Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Coloration of animals, mimicry, aposematism

Pages: (13) < ... 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... >

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2007,15:35    Martin, why can't you offer up an alternative to 'Darwinism'? Do you perhaps have some kind of religious agenda here which you're clumsily trying to hide? -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Steviepinhead Posts: 532 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2007,15:45    Vmaroon: Quote It sounds unbelievable! (I took out the extra space--I know you're spacey, but I'm going to assume this one was a typo...) Gosh, another great scientificalistic reason why Vmaroon doesn't believe in the efficacy of natural selection. What's next: "It doesn't smell good"?  "It doesn't me arouse"?  "My mind isn't cavernous enough to encompass the very idea"?  "Not enough Latin roots"? Let us know when you have an alternative to propose to "Darwinistic" ("I don't like beards on men") "selectionism" (and don't forget to register with your draft board today!). ...Or, uh, when you've probed around in your cavern long enough to actually locate a scientific objection that you can actually explain, using Latin roots or not.

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2007,15:51    Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 22 2007,14:44) Because they do not have  the same enemies as ants have obviously natural selection do not shaped them. Just stop for a minute and think about what you wrote there. -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2007,16:21    Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 22 2007,13:57) This shallow ravine is inpassable or what? Give me the whole article! Easy Martin. I can't do that. Access requires registration, but you can ask the authors to send you a copy if you like. The ravine is passable, as you would see by reading the abstract. If it had been impassable, they couldn't have demonstrated anything from field observation and population genetics. They did some fitness measures, though. And they confirm the results they got from allozymes data.

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2007,13:49    Selectionhead: Quote Or, uh, when you've probed around in your cavern long enough to actually locate a scientific objection that you can actually explain, using Latin roots or not. Do you have any explanation of the fact that majority of English words have Latin roots? Are there any "constraints" in English that didn't allow to accept also Latin grammar?  You know Celtic rules of grammar together with Latin words... -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2007,13:59    Improvious. Quote Just stop for a minute and think about what you wrote there. I will try again. There are beetles living in caverns that look like ants. Sometimes their similarity with ants even surpass darwinian so-called "mimics" of ants. But those ants living in caverns do not have the same predators as ants. Consequently it weren't ants predators that selected such ant-like forms. We are facing some kind of transformational sequences of beetles. The idea that "ants-like" beetles which live near ants are mimicking them is often only unproved darwinian fantasy. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2007,14:07    Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 24 2007,13:59) Improvious.   Quote Just stop for a minute and think about what you wrote there. I will try again. There are beetles living in caverns that look like ants. Sometimes their similarity with ants even surpass darwinian so-called "mimics" of ants. But those ants living in caverns do not have the same predators as ants. Consequently it weren't ants predators that selected such ant-like forms. We are facing some kind of transformational sequences of beetles. The idea that "ants-like" beetles which live near ants are mimicking them is often only unproved darwinian fantasy. VMarting, even HeroIsReal's thread is beating yours, it's pages ahead of you 9 to your 7. C'mon man, keep your game up. You'll never get to AFDave status at this rate! -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2007,14:11    Quote Are there any "constraints" in English that didn't allow to accept also Latin grammar?  You know Celtic rules of grammar together with Latin words... They don't teach linguistics in Slovakia any better than they teach biology, I see. Marty, we're STILL waiting for your explanation of what should replace 'Darwinismus'. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2007,14:13    Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 22 2007,16:21)     Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 22 2007,13:57) This shallow ravine is inpassable or what? Give me the whole article! Easy Martin. I can't do that. Access requires registration, but you can ask the authors to send you a copy if you like. The ravine is passable, as you would see by reading the abstract. If it had been impassable, they couldn't have demonstrated anything from field observation and population genetics. They did some fitness measures, though. And they confirm the results they got from allozymes data. And what is the opinion of the neutral-driftists to such an surprising outcome? We should wait for their research now, what do you think? Sometimes these guys using the same methods in the same areas come to the opposite conclusions. The dispute between selectionists and neutral-driftists is interesting. Both gropus consider themselves to be the scientists who are able to explain secrets of life and evolution. But they remind me of those groups of reformists and oportunists (or stalinists and trockists) who disputed about materialistic backgrounds in social processes in the frame of marxism. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2007,14:27    Quote The dispute between selectionists and neutral-driftists is interesting. Both gropus consider themselves to be the scientists who are able to explain secrets of life and evolution. But they remind me of those groups of reformists and oportunists (or stalinists and trockists) who disputed about materialistic backgrounds in social processes in the frame of marxism. Good, Marty, it'd been a while since you compared Darwinists to Stalinists. So. Marty. Darwinismus is bankrupt. We ask you: with what should we replace it? -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2007,14:56    Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 24 2007,14:59) Improvious.   Quote Just stop for a minute and think about what you wrote there. I will try again. There are beetles living in caverns that look like ants. Sometimes their similarity with ants even surpass darwinian so-called "mimics" of ants. But those ants living in caverns do not have the same predators as ants. Consequently it weren't ants predators that selected such ant-like forms. We are facing some kind of transformational sequences of beetles. The idea that "ants-like" beetles which live near ants are mimicking them is often only unproved darwinian fantasy. He still doesn't get it, does he? -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2007,22:10    Quote He still doesn't get it, does he? He seems to think that "Darwinists" tend to scream "MICICRY" whenever anything alive resembles anything else that's alive, without checking other factors prior to forming a conclusion. It's getting monotonous. Henry

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2007,03:14    Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 24 2007,14:13) Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 22 2007,16:21)       Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 22 2007,13:57) This shallow ravine is inpassable or what? Give me the whole article! Easy Martin. I can't do that. Access requires registration, but you can ask the authors to send you a copy if you like. The ravine is passable, as you would see by reading the abstract. If it had been impassable, they couldn't have demonstrated anything from field observation and population genetics. They did some fitness measures, though. And they confirm the results they got from allozymes data. And what is the opinion of the neutral-driftists to such an surprising outcome? We should wait for their research now, what do you think? Sometimes these guys using the same methods in the same areas come to the opposite conclusions. The dispute between selectionists and neutral-driftists is interesting. Both gropus consider themselves to be the scientists who are able to explain secrets of life and evolution. But they remind me of those groups of reformists and oportunists (or stalinists and trockists) who disputed about materialistic backgrounds in social processes in the frame of marxism. There's no "dispute between selectionists and neutral-driftists" on such topic (and almost anywhere else). Everyone agrees that most molecular polymorphism is neutral, which can be the case for the allozymes that show no differentiation between both sides of the ravine. However, coloration shows a very sharp cline, and local selection is confirmed by fitness measures of transplanted plants. What's your explanation, Martin? The fact that you resort to comparisons between science and politics is speaking. Can't comment on the biological evidence?

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2007,12:36    Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 25 2007,03:14)     Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 24 2007,14:13)       Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 22 2007,16:21)           Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 22 2007,13:57) This shallow ravine is inpassable or what? Give me the whole article! Easy Martin. I can't do that. Access requires registration, but you can ask the authors to send you a copy if you like. The ravine is passable, as you would see by reading the abstract. If it had been impassable, they couldn't have demonstrated anything from field observation and population genetics. They did some fitness measures, though. And they confirm the results they got from allozymes data. And what is the opinion of the neutral-driftists to such an surprising outcome? We should wait for their research now, what do you think? Sometimes these guys using the same methods in the same areas come to the opposite conclusions. The dispute between selectionists and neutral-driftists is interesting. Both gropus consider themselves to be the scientists who are able to explain secrets of life and evolution. But they remind me of those groups of reformists and oportunists (or stalinists and trockists) who disputed about materialistic backgrounds in social processes in the frame of marxism. There's no "dispute between selectionists and neutral-driftists" on such topic (and almost anywhere else). Everyone agrees that most molecular polymorphism is neutral, which can be the case for the allozymes that show no differentiation between both sides of the ravine. However, coloration shows a very sharp cline, and local selection is confirmed by fitness measures of transplanted plants. What's your explanation, Martin? The fact that you resort to comparisons between science and politics is speaking. Can't comment on the biological evidence? What evidence? In the abstract of the article you have given as an scientific example of "natural selection in action" is written:     Quote Sewall Wright first applied his model of "isolation by distance" to investigate spatial patterns of flower color in Linanthus. He concluded that the distribution of flower color morphs was due to random genetic drift, and that Linanthus provided an example of his shifting balance theory of evolution. Good remark. It shows how plausible all these evolutionary "models" really are. Everyone can create his model - driftists have theirs and selectionists theirs. It is obviously nothing more than childish play all these "models".     Quote ...reciprocal transplant experiments revealed natural selection favoring the resident morph, and soils and the dominant members of the plant community differed between regions. Oddly enough one of the authors of the article Paulette Bierzychudek has on her own page this picture Obviously this picture is either arranged or the soils differ in 2 cm distance substantially.   Quote These results support the hypothesis that local differences in flower color are due to natural selection, not due to genetic drift. So natural selection eliminated all red and yellow and blue-white combination of colors of this flower? Do you believe it? -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2007,13:13    Marty, why is it that you refuse to ever offer an alternative to your much-hated 'Darwinism'? Seriously, if Darwinism is so awful, shouldn't you be telling us what we should be doing instead? C'mon Marty, no one's interested in your babbling, not even Davison. Tell us what you propose instead. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2007,13:48    Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 30 2007,12:36) Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 25 2007,03:14)     Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 24 2007,14:13)       Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 22 2007,16:21)             Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 22 2007,13:57) This shallow ravine is inpassable or what? Give me the whole article! Easy Martin. I can't do that. Access requires registration, but you can ask the authors to send you a copy if you like. The ravine is passable, as you would see by reading the abstract. If it had been impassable, they couldn't have demonstrated anything from field observation and population genetics. They did some fitness measures, though. And they confirm the results they got from allozymes data. And what is the opinion of the neutral-driftists to such an surprising outcome? We should wait for their research now, what do you think? Sometimes these guys using the same methods in the same areas come to the opposite conclusions. The dispute between selectionists and neutral-driftists is interesting. Both gropus consider themselves to be the scientists who are able to explain secrets of life and evolution. But they remind me of those groups of reformists and oportunists (or stalinists and trockists) who disputed about materialistic backgrounds in social processes in the frame of marxism. There's no "dispute between selectionists and neutral-driftists" on such topic (and almost anywhere else). Everyone agrees that most molecular polymorphism is neutral, which can be the case for the allozymes that show no differentiation between both sides of the ravine. However, coloration shows a very sharp cline, and local selection is confirmed by fitness measures of transplanted plants. What's your explanation, Martin? The fact that you resort to comparisons between science and politics is speaking. Can't comment on the biological evidence? What evidence? In the abstract of the article you have given as an scientific example of "natural selection in action" is written:     Quote Sewall Wright first applied his model of "isolation by distance" to investigate spatial patterns of flower color in Linanthus. He concluded that the distribution of flower color morphs was due to random genetic drift, and that Linanthus provided an example of his shifting balance theory of evolution. Good remark. It shows how plausible all these evolutionary "models" really are. Everyone can create his model - driftists have theirs and selectionists theirs. It is obviously nothing more than childish play all these "models".     Quote ...reciprocal transplant experiments revealed natural selection favoring the resident morph, and soils and the dominant members of the plant community differed between regions. Oddly enough one of the authors of the article Paulette Bierzychudek has on her own page this picture Obviously this picture is either arranged or the soils differ in 2 cm distance substantially.     Quote These results support the hypothesis that local differences in flower color are due to natural selection, not due to genetic drift. So natural selection eliminated all red and yellow and blue-white combination of colors of this flower? Do you believe it? If "Darwinism" is wrong, what would you have replace it? -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2007,14:42    Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 30 2007,12:36) Good remark. It shows how plausible all these evolutionary "models" really are. Everyone can create his model - driftists have theirs and selectionists theirs. It is obviously nothing more than childish play all these "models".       Quote ...reciprocal transplant experiments revealed natural selection favoring the resident morph, and soils and the dominant members of the plant community differed between regions. Oddly enough one of the authors of the article Paulette Bierzychudek has on her own page this picture Obviously this picture is either arranged or the soils differ in 2 cm distance substantially.     Quote These results support the hypothesis that local differences in flower color are due to natural selection, not due to genetic drift. So natural selection eliminated all red and yellow and blue-white combination of colors of this flower? Do you believe it? Wright didn't have the genetic tools to test his claims. And the strong difference in coloration is seen in a particular ravine. Perhaps soil is not the only factor selecting for color there. And things are not all black and white Martin. Perhaps the photographer selected a particular spot were both color were in sympatry. You're not going to refute their conclusions using a single photo. You're not that naive, are you? There's a very sharp cline in flower color across the ravine, but this is not seen on neutral markers. What is your explanation, Martin? We're waiting.

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2007,14:49    your 'models' are just based on 'facts' anyway.   right martin? Do you disbelieve in heredity, you dishonest coward? If so, admit it. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,16:11    Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 30 2007,14:49) your 'models' are just based on 'facts' anyway.   right martin? Do you disbelieve in heredity, you dishonest coward? If so, admit it. But it is you who is a coward. It is you who run away from discussion about "ant's mimicry". You are unable to defend the "ant mimicry" links you have given and which I have tried to discuss. But no wonder. Darwinists see selection everywhere. Even Zebras have some kind of protective coloration (oddly enough Zebras stripes are used at roads to give way the walkers, hehe.). That lions are hunting predominantly at nights and that antilopes having no stripes are thriving in the same areas very well is only a detail for selectionists. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,16:27    Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 31 2007,16:11) Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 30 2007,14:49) your 'models' are just based on 'facts' anyway.   right martin? Do you disbelieve in heredity, you dishonest coward? If so, admit it. But it is you who is a coward. It is you who run away from discussion about "ant's mimicry". You are unable to defend the "ant mimicry" links you have given and which I have tried to discuss. But no wonder. Darwinists see selection everywhere. Even Zebras have some kind of protective coloration (oddly enough Zebras stripes are used at roads to give way the walkers, hehe.). That lions are hunting predominantly at nights and that antilopes having no stripes are thriving in the same areas very well is only a detail for selectionists. Marty, why can't you offer an alternative to Darwinism? What exactly are you trying to conceal? -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Steviepinhead Posts: 532 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,16:33    Oh, the excitement as I open the AtBC main page, only to see that Vmaroon has again deigned to grace the discussion of coloration and mimicry he started, and on which his only point seems to be that evolution, natural selection, and the other natural mechanisms accepted by the world's scientists can't possibly be responsible for the colors and similarities we see in nature. Once again, my anticipation rises!  Arouses...!  Er, whatever! Once again, I turn to Vmaroon's latest post to see what it is instead of selection and other natural mechanisms he posits to explain the mysterious phenomena of the natural world... When to my surprise what do I see, but yet another empty post, devoid of any semblance of an alternative mechanism--no hypothesis, no model, no theory, no arousal... Just more blithering evasiveness. Crestfallen, I creep away to my cavern, where I live with my aunt, er, ant, er, beetle, er, spider-- Once again my ravine, er, ravenous, er, raffish curiosity is destined to be rebuffed, soiled, and rejected. When, O when, will Vmaroon stop putzing and futzing and swishing around, and gratify us with some actual instance of his brilliance and glory?   When, O when, will my arousal find surcease? Not today, I reckon.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,16:34    Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 31 2007,16:11) Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 30 2007,14:49) your 'models' are just based on 'facts' anyway.   right martin? Do you disbelieve in heredity, you dishonest coward? If so, admit it. But it is you who is a coward. It is you who run away from discussion about "ant's mimicry". But Marty, it is you who run away from question: DO you disbelieve in heredity? -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,16:59    Quote (Steviepinhead @ Oct. 31 2007,16:33) Oh, the excitement as I open the AtBC main page, only to see that Vmaroon has again deigned to grace the discussion of coloration and mimicry he started, and on which his only point seems to be that evolution, natural selection, and the other natural mechanisms accepted by the world's scientists can't possibly be responsible for the colors and similarities we see in nature. Once again, my anticipation rises!  Arouses...!  Er, whatever! Once again, I turn to Vmaroon's latest post to see what it is instead of selection and other natural mechanisms he posits to explain the mysterious phenomena of the natural world... When to my surprise what do I see, but yet another empty post, devoid of any semblance of an alternative mechanism--no hypothesis, no model, no theory, no arousal... Just more blithering evasiveness. Crestfallen, I creep away to my cavern, where I live with my aunt, er, ant, er, beetle, er, spider-- Once again my ravine, er, ravenous, er, raffish curiosity is destined to be rebuffed, soiled, and rejected. When, O when, will Vmaroon stop putzing and futzing and swishing around, and gratify us with some actual instance of his brilliance and glory?   When, O when, will my arousal find surcease? Not today, I reckon. Newtonian period: Having two magnets that attract each other you would insist that it is gravity as the force behind the phenomena - because the magnetism and electricity was unknown in those times. When I had told you it is impossible, you would have believe it is gravity neverthenless - because I have no alternative explanation. The same today. I tell you it is no way selection behind coloration of animals. I don't know what it is. But because I don't know you would insist it is natural selection. Sometimes we might know it - it is transformational sequences. As in the case of beetles that look like ants but do not live with ants, or with Syrphidae  that look like wasps but are not their mimics etc... -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,17:07    Quote The same today. I tell you it is no way selection behind coloration of animals. I don't know what it is. But because I don't know you would insist it is natural selection. Is this your way of finally admitting that while you don't agree with natural selection, you have NO IDEA what alternative theory would explain the facts better? So basically you're saying "I don't know shit about how to explain variation in nature, but I sure hate Darwinism" -- right? We're dazzled Marty. You're an amazing scientific mind. So, DO you disbelieve in heredity? -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,18:31    So, you have no alternative, yet you know it is none of the posited factors that are responsible for whatever it is you are disputing at the moment? C'mon Vicky.  Unload that high octane tard on me.  I wanna hear about morphic fields.  Tell me what you know, and I'll hush until you are done.  I'm dying inside to know just what is wrong with these materialists darwinistsists selectionists adaptationists whateverists. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,18:32    Walking past a derelict bum on the sidewalk that is in the process of shitting on himself is not 'running away' Vicky. Now man up and deal with the issue. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

hereoisreal Posts: 745 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,19:05    Erasmus, don't forget mounteverists. To me, after studying a little about the human eye, perceiving color is more fascinating than color's creation.  Without distinguishing color, one could not see a rainbow, even with 20/20. -------------- 360  miracles and more at: http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5) It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

Steviepinhead Posts: 532 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,19:15    I think the hero just made more sense in his one post that you have in all your posts to date, Vmaroon. But at least you did admit you're clueless.   That's a place to start, at least. It's not a place from which to condescend, to dismiss, or deride. But it is a place to start...

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2007,03:45    Quote (hereoisreal @ Oct. 31 2007,19:05) Erasmus, don't forget mounteverists. To me, after studying a little about the human eye, perceiving color is more fascinating than color's creation.  Without distinguishing color, one could not see a rainbow, even with 20/20. That's another point. We don't know how exactly are colors perceived by animals. Consequently colors we see are many times different as those perceived by let say birds. The very good example was given by Majerus about peppered moths resting on some kind of lichens. "Cryptic" for human eye they were very conspicuous in UV light, which is visible for birds. You see than all darwinian explanation about mimicry coloration are wrong in such cases. The problem is complicated bz the fact that we can see a color frequency not entering into our eye - Hering red-green channel is localized into deeper layers of retina. The most intriguing Edwin Lands effect support the Goethian theory of color perception  at most. Color perception is often the effect of the brain and is independent from the spectrum entering the eye. Consequently all cryptic, warning coloratin etc are probably only darwinian antropomorphistic fantasies where much work has to be done instead. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

hereoisreal Posts: 745 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2007,07:46    V,  I’m confused.  Reading between the lines, are you saying we see something we don’t see? My wife say’s I have perfect eyes in my AZ.  She calls it 20/20 hindsight. There was this optimist that married a doubting Thomas. They had a child who became  an optometrist. A wise queen and a dumb king had a child they named ‘Wisdom’. Zero -------------- 360  miracles and more at: http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5) It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

Pages: (13) < ... 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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