanks to < Falan Ox > for bringing this to our notice.)

:O
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 20 2007,14:06

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 20 2007,12:35)
Uh oh. Looks like Javison < is desperate for attention again. >

(Thanks to < Falan Ox > for bringing this to our notice.)

:O
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


John Davison says evoltion Is Finished:

I do not want to open a Google Account, just so I can comment , but if he would allow me to post, I would write:
Reverse evolution is currently being proved by creationists and IDers.  They have been selectively breeding (in-breeding) for only a few hundred years, however, we can clearly see a reversion to pre-Homon Sapiens mental levels, as exhibited by their less than wise comments and beliefs.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 21 2007,10:16

The latest update on Javison's new blog: he's deleting others' messages with such gusto that < all six > of the messages there are his.

So he's doing what he does best, i.e., talking to himself.

Unless Waylon Smithers VMartin shows up, it'll take forever for the crazy old fart to fill up the ashtrays at this rate...
Posted by: k.e on Mar. 21 2007,10:50

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 21 2007,17:16)
The latest update on Javison's new blog: he's deleting others' messages with such gusto that < all six > of the messages there are his.

So he's doing what he does best, i.e., talking to himself.

Unless Waylon Smithers VMartin shows up, it'll take forever for the crazy old fart to fill up the ashtrays at this rate...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Uh Sir, sorry for interupting but remember that secret bug you planted? Well here is the transcript.

Javison: Quick Smithers VMartin. Bring the mind eraser device!
Smithers VMartin:You mean the revolver, sir?
Javison: Precisely.
Posted by: Kristine on April 09 2007,23:57

*Sigh* Well, I have < an invitation > to pass on to you all.

JAD came to my science-only blog, the Triumvirate, to diss Dawkins, which I allow, and to try to provoke another fight with DaveScot, which I will not allow, because this blog is supposed to be actually be about science. After some tense moments, he has become rather nice toward me and even wished me luck on my finals, but he wants you guys to see the above link. I don't know why. *Groan* Anyway, I have dutifully made my announcement now.  ???
Posted by: stevestory on April 10 2007,00:05

I'm waiting for JAD, Charlie Wagner, and Larry Fafarman to join forces and create a Superblog.  :O
Posted by: J-Dog on April 10 2007,08:45

Quote (stevestory @ April 10 2007,00:05)
I'm waiting for JAD, Charlie Wagner, and Larry Fafarman to join forces and create a Superblog.  :O
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And verily I say unto you "The Super Blog shall be the Father The Son and The Holy Effing ** Ghost!

                 < >
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 10 2007,09:24

Quote (stevestory @ April 10 2007,00:05)
I'm waiting for JAD, Charlie Wagner, and Larry Fafarman to join forces and create a Superblog.  :O
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You could charge a subscription for that, no problem.
Posted by: argystokes on April 12 2007,20:34

Via Pharyngula, I present John A. Davison, in his own words. And voice. I'm seven minutes in, and unfortunately he hasn't said any of his catchphrases yet.

< http://www.archive.org/details/JohnDavisonInterview >
Posted by: J-Dog on April 12 2007,21:03

Quote (argystokes @ April 12 2007,20:34)
Via Pharyngula, I present John A. Davison, in his own words. And voice. I'm seven minutes in, and unfortunately he hasn't said any of his catchphrases yet.

< http://www.archive.org/details/JohnDavisonInterview >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


JAD - I hate it so!
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 25 2007,15:14

More Davison/V "Smithers" Martin wackiness < here >, in case you haven't bumped into PZ's < discussion > of it.

Yes, it makes JAD and Vmartin look EVEN MORE PATHETIC than they did before.

Picture two gorillas in a cage being poked by about 20 people with sticks.

Who's WOOT? He should post here.

PS: Check out message 39 in the Pharyngula thread. Too cool.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 25 2007,15:45

From our beloved < VMartin >:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Problem is difficult. According some popular medieval conceptions (Giordano Bruno was it's follower) matter possesed spirit once. Might be that spirit is going upwards and is now fully presented in humans. The spirit presented himself and his creativity in mammals during "adaptive radiation" during Eocene and before during "Cambrian evolution" in lowest phyla. That's why evolution of mammals is finished. Species do not possess as much spirit as once. At least -according Chardin - we see during evolution increasing perfection of nervous system.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Stephen Elliott on May 06 2007,04:04

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 25 2007,15:14)
More Davison/V "Smithers" Martin wackiness < here >, in case you haven't bumped into PZ's < discussion > of it.

Yes, it makes JAD and Vmartin look EVEN MORE PATHETIC than they did before.

Picture two gorillas in a cage being poked by about 20 people with sticks.

Who's WOOT? He should post here.

PS: Check out message 39 in the Pharyngula thread. Too cool.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WOOT is good.
JAD hasn't changed one bit.
Posted by: VMartin on June 11 2007,13:54

It somehow happens that I am allowed to be here with you guys again. You have had a lot of opportunities to participate and write something at One blog a day. Instead you ridiculed here me and John Davison - the same at Pharyngula btw. where we are banned either. Obviously you need your own niche without opponents to be witty.

Woot is btw. some perplexed darwinian who sees in prolonged legs of Australian toads "evolution in action". Of course the whole "evolution in action" is fully reversible, because what we see is expression of existing alleles.

Another expert there (Pharyngulist Marjanovic) conceived there ad hoc brand new theory of color perception.He even wrote that green=white-red - having no idea about red/green canal.  

There are many other darwinian simpletons whom doctor of darwinism Meyeres flattered as "knowledgeable evolutionist" that will tear you apart with "arguments".

 
Of course the only arguments are denigrations.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 11 2007,13:59



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course the whole "evolution in action" is fully reversible
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How do you do that then?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 11 2007,14:10

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 11 2007,13:59)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course the whole "evolution in action" is fully reversible
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How do you do that then?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Prayer?
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 11 2007,14:10



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It somehow happens that I am allowed to be here with you guys again
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



new server.

don't worry, just keep posting and we'll have that fixed for you.
Posted by: J-Dog on June 11 2007,15:32

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 11 2007,14:10)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It somehow happens that I am allowed to be here with you guys again
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



new server.

don't worry, just keep posting and we'll have that fixed for you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ouch!  That's gonna leave a mark!
Posted by: Louis on June 11 2007,15:37

Wait, if the server move means VMartin can post again, does that mean......

......NO! PLEASE NO!........

......GoP can post again?

Won't someone please think of the children?

Louis
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 11 2007,15:42

Quote (Louis @ June 11 2007,15:37)
Wait, if the server move means VMartin can post again, does that mean......

......NO! PLEASE NO!........

......GoP can post again?

Won't someone please think of the children?

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow. Maybe even Dave Scot could post again. That'd be quite the spectacle. :O

Well. Until he threatened to hack the site and got re-banned.
Posted by: stevestory on June 11 2007,15:42

Quote (VMartin @ June 11 2007,14:54)
Obviously you need your own niche without opponents to be witty.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can you reconcile that with the fact that I unbanned you?
Posted by: stevestory on June 11 2007,15:52

The server move didn't cause VMartin's unbanning. VMartin was banned because someone erroneously told me he was a sockpuppet of JAD. Alan Fox showed me that was wrong, and so he was unbanned.
Posted by: Louis on June 11 2007,15:55

Phew.

I think!

Louis
Posted by: C.J.O'Brien on June 11 2007,16:19

There are sockpuppets, and then there are socks that no one would ever, ever think of using to make a puppet...

hmm, well, Jack Handy I'm not.
Posted by: Kristine on June 11 2007,17:30

Oh! My! < What a coincidence! >
I suppose it's like trying to hold back the tides. But it's not my turn to hold JAD's hand. ;)  800 posts! Aren't you fascinated? Me, neither.
Posted by: Dr.GH on June 11 2007,17:45

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 11 2007,14:10)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 11 2007,13:59)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course the whole "evolution in action" is fully reversible
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How do you do that then?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Prayer?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Naw!  Hold your breath until you pass out.  Or use a brick- hard aginst your skull many times.


Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 11 2007,18:00

I have an idea. Let's let FTK, Larry Fafarman, and VMartin battle to the death on their own thread here. Whichever one comes out alive in a month wins, and gets to moderate their own thread here.

I've noticed for years now that the crackpots never talk to each other on these blogs, and that's just not right.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 11 2007,18:17

well, the first problem is that people who share similar mental disabilities typically end up enabling each other's delusions.

neither wins when two schizophrenics debate each other.

second problem is...

how on earth do you tell who "won"?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 11 2007,19:01

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 11 2007,18:17)
well, the first problem is that people who share similar mental disabilities typically end up enabling each other's delusions.

neither wins when two schizophrenics debate each other.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's not my problem. ;)

 

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

second problem is...

how on earth do you tell who "won"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I envision a sort of Godzilla-meets-Rodan-meets-Mothra type scenario, where the three of them flame and blast each other for a month. There's no way all three of them can survive that indefinitely, so whoever's left standing last 'wins'.

Maybe to help things along, we can include Davison instead of VMartin. With his egomania and insistence that Goddidit-then-died, there's no way they'd befriend each other.


Posted by: stevestory on June 11 2007,19:02

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 11 2007,19:00)
I've noticed for years now that the crackpots never talk to each other on these blogs, and that's just not right.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wonder why that is.
Posted by: stevestory on June 11 2007,19:04

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 11 2007,20:01)
Maybe to help things along, we can include Davison instead of VMartin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Davison has been very banned. I am not privy to exactly why, and haven't asked, but I would guess the answer is something like "relentless insanity".
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 11 2007,19:12

Quote (stevestory @ June 11 2007,19:02)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 11 2007,19:00)
I've noticed for years now that the crackpots never talk to each other on these blogs, and that's just not right.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wonder why that is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's a sociologically very interesting question. I think it's because even the crackpots can tell that the other crackpots are crackpots, and thus they don't want to be associated with them. Crackpots are looking for acceptance, not solidarity with other 'pirahnas'.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 11 2007,19:53

wait...

isn't UD a complete counter to that?  isn't it a place where loonies converse with each other, endlessly reinforcing their own lunacy?

I'm wondering why we need a new thread for that, when we can readily observe it on a daily basis?

am I missing something?
Posted by: Kristine on June 11 2007,22:42

Quote (stevestory @ June 11 2007,18:04)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 11 2007,20:01)
Maybe to help things along, we can include Davison instead of VMartin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Davison has been very banned. I am not privy to exactly why, and haven't asked, but I would guess the answer is something like "relentless insanity".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Uh-huh!

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Kristine

< You are a cheap little mindless uninformed >, uneducated nothing who hangs out with others of your own ilk over at After The Bar Closes, Elsberry's Alamo and the last bastion of Darwinian mysticism except for Pharyngula, where another, Pharyngula Z. (constantly ejaculating) Myers, like yourself a congenital worshipper of the biggest charlatan in the history of science...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

...and blah, blah, blah. At least I'm not a mediocre nothing. ;)

"Insanity" - check  :p But next time, watch him snuggle smarmily up to me like nothing happened. Because I think he truly forgets.

Senility - check. That's why I put up with more insults than DaveScot launched at me (well, that and plus I don't want him proudly crowing "Kristine banned me!"). What a loony-tune!  :O He's unique.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 11 2007,22:58

More like "complete inability to stay on topic". Mind you, digression is pretty standard fare, but people posting here more or less do touch base with the topic at hand from time to time.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 11 2007,23:09

I always found him to be rather disturbing, actually.

to see someone degrade mentally from where he was publishing papers in Science, to his current state, is simply hard to watch.

frankly, and I doubt I am alone in this, I would rather not be reminded of it by his daily postings.

there is plenty enough of his current material out there for any person who still IS sane to readily be able to make the conclusion without another invitation for him to do it all over again here.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 11 2007,23:12

Quote (Kristine @ June 11 2007,22:42)
Quote (stevestory @ June 11 2007,18:04)
   
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 11 2007,20:01)
Maybe to help things along, we can include Davison instead of VMartin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Davison has been very banned. I am not privy to exactly why, and haven't asked, but I would guess the answer is something like "relentless insanity".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Uh-huh!  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Kristine

< You are a cheap little mindless uninformed >, uneducated nothing who hangs out with others of your own ilk over at After The Bar Closes, Elsberry's Alamo and the last bastion of Darwinian mysticism except for Pharyngula, where another, Pharyngula Z. (constantly ejaculating) Myers, like yourself a congenital worshipper of the biggest charlatan in the history of science...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

...and blah, blah, blah. At least I'm not a mediocre nothing. ;)

"Insanity" - check  :p But next time, watch him snuggle smarmily up to me like nothing happened. Because I think he truly forgets.

Senility - check. That's why I put up with more insults than DaveScot launched at me (well, that and plus I don't want him proudly crowing "Kristine banned me!"). What a loony-tune!  :O He's unique.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, Kristine's a regular Mahatma Gandhi!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You are a frightened, verbally abusive, lonely man with a brilliant mind that you are not using right now, and I refuse to be angry with you. You are no gentleman but I forgive you.

Whatever you are going through, and however you behave, just keep in mind that whenever you really need to talk, or if you are in trouble, I am here.

You are getting old, and this fight that you are waging is not worth your life, your precious life, nor your time, nor your energy. Someday you are going to need a real human being to talk to, so remember that I am here.

I refuse to engage in these fights any longer. I have nothing, really, against you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Turn that other cheek, girl!!!
Posted by: Kristine on June 11 2007,23:41

Yeah, he'd better leave me something in his will after that one. :)

Crazy old dude. I'm surprised he remembers his own name.
Posted by: Alan Fox on June 12 2007,02:18



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have an idea. Let's let FTK, Larry Fafarman, and VMartin battle to the death on their own thread here. Whichever one comes out alive in a month wins, and gets to moderate their own thread here.

I've noticed for years now that the crackpots never talk to each other on these blogs, and that's just not right.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, Larry has been posting on my blog recently (achieving some level of coherence) and AtBC cropped up, and he claimed never to have posted here, (I guess there may be one or two referred posts on the bathroom wall) and said he was not interested as you guys wind him up.

I could try a thread for Larry, Martin, Ftk, JAD and DaveScot if he's interested.  JAD has been tearing into Dave over his global warming threads recently.

Well, one can dream...
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 12 2007,03:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
and said he was not interested as you guys wind him up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



read as:

call him on his BS continually.

Kevin Vicklund had the patience of a saint in that regard.
Posted by: Louis on June 12 2007,03:33

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 12 2007,05:58)
More like "complete inability to stay on topic". Mind you, digression is pretty standard fare, but people posting here more or less do touch base with the topic at hand from time to time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


During the war I met a wonderful chap by the name of Lola Bigguns. Marvellous bloke, post operative transsexual. Went on to be something massive in aeronautical engineering. anyway the reason I mention this is because I saw a plane yesterday whilst barbecuing some steaks. Lovely stakes they were they were Kobi beef from a Wagyu herd that roams around on the grass ina meadow near my house. Funny thing grass. Can't walk on it, illegal to smoke it. Speaking of smoking, England goes smoke free on 1st of July, which when you think about it is close to the 4th of July.

Happy Independence Day America!

Louis

P.S. As a piece of off topic drivel, I'm quite proud of that.

P.P.S. I reckon JAD and Larry should be excluded from any tard fest on medical grounds. Tard is only funny when it comes from people who should know better. When they are deeply in need of help it becomes a little unpleasant to watch. I go with a 3 way fight between Clouser, AFDave and DaveScot.
Posted by: stevestory on June 12 2007,04:07

Quote (Kristine @ June 11 2007,23:42)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Kristine

< You are a cheap little mindless uninformed >, uneducated nothing who hangs out with others of your own ilk over at After The Bar Closes, Elsberry's Alamo and the last bastion of Darwinian mysticism except for Pharyngula, where another, Pharyngula Z. (constantly ejaculating) Myers, like yourself a congenital worshipper of the biggest charlatan in the history of science...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Elsberry's Alamo! LOL. He can be kind of funny in his insults. I still get a kick out of him calling Davescot a "homozygous pile of garbage."
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp on June 12 2007,07:23

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 11 2007,23:09)
I always found him to be rather disturbing, actually.

to see someone degrade mentally from where he was publishing papers in Science, to his current state, is simply hard to watch.

frankly, and I doubt I am alone in this, I would rather not be reminded of it by his daily postings.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You of course mean his twice a minute posting.
Posted by: Kristine on June 12 2007,09:49

Quote (stevestory @ June 12 2007,03:07)
Elsberry's Alamo! LOL. He can be kind of funny in his insults. I still get a kick out of him calling Davescot a "homozygous pile of garbage."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Gotta admit that this had me in stitches for weeks:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why don't you join up with the other two multisexual femme fatales to complete the female triumvirate of evolution experts. Then you might found a colony on the island of Lesbos where you can spend the rest of your useless lives admiring one another with GAY abandon.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No snarky ones since my Kum-ba-ya answer. Half of me is relieved; half of me is disappointed. :)

Well, what him be ALL cuddly and friendly-like to me next time. Ick. Now that is disturbing.
Posted by: VMartin on June 12 2007,12:59



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

Davison has been very banned. I am not privy to exactly why, and haven't asked, but I would guess the answer is something like "relentless insanity".

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



And I guess the problem is John Davison's concept of prescribed evolution you are so afraid of. An idea of directed evolution is something darwinists hate at most. They somehow feel deep inside that mystery of life can't be an outcome of random mutation&natural selection. To supress their conscience they only  bawl as if at a football match. Yet darwinists have no arguments - see this thread  or One blog a day where John is participating.

It is also weird that folks here mentioned insanity. It looks here like in a cage of fools. Many of darwinists are probably ventilating here their atheistic frustration from their senseless life.

Also the literary surrealistic woman dividing her time between oriental dancing and neodarwinism is a curious case.

So I would reccomend that John Davison should be let in, becasue his opinions are sound and his concept of evolution shed light on evolutionary process.
Posted by: JohnW on June 12 2007,13:04

Quote (VMartin @ June 12 2007,12:59)


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

Davison has been very banned. I am not privy to exactly why, and haven't asked, but I would guess the answer is something like "relentless insanity".

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



And I guess the problem is John Davison's concept of prescribed evolution you are so afraid of. An idea of directed evolution is something darwinists hate at most. They somehow feel deep inside that mystery of life can't be an outcome of random mutation&natural selection. To supress their conscience they only  bawl as if at a football match. Yet darwinists have no arguments - see this thread  or One blog a day where John is participating.

It is also weird that folks here mentioned insanity. It looks here like in a cage of fools. Many of darwinists are probably ventilating here their atheistic frustration from their senseless life.

Also the literary surrealistic woman dividing her time between oriental dancing and neodarwinism is a curious case.

So I would reccomend that John Davison should be let in, becasue his opinions are sound and his concept of evolution shed light on evolutionary process.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you for explaining what I feel deep inside.  I had no idea I felt that.

Now run along, and come back when you've found a way to falsify "directed evolution".
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 12 2007,13:07

Quote (VMartin @ June 12 2007,12:59)


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

Davison has been very banned. I am not privy to exactly why, and haven't asked, but I would guess the answer is something like "relentless insanity".

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



And I guess the problem is John Davison's concept of prescribed evolution you are so afraid of. An idea of directed evolution is something darwinists hate at most. They somehow feel deep inside that mystery of life can't be an outcome of random mutation&natural selection. To supress their conscience they only  bawl as if at a football match. Yet darwinists have no arguments - see this thread  or One blog a day where John is participating.

It is also weird that folks here mentioned insanity. It looks here like in a cage of fools. Many of darwinists are probably ventilating here their atheistic frustration from their senseless life.

Also the literary surrealistic woman dividing her time between oriental dancing and neodarwinism is a curious case.

So I would reccomend that John Davison should be let in, becasue his opinions are sound and his concept of evolution shed light on evolutionary process.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, run along and play child.

I say child because of how simplistic and, I have to say, silly, your arguments are.

Another thing dawns on me, WHAT exactly is wrong with being an atheist?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 12 2007,13:58



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

So I would reccomend that John Davison should be let in, becasue his opinions are sound and his concept of evolution shed light on evolutionary process.

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



Not gonna happen, not so long as there is no sign that Davison has not fundamentally changed his approach to discussion. He was given loads of chances to shape up, and demonstrated vividly that he was a detriment to discussion. So any notion that he should be reinstated would be an extraordinary claim requiring, wouldn't you know, extraordinary evidence. And since that was a moderation decision, further discussion of it here can be considered excessively annoying immediately. If you think you have the extraordinary evidence in hand, communicate that via PM or email, not in discussion threads.
Posted by: VMartin on June 12 2007,15:41



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

And since that was a moderation decision, further discussion of it here can be considered excessively annoying immediately. If you think you have the extraordinary evidence in hand, communicate that via PM or email, not in discussion threads.

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



This is really very interesting. The name and topic of this thread is as far as I see  

Topic: JAD was banned again from UD..., Can we let him post here again?


So what is this topic about?  Does "Can we let him post here again" mean in neodarwinian newspeak that any darwinists here can denigrate John Davison whenever he likes but adressing the topic itself is somehow excessively annoying ? And must be adressed via PM or email, not in this discussion thread ?
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 12 2007,15:52

Quote (VMartin @ June 12 2007,15:41)


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

And since that was a moderation decision, further discussion of it here can be considered excessively annoying immediately. If you think you have the extraordinary evidence in hand, communicate that via PM or email, not in discussion threads.

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



This is really very interesting. The name and topic of this thread is as far as I see  

Topic: JAD was banned again from UD..., Can we let him post here again?


So what is this topic about?  Does "Can we let him post here again" mean in neodarwinian newspeak that any darwinists here can denigrate John Davison whenever he likes but adressing the topic itself is somehow excessively annoying ? And must be adressed via PM or email, not in this discussion thread ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The thread is old, and the decision was made a good while ago. A few people have ventured that he should be allowed back since then, but the moderators banned him for a reason, and he's not coming back.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 12 2007,15:53



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So what is this topic about?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



the only interesting question you have EVER asked, on any forum.

unfortunately, nobody cares about the answer.
Posted by: Kristine on June 12 2007,17:11

Quote (VMartin @ June 12 2007,11:59)
Also the literary surrealistic woman dividing her time between oriental dancing and neodarwinism is a curious case.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



:p  And why is that, my Nabokov-misquoting nibbler of nonsensical 'Net threads?

I have now become your JAD's amateur psychotherapist, in between work, play, and shakin' the blues (Nabokov's blues) away! Versatile, I am.

It's better than being a broken record skipping incessantly in a deserted room, like some people that I could mention. ;)
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 12 2007,17:24

Quote (VMartin @ June 12 2007,12:59)


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

Davison has been very banned. I am not privy to exactly why, and haven't asked, but I would guess the answer is something like "relentless insanity".

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



And I guess the problem is John Davison's concept of prescribed evolution you are so afraid of. An idea of directed evolution is something darwinists hate at most. They somehow feel deep inside that mystery of life can't be an outcome of random mutation&natural selection. To supress their conscience they only  bawl as if at a football match. Yet darwinists have no arguments - see this thread  or One blog a day where John is participating.

It is also weird that folks here mentioned insanity. It looks here like in a cage of fools. Many of darwinists are probably ventilating here their atheistic frustration from their senseless life.

Also the literary surrealistic woman dividing her time between oriental dancing and neodarwinism is a curious case.

So I would reccomend that John Davison should be let in, becasue his opinions are sound and his concept of evolution shed light on evolutionary process.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Out of curiosity, VMartin, do you agree with John's belief that God is now dead?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 12 2007,17:27



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

So what is this topic about?  Does "Can we let him post here again" mean in neodarwinian newspeak that any darwinists here can denigrate John Davison whenever he likes but adressing the topic itself is somehow excessively annoying ? And must be adressed via PM or email, not in this discussion thread ?

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



That's a point.

The position I'm taking is that Davison lost his posting privileges despite being given way too many extra chances to show that he could be a positive influence on discussion. He was treated specially, and extended posting privileges on PT far longer than someone without his credentials would have been tolerated. All that means that Davison doesn't get to post here, not himself and not by proxy. If anyone wants to discuss that topic anymore, do it via private channels.

Topic closed.


end


Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a
Ikonboard © 2001 Jarvis Entertainment Group, Inc.