RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (14) < ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 >   
  Topic: JAD was banned again from UD..., Can we let him post here again?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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?

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.

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?

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: 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.


[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.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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.

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.

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2006,09:19   

Quote
Problem is, he has absolutely nothing worth saying.


I can see that is a bit of a snag. :D

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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.

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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'?



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.


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.

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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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?


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?  


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?

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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.



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).

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

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: 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

@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.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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'?



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.

Um, you didn't answer the question, John 'VMartin'.

Tho that shouldn't surprise anyone.

--------------
"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

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2006,12:05   

Quote
Um, you didn't answer the question, John 'VMartin'.

Tho that shouldn't surprise anyone.

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.


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.

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2006,13:20   

Quote
Kristine you are witty.

Because I still have my wits.
 
Quote
So I would not ridicule prominent writers as Nietzsche or Nabokov who ridiculed darwinism.

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

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Ra-Úl



Posts: 93
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2006,14:55   

Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 17 2006,13:20)
 
Quote
Kristine you are witty.

Because I still have my wits.
   
Quote
So I would not ridicule prominent writers as Nietzsche or Nabokov who ridiculed darwinism.

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

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

--------------
Beauty is that which makes us desperate. - P Valery

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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

--------------
Bye.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2006,21:52   

Quote
There was a long dispute between Punnet and Poulton and Fisher only added some new arguments


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.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2006,22:00   

Quote
but at least John can no longer claim censorship prevents him from promoting his PEH.


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.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: 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. :)

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: 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.


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.

Why such a harsh tone?

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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.

--------------
"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

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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:

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.


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.

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

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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


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."


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

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

Perissodactyls were once much more diverse...Only seventeen species of perissodactyls remain on the Earth today, a shadow of the group's former glory.


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.

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?  


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?

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

  
  417 replies since Oct. 11 2006,12:18 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (14) < ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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