Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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! -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2006,12:23    No.

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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. -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: 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. 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.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2006,12:36    Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 11 2006,17:23) No. 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. Doesn't JAD still have a blog of his own? Or did he mothball it last time the ashtrays got full? -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: 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. 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. 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.

Richardthughes Posts: 11177 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2006,13:25    With Heddle and JAD gone, UD is out of 'scientists'. Chock full of engineers, though. -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: 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. 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. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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. Don't they still have Phil Skell? -------------- "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

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4966 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2006,17:28    Quote Don't they still have Phil Skell? Haven't you heard? Phil Skell turns out to be unnecessary to the progress of science. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Bob O'H Posts: 2561 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2006,19:25    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 11 2006,17:36) Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 11 2006,17:23) No. Got that? Write it down! I love it so! Bob -------------- It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: 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. 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. 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.

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2006,22:33    It's "Got that? Write that down." Alan could probably confirm this.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: 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. JAD was an actual scientist at one time, before he lost his marbles and went stark raving mad. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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. JAD was an actual scientist at one time, before he lost his marbles and went stark raving mad. 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! -------------- 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. 12 2006,04:01    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 11 2006,22:28) Quote Don't they still have Phil Skell? Haven't you heard? Phil Skell turns out to be unnecessary to the progress of science. I wasn't paying any attention to UD for several days, what happened? Did Skell bow out? -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: 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. Got that? Write that down.  <- (Better Jeannot?) I know. Hard to believe isn't it? How do you like those apples?

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: 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. So he could come back anytime he wants.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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. Got that? Write that down.  <- (Better Jeannot?) I know. Hard to believe isn't it? How do you like those apples? You guys are forgetting 'darwimp'. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2006,05:44    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 12 2006,10:38) You guys are forgetting 'darwimp'. 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.

argystokes Posts: 766 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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. So he could come back anytime he wants. 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 -------------- "Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2006,06:12    I have now been informed by email that John A Davison has indeed been sacked. Mynd you, mØØse bites Kan be pretty nasti ...

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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 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!!! -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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. -------------- "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: 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. Sounds just like every fundie IDer I've ever met.  (shrug) -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2006,03:56    Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 11 2006,17:23) No. 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.

2ndclass Posts: 182 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2006,05:39    Quote (GCT @ Oct. 13 2006,08:56)   Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 11 2006,17:23) No. 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. 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. -------------- "I wasn't aware that classical physics had established a position on whether intelligent agents exercising free were constrained by 2LOT into increasing entropy." -DaveScot

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: 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.

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2006,08:16    I was amazed to see that Professor Davison envisioned his governorship of Vermont.   John A. Davison for Governor of Vermont.

Alan Fox Posts: 1552 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: 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.   John A. Davison for Governor of Vermont. I think he should have stuck with his composting toilet.

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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.

Ved Posts: 398 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: 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! He's kind of like a travelling exhibit.

REC Posts: 638 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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.

Ved Posts: 398 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: 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!

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: 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

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: 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 Oddly, the Admin who banned him spells like a drunk Salvador Cordova.

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2006,22:13    Skepticus (forum admin): Quote symultaniously Indubidubiliciously, he is a creeetive spallar. -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

Lou FCD Posts: 5452 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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. 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. -------------- "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

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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. -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2006,09:46    Quote He's a certified lunatic. the problem is, he's a lunatic, but he HASN'T been certified. If he had been, maybe he would get treatment. -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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. Well, he sure lasted long there. JAD's sort of an undirected process himself, isn't he? "Beshrew my heart, but I pity the man." -------------- 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

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: 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/ id='postcolor'>

slpage Posts: 349 Joined: June 2004 (Permalink) Posted: 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.

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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! -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Alan Fox Posts: 1552 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: 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. 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. 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. 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". 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? 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! 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. If you are referring to AtBC posters, I have to agree with you.   Quote I am by now way expert on genetics 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.

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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?

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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". -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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?

Alan Fox Posts: 1552 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2006,12:04    Quote ...I consider Davison Manifesto one of the best critic of darwinism I have ever read.   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. 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 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.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2006,13:40    Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 06 2006,17:19) Davison, is this you? We'll know for sure if the Fruit starts talking about "liking them fruits". -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2006,15:02    Alan Fox Quote Can you support this assertion? 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. 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. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

REC Posts: 638 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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.

REC Posts: 638 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2006,15:56    oops-double post

REC Posts: 638 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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 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. 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....

Lou FCD Posts: 5452 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2006,16:18    Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 05 2006,23:59) What does JAD's PEH have to say about it? God dun it. Then he died. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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? God dun it. Then he died. Thanks. 'Got that, and wrote that down.   It's hard to believe, isn't it?

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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? God dun it. Then he died. Thanks. 'Got that, and wrote that down.   It's hard to believe, isn't it? I love it so! -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

Richardthughes Posts: 11177 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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? God dun it. Then he died. Thanks. 'Got that, and wrote that down.   It's hard to believe, isn't it? I love it so! SOCK IT TO HIM! -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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 -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2006,16:57    Am I now banned like Davison? -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2006,21:21    Huh, did you say something? Sorry, but nobody is listening to you.  (shrug) -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Mike PSS Posts: 428 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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 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). 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!

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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).   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.   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).   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   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". -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Lou FCD Posts: 5452 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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. This thread is about DAJ, so that's rather appropriate, doncha think? -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2006,15:25    Dude, no one is paying any attention to you.  (shrug) -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2006,16:01    Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 19 2006,13:37) Arguments against Davison I do not see at all 'Cause there's nothing at all in JAD's arguments, that's why. "God 'dun it, then he died."

Lou FCD Posts: 5452 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2006,19:21    Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 19 2006,16:01) "God 'dun it, then he died." "Thanks. 'Got that, and wrote that down.   It's hard to believe, isn't it?" -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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." "Thanks. 'Got that, and wrote that down.   It's hard to believe, isn't it?" Aren't we forgetting something? Something about apples? ? ? ?   -------------- "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

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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." "Thanks. 'Got that, and wrote that down.   It's hard to believe, isn't it?" I love it so!

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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 (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.

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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. 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! -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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? 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. explain everything. Enjoy your inane discussion! -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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. 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! How do you like those road apples? -------------- "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

REC Posts: 638 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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.

Steviepinhead Posts: 532 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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.

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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." -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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. -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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." 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"

REC Posts: 638 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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." 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...

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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. 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? -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Steviepinhead Posts: 532 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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!

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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 -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Steviepinhead Posts: 532 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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.

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2006,17:36    Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 21 2006,16:11) Jeannot. That is no argument what is written in darwinian books. 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.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2006,17:55    I say VMartin is JAD in disguise. Write that down. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Lou FCD Posts: 5452 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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) -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Lou FCD Posts: 5452 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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". Clinches it.  If it were DAJ, he'd be screaming about having PROVED whatever it is he's yammering about. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Steviepinhead Posts: 532 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2006,18:52    But, seriously, has anyone ever seen apples give birth to horses?

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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? If they did, then why do we still have apples? -------------- "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: 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. 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? -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

REC Posts: 638 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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?

Steviepinhead Posts: 532 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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.

Shirley Knott Posts: 148 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2006,18:07    C'mon, VMartin is JAD. 'Fess up. I like them kumquats. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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. 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. 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 - 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.     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! -------------- "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

Zarquon Posts: 71 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 23 2006,02:14    Is VMartin the same dork who was trolling as "Michael Martin" on the Pandas Thumb?

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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 - 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.     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! 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?

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: 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? I doubt it.  No preaching and no Bible verses. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: 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. 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 . . . . . -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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? 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). 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. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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! -------------- "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

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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?   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.

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 23 2006,14:55    Takže mládenci ja Vám nieèo poviem - nie som John Davison, ale vážim si jeho prácu "Evolutionary Manifesto". Je to jedna z najlepších vecí, ktoré som èítal z kritiky darwinizmu, kde cituje popredných vedcov na poli biológie a palentológie. Pod¾a mojej mienky väèšina ¾udí tu nesiaha Johnovi ani po päty  a bol by som radšej keby ste kritizovali nieèo z jeho Manifesta , alebo z toho èo 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. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 23 2006,15:09    Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 23 2006,14:55) Takže mládenci ja Vám nieèo poviem - nie som John Davison, ale vážim si jeho prácu "Evolutionary Manifesto". Je to jedna z najlepších vecí, ktoré som èítal z kritiky darwinizmu, kde cituje popredných vedcov na poli biológie a palentológie. Pod¾a mojej mienky väèšina ¾udí tu nesiaha Johnovi ani po päty  a bol by som radšej keby ste kritizovali nieèo z jeho Manifesta , alebo z toho èo 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. 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! -------------- "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

guthrie Posts: 696 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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?

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 23 2006,16:57    jeannot Quote Do you think some individuals pop-up, created by the hand of the great Prescriber? 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. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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? 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? I love it so! -------------- "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

Richardthughes Posts: 11177 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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. -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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. 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? -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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? -------------- "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

Lou FCD Posts: 5452 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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. 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. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: 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. 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. -------------- "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