RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (14) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: JAD was banned again from UD..., Can we let him post here again?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
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: 10127
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: 10127
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: 1754
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: 10756
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: 4807
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: 2132
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: 1754
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: 1200
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: 1754
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: 10127
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: 1754
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: 10127
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, mŘŘse 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: 10127
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: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2006,08:16   

I was amazed to see that Professor Davison envisioned his governorship of Vermont.  :O
John A. Davison for Governor of Vermont.
:D

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
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.  :O
John A. Davison for Governor of Vermont.
:D

I think he should have stuck with his composting toilet.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
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.  :D

  
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: 10127
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: 10127
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: 5402
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.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
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. :O 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: 10127
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: 1391
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. :D

 
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: 1200
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: 1200
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: 1391
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: 5402
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.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
jeannot



Posts: 1200
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.  :D

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.  :D

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: 10756
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.  :D

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: 5402
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?

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
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: 1200
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: 5402
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.  :D

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

:D

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
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.  :D

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

:D

Aren't we forgetting something?

Something about apples? ? ? ?  :angry:

--------------
"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: 1200
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.  :D

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

:D

I love it so!

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
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: 1200
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: 1200
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: 5402
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)

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
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.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
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: 1200
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: 1200
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.   :O

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 23 2006,14:55   

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

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

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

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

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? :angry:

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: 10756
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: 5402
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.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
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

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2006,02:18   

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

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

Methinks you don't even have a hypothesis, and the lack of substance in your reply sure makes you sound like JAD.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2006,02:25   

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

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

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

Bam!

Better get pen and paper ready. I am sure everyone will be instructed to take notes soon.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2006,02:29   

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

It can't be Paley. This one is dead an burried.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2006,12:56   

It looks like Davison is talking to himself:

 
Quote
Martin
Member
Member # 2001

 posted 21. November 2006 17:39                    
REC.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Javison then THANKS HIMSELF:

 
Quote
Martin

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

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

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

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

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

I love it so!


We all do, John. We all do.

--------------
"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: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2006,15:06   

It ain't chance.

It ain't selection.

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

What else, then? :O
:D

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2006,01:50   

Oh man!

JAD and DaveTard have resumed their pissing contest over at ISCID

ISCID

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

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

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2006,04:37   

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

JAD and DaveTard have resumed their pissing contest over at ISCID

ISCID

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

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


And see the last comment on this thread.
Quote
Oh hi, John. I wonder where you'd slunk off to after mailing that letter to O'Leary. She forwarded it to all the admins at UD. A couple of them, even Dembski, rose up in your defense.

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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2006,15:12   

Quote

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



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

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

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

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


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

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2006,15:27   

Hey John, how they hanging?

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

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

Got that? Write it down!

--------------
"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. 26 2006,15:58   

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

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

M.

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2006,18:05   

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

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

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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,14:46   

Quote

No one here CARES who you are.  (shrug)


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

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

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,14:52   

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

No one here CARES who you are.  (shrug)


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

and?

--------------
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: Nov. 27 2006,14:55   

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

No one here CARES who you are.  (shrug)


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

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

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

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,15:04   

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

No one here CARES who you are.  (shrug)


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

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

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,15:39   

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

No one here CARES who you are.  (shrug)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,15:44   

Quote
I too want to know what the true is.


You unleshead beast, you! :D

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,15:45   

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

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



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

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

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

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,16:17   

Quote

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


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

Maybe VMartin is actually Lenny Flank!

:O

--------------
"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: Nov. 27 2006,19:49   

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

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


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

Maybe VMartin is actually Lenny Flank!

:O

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


But it is awfully funny to see, yet again, just how utterly incapable of originality the fundies are.  I don't think any of them have had an original thought in thirty years.  (shrug)

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,19:56   

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

That's right.  Neener, neener.  

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

(puts thumbs in ears and wiggles fingers)

Nyah nyah nyah nyah.  Pththththttttttttttt.

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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,23:54   

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

Quote

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


and after 20 hours:

Quote

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


Arent such reactions something I would call bipolar?

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

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

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2006,09:38   

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

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

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

Why don't you get a clue and read a little about bipolar in the first place?
Quote
Studies seeking to identify the genetic basis of bipolar disorder indicate that susceptibility stems from multiple genes. Scientists are continuing their search for these genes, using advanced genetic analytic methods and large samples of families affected by the illness.

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

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

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

Put up or stop whining.

Mike PSS

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2006,15:37   

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

jeannot

 
Quote

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


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

 
Quote

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


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

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

 
Quote

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


http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v97/n3/full/6800873a.html

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2006,18:02   

I'm sorry, Martin, did you say something?  I, like everyone else, wasn't paying any attention to you.  (shrug)

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

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2006,23:24   

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

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2006,00:12   

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

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

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

Do you love it so?

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

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2006,01:40   

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

BTW Martin,

I glanced through your linked article. I did not see anything that undermines the theory of evolution there. As you are making the claim, perhaps you could indicate the relevant passages that I must have missed

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2006,12:48   

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

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

Wa wa wee wa!

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2006,13:30   

Occam's Aftershave
   
Quote

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



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

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

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


   
Quote

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


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

   
Quote

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


Enjoy.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2006,13:57   

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

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



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

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

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


       
Quote

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


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

       
Quote

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


Enjoy.

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

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

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

What are your feelings about Spravid Dinger these days?

How do you like them road apples?

PS: German is not a 'syntetical' language, John.

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2006,14:02   

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

No one here CARES who you are.  (shrug)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2006,14:22   

Quote

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


Do you mean that the mentioned library is connected to inet via slovak-telecom? You seem to be an expert not only in darwinism but also in internet topology.

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

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2006,15:00   

John

I will open a thread for you here if you like, on the understanding that profanity and obscenity is not acceptable.

  
REC



Posts: 638
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2006,15:11   

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

But Vmartin beat me to the punch!

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

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

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

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

So, Vmartin, where in this paper is the arguement against standard evolution? How does it defend your position? Your precious mimics are becoming model organisms for the evo-devo crowd....

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2006,15:26   

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


It might mean little to you colonials, but some people live here!

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2006,15:28   

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely, Stevie

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2006,17:15   

Hey "VMartin":

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

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2006,16:42   

Quote

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


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

   
Quote

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


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

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

Anyway thanks for your acute remark, that " JAD was banned again from UD..., " in the -After the bar closes- is a challenging technical-scientific  debate.

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2006,19:07   

Geez, is Martin STILL blithering . . . .?

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2006,20:39   

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

Yeah, and he still can't stay in character.

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

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2006,20:40   

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

Which, even if it leaves Davisonsout of the equation,  still brings Vmartin no closer to an understanding of how scientific explanations work.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2006,01:24   

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


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

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

forget it.

Quote
So I had no chance yesterday at all.


or the day before that...

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

-CC

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2006,03:55   

Quote

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


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

 
Quote

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

 
Quote

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


 
Quote

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

And do not forget that Papilio dardanus is also according Punnet (2003) "one of the most puzzling cases of evolution in animal world.". If it is not puzzling for you should be accounted more for your conceit as for your wisdom. I would say.

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

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2006,05:21   

Quote
Hey "VMartin":

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


Occam's Aftershave,

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

(Tumbleweed, crows, my foot, Arden & Rich)

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2006,05:41   

Alan FoX wrote to Professor Davison on his own forum:
Quote

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


instructed yesterday John Davison that:

Quote

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


Would you beleive it?

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

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2006,05:55   

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

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

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2006,06:04   

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

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


instructed yesterday John Davison that:

 
Quote

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


Would you beleive it?

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

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

I love it so!

So, Sock it to me!

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2006,11:42   

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


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

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


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


 
Quote

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


I don't know about the rest of those names, but Sal Cordova really is an idiot. That's a simple statement of fact, not an opinion.

--------------
"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: Dec. 03 2006,11:48   

I thought this was quite stylish:

Quote

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


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

--------------
"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: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2006,11:55   

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

Quote

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


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

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2006,12:11   

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

 
Quote

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


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

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

Indeed. If the history of the Intelligent Design movement is ever written, Dave's quote should be the epigraph.  :p

--------------
"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: Dec. 03 2006,14:09   

A new Javison nugget from Brainstorms:

 
Quote
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425

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


Omygod, it's MARTIN! Run for it!!!!!

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2006,15:24   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 03 2006,14:09)
Quote
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425

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

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

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


Got it?  Write that down.

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

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2006,23:08   

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


Wha-?

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

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

"Got that?" [No.] "Write that down!" [Okay..."I can't answer your question..."] I love it so! [But what "it" is, I'm not quite sure.]

--------------
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

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2006,07:18   

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

His peepee, of course.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2006,12:34   

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

Quote

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



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

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2006,12:39   

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

 
Quote

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



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

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

PS: How could you possibly know whether Lenny is scabby?  :p

--------------
"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: Dec. 04 2006,12:44   

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

Quote

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


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

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2006,14:30   

(Sigh.)  I was waiting for the inevitable Nabakov quote from the moment our butterfly mimicry troll first surfaced.

Why are these people so utterly predictable?

I retract my remark that this guy showed a glimmer of a sense of humor.

Not all that glisters is gold...

How do you like them turnip-greens!

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2006,15:04   

Speaking totally O/T (like there has been one recently).

I wonder why Steviepinhead hasn't taken an Avatar when there are so many choices and styles too.
From the innocent....

To the insane....


Is it because they're not named 'Steve'?

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2006,15:24   

Re avatars--stevie is a pinhead and doesn't know where to go get them (or is too lazy to google "avatar" and see what happens...).

But if the smarty darwinistic people stoop to helping pinheaded atavistic stevie, then...who knows, maybe pictures start popping out like horseapples after snowmelt!

Or oxford-english speaking darwin-loving redneck babes in Slovakian bars!

Or...

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2006,15:30   

Quote (Steviepinhead @ Dec. 04 2006,15:24)
Re avatars--stevie is a pinhead and doesn't know where to go get them (or is too lazy to google "avatar" and see what happens...).

But if the smarty darwinistic people stoop to helping pinheaded atavistic stevie, then...who knows, maybe pictures start popping out like horseapples after snowmelt!

Or oxford-english speaking darwin-loving redneck babes in Slovakian bars!

Or...

Wikipedia has all kinds of great avatar images:



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

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2006,16:11   

Uh, we need to start much simpler for stevie.  If I go to Wikipedia and search "avatar," I don't get a selection of samples, I get an article about avatars...!

Even if I find a sample image, where does it get hosted, how do I link it, etc., etc....

Remember the third and fourth syllables in the screenname!

???

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2006,16:29   

Quote (Steviepinhead @ Dec. 04 2006,17:11)
Uh, we need to start much simpler for stevie.  If I go to Wikipedia and search "avatar," I don't get a selection of samples, I get an article about avatars...!

Even if I find a sample image, where does it get hosted, how do I link it, etc., etc....

Remember the third and fourth syllables in the screenname!

???

First, find an image you like and copy the URL (a right-click on the image and opening 'Properties' will get you the image path from the middle of a web page).

Click on Your Control Panel at the top of the page.
Then click on Personal Info Tab.
Then click on Avatar Options.
At the bottom of that page is a place to paste the path of your avatar.
Select size (64x64 is max size) and click on the button below the path you just pasted.
Happy avatar.

I just inserted Patrick.gif as an example just now.
Mike PSS

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2006,17:44   

Oookay, let's see what happens...

Ah, now we're talking!   :p

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2006,18:14   

Quote (Steviepinhead @ Dec. 04 2006,17:44)
Oookay, let's see what happens...

Ah, now we're talking!   :p

Gabba gabba we accept you we accept you one of us!
Gabba gabba we accept you we accept you one of us!


--------------
"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. 04 2006,18:25   

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 04 2006,12:34)
First I thought you are a bipolar scribbler  - but I see now that you are only dirty scabby darwinistic pig.

Nuh-uh, I'm a dirty scabby NEWTONISTIC pig.

And EINSTEINISTIC pig.

And FARADAYISTIC pig.

So there.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2006,18:33   

Quote
I see now that you are only dirty scabby darwinistic pig.


No! DaveScot say, I am church burning Ebola boy!

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

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2006,18:45   

Quote (Steviepinhead @ Dec. 04 2006,18:44)
Oookay, let's see what happens...

Ah, now we're talking!   :p

The pinhead is outed.

Is there anything else you wish to publicaly confess?

A-a-a-a-a-n-n-n-n-n-y-t-h-i-n-n-n-n-n-g-g-g-g??

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2006,18:54   

Church Burnin' Ebola Boy.  No g, get it right.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2006,21:08   

Sorry that I missed this from VMartin:

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


Hey literary giant: Nabokov's real point was that mimicry involved deception, but not necessarily strict duplication.

I'm afraid that he may have anthropomorphized his butterflies and perhaps attributed intentionality to them, but it hardly stacks up to intelligent design, as in G*d. Nice try.

--------------
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

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2006,22:22   

Quote
Or oxford-english speaking darwin-loving redneck babes in Slovakian bars!


Is it possible that Borat has invaded this little forum?

:p

hey Borat:  I have a question for you, and it's about mimicry:

Why don't you explain to the nice folks here the difference between mullerian and batesian mimicry, and the currently accepted (and supported)hypotheses explaining the evolution and maintenance of these traits.  While you're at it, cite some good examples of field experiments regarding the evolution of either type of mimicry as well.

that would give you some "street cred" if you actually want to talk about the science behind the study of mimicry.

otherwise, admit you haven't a clue what yer on about, in any language, and kindly STFU.

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

-CC

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2006,09:02   

Personally, my own moment when little Borat here jumped the shark was when, early on, he cited as one of his big grievances against 'Darwinism' the fact that the Communist goverment back in Albania or Moldova or Slovakia or wherever the fuck he supposedly grew up advocated Darwinism. So now he's convinced that Darwinism is Stalinist, in much the same way that O'Leary and Co.'s big beef against Darwinism is its perceived wicked materialist 'atheism'. Another cartoon caricature of 'Darwinists' that's offered up as 'scientific evidence' against it.

Sorry, when an argument like that is offered up, you lose. Sorry the commies were mean to you back where you grew up, but if you can't understand why that's irrelevant to a discuission of evolution, you might as well hang a big sign around your neck saying "I AM AN IDIOT, KICK ME NOW".

It didn't help when the greatest scientists he could summon up to support his arguments were Nietzsche, Nabokov, and, Bog Help Us, Javison.

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

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2006,10:47   

I never realised Vladimir Nabokov was also a distinguished lepidopterist. Lolita is one of the landmark novels of my youth.

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2006,11:04   

Quote

Personally, my own moment when little Borat here jumped the shark was when, early on, he cited as one of his big grievances against 'Darwinism' the fact that the Communist goverment back in Albania or Moldova or Slovakia or wherever the fuck he supposedly grew up advocated Darwinism. So now he's convinced that Darwinism is Stalinist, in much the same way that O'Leary and Co.'s big beef against Darwinism is its perceived wicked materialist 'atheism'. Another cartoon caricature of 'Darwinists' that's offered up as 'scientific evidence' against it


Are all the folks here so stupid and ignorrant like you?
During stalinism and later only accepted theory was lysenkism. Lysenko contradicted Darwin. Lysenko claimed that only environment forms living beings and he tried his theory with catastrofical outcome in prax. All the time they denigrated morganism.
If you at that time  had tried contradict Lysenko with darwinism you would ended in Gulag, you stupid american villager.

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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2006,11:11   

Steviepinhead
Quote

Or oxford-english speaking darwin-loving redneck babes in Slovakian bars!


In your country you are probably accustomed to such plump ladies that they need two bar stools
for they fat asses.
No wonder there is not enough place left for you at the bar. So its hard to start your favorite heartbreaker how a sorcerer  RandomMutat  changed swimming Yogi-bear into huge huge whale Willy.

Your frustration seems to ventilate here on "the challenging scientific-technical forum"  After the bar closes.

Because you are not familiar with topic you either evaluate wit of posts or you check english grammar.

Why dont you rather go to forest behind your village house?

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

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2006,11:35   

John 'Borat' Davison-Martin
   
Quote
In your country you are probably accustomed to such plump ladies that they need two bar stools
for they fat asses.
No wonder there is not enough place left for you at the bar. So its hard to start your favorite heartbreaker how a sorcerer  RandomMutat  changed swimming Yogi-bear into huge huge whale Willy.

Your frustration seems to ventilate here on "the challenging scientific-technical forum"  After the bar closes.

Because you are not familiar with topic you either evaluate wit of posts or you check english grammar.

Why dont you rather go to forest behind your village house?

Gee John, your accent keeps getting more and more weird.  Do you need to up your dosage of Lithium?

Why did you ignore Ichthyic's request for info on mullerian and batesian mimicry?

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
pwe



Posts: 46
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2006,11:46   

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 05 2006,11:04)
During stalinism and later only accepted theory was lysenkism. Lysenko contradicted Darwin. Lysenko claimed that only environment forms living beings and he tried his theory with catastrofical outcome in prax. All the time they denigrated morganism.

If you at that time  had tried contradict Lysenko with darwinism you would ended in Gulag, you stupid american villager.

But what then was 'Darwinism' to Stalin and Lysenko?

It's near impossible to figure out, what people mean by 'Darwinism', although I have spent some time trying.

According to Richard Weikart, Hitler was a 'social darwinist'. Usually, 'social Darwinism' refers to laissez-faire liberalism, which is for a minimal state, whose only rôle is to protect the weak against the strong. Hardly descriptive of a totalitarian ideology as Nazism.

Anyway, Darwin wasn't opposed to the idea that environment played a rôle; his pangenesis theory of inheritance stated that germ cells contained information from the entire body, even such as was due to environmental influences on the individual.


- pwe

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2006,12:09   

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 05 2006,11:11)
Steviepinhead
 
Quote

Or oxford-english speaking darwin-loving redneck babes in Slovakian bars!


In your country you are probably accustomed to such plump ladies that they need two bar stools
for they fat asses.
No wonder there is not enough place left for you at the bar. So its hard to start your favorite heartbreaker how a sorcerer  RandomMutat  changed swimming Yogi-bear into huge huge whale Willy.

Your frustration seems to ventilate here on "the challenging scientific-technical forum"  After the bar closes.

Because you are not familiar with topic you either evaluate wit of posts or you check english grammar.

Why dont you rather go to forest behind your village house?

"Een Soviet Union, TV watches you!"



Okay, now I'm back to thinking that 'VMartin' is just G.O.Paley fucking with us. No way he's who he says he is, but this might be a little too elaborate to actually be Davison.

--------------
"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: Dec. 05 2006,12:35   

PWE.


Problem is complex one. According Lysenko "Genetics is pseudoscience".

"Removing from biology mendelism-morganism-weismanism we made biology get rid of chance." (1951)

Yet his mixture of lamarckism + dialectic marxism + darwinism and vitalism seems to be the definition of the "lysenkism". Darwinism (they thought neodarwinism) was too plain, frigid. Inheritance should be explained via "creative darwinism".  Inheritance is due lamarckism that mendelists-morganists threw away.

You see that this have nothing to do with new synthesis or neodarwinism at all.

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

  
ScaryFacts



Posts: 337
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2006,13:29   

Since everyone seemed to be avatar crazy, I decided to make one.  Enjoy.

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2006,14:08   

Quote (ScaryFacts @ Dec. 05 2006,13:29)
Since everyone seemed to be avatar crazy, I decided to make one.  Enjoy.



--------------
"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: Dec. 05 2006,14:11   

Arden Chatfield:
Quote

Okay, now I'm back to thinking that 'VMartin' is just G.O.Paley fucking with us.

Occam Aftershave:
Quote

Gee John, your accent keeps getting more and more weird.

Jeannot:
Quote

It can't be Paley.

Arden Chatfield:
Quote

Maybe VMartin is actually Lenny Flank!

Richardthughes:
Quote

...but you do smell of urine and old folks homes. IS THAT YOU, DAVIDSON, YOU ODIOUS BELLEND?


and last but not at least:


"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
Quote

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



Oh boys, you should see Cage of fools movie. Its about you.
Or better you should play in your own stage play.
The name of stage play: "Darwinistic idiot with Pandas thumb in ass".

Success of such a play even in Brodway is unquestionable (supposing you will use your idiotic nicks there too).

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2006,14:34   

Quote
supposing you will use your idiotic nicks there too).


Go back to your dictionary, that sentence doesn't mean anything.

I love it so!

It's hard to believe, isn't it!

How do you like them apples?

Got that? Write it down!

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

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2006,16:06   

Martin,

What about the connection between Lysenko and Berg. Does Leo Berg bear some responsibility for the deaths of approximately 30 million Ukrainians?

  
deejay



Posts: 113
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2006,17:02   

Delurking to vote that VMartin = GOP.  I could easily be wrong on the specific accusation, but I'm quite confident that Mr. Martin is a sock puppet.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2006,17:56   

Quote (deejay @ Dec. 05 2006,17:02)
Delurking to vote that VMartin = GOP.  I could easily be wrong on the specific accusation, but I'm quite confident that Mr. Martin is a sock puppet.

Indeed, the main remaining question is whether Martin = one of Paley's two known personalities, or whether he reflects a third, hitherto-unknown Paley personality.

--------------
"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: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2006,18:28   

Has anyone tallied John A. Davison's score on the Crackpot Index for Biology yet?

 
Quote
The CRACKPOT Index

A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to biology.

1. A -5 point starting credit.

2. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

3. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

4. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

5. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.

6. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.

7. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).

8. 5 points for each mention of "Heackel", "Dawkin", "Steven Gould" or "Eldridge".

9. 10 points for each claim that genetics or evolution is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

10. 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity. An extra 5 points for citing your engineering, dentistry, medical or computing degree as authoritative in biology. An extra 5 points for a pseudomedical qualification (such as homeopathy or holistic massage).

11. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it.

12. 10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.

13. 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory, or to anyone who can prove evolution is true.

14. 10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at genetics, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".

15. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.

16. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".

17. 10 points for each claim that Punctuated Equilibrium Theory, or some similar recent view in biology, is evidence of creationism (or some similar view such as Intelligent Design), or claim that modern biology is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

18. 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift" and that we need to go beyond Darwinism.

19. 20 points for suggesting that you or your hero deserve a Nobel prize.

20. 20 points for every use of religious or science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.

21. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.

22. 20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary" or "Darwinist establishment" or cognates.

23. 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy" or cognates.

24. 30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported (e.g., that Darwin recanted on his deathbed).

25. 30 points for suggesting that some major scientist, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.

26. 30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by a pre-industrial culture (without good evidence).

27. 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, eugenicists, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.

28. 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

29. 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.

30. 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant, especially after their death, or for announcing the "death of Darwinism".)

31. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions, formal models, or exact hypotheses.

32. 10 points for every claim of lurker e-mail support.

33. 100 points for asserting that molecular evolution of complex proteins is impossible because of the large neutral gaps that selection would have to cross, or that there are boundaries between species or other groups of organisms that evolution cannot breach.


I get him at somewhere around 700 points.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2006,20:18   

You guys are all just bandwagon Martin=GOPs.

I was there when the idea wasn't popular.

Losers.

:D

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2006,21:06   

Quote
Lolita is one of the landmark novels of my youth.


Mine too!

Got that? Love it down.

I write it so!

(Someone help me.)  :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

  
pwe



Posts: 46
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2006,07:14   

Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 05 2006,12:35)
Problem is complex one. According Lysenko "Genetics is pseudoscience".

"Removing from biology mendelism-morganism-weismanism we made biology get rid of chance." (1951)

Yet his mixture of lamarckism + dialectic marxism + darwinism and vitalism seems to be the definition of the "lysenkism". Darwinism (they thought neodarwinism) was too plain, frigid. Inheritance should be explained via "creative darwinism".  Inheritance is due lamarckism that mendelists-morganists threw away.

You see that this have nothing to do with new synthesis or neodarwinism at all.

Yes, Lysenko was primarily against Mendelian genetics - which was considered to be similar to believing in fairies, since genes could not be seen back then.

Interesting that Lysenko was against chance. That moves him into line with the IDists, doesn't it?


- pwe

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2006,14:18   

Quote
Because you are not familiar with topic you either evaluate wit of posts or you check english grammar.


hey you slopeheaded slovak!

I AM more than familiar with the topic, and you not very judiciously avoided what should have been a simple question for someone claiming expertise in the evolution of mimicry.

why is that, I wonder?

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

-CC

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2006,15:03   

Quote
why is that, I wonder?


Cognitive dissonance?

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2006,15:29   

Quote

hey you slopeheaded slovak!


Yeah, about that...

"VMartin" was not the first one to mention Slovakia. I was. I made a wisecrack about him "sounding like a 20-year-old from Bratislava who just had his first English lesson 2 months ago", and then VM kind of ran with it, never once saying he IS from Slovakia, but never quite denying it either. I had no evidence for him being from Slovakia, and suddenly, whaddaya know, my wildass guess is supposedly true. I have a hard time believing it's true, and he's never denied it or properly confirmed it. So I think that's another bit of proof that we have a troll here, probably someone we know under some other name.

I love it so!

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

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2006,16:03   

Um, as a person living in a non-english speaking country, I feel I should point out that the way this "VMartin" talks is NOT the way people uneducated in English do. You know, skipping articles while keeping his grammar perfect, etc.

It's the way Stupid english-speaking people think stupid non-english speaking people should talk.

Not that anyone had any doubts, but still.

--------------
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."

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2006,16:52   

Quote (Faid @ Dec. 06 2006,16:03)
Um, as a person living in a non-english speaking country, I feel I should point out that the way this "VMartin" talks is NOT the way people uneducated in English do. You know, skipping articles while keeping his grammar perfect, etc.

That's exactly what I think.

It reminds me of that "phishyphred" who came trolling here once.

The question is : why would you act this way? What is VMartin hiding?
He could really be JAD after all. Can there be two supporters of the PEH that have some sort of mental problem? Coincidence or correlation?

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2006,17:26   

Kudos to you Alan for giving JAD a chance at your blog, but it looks like he's had another foot-stamping spittle-flying hissy fit meltdown.  That seems to happen to him everywhere he goes, normally triggered by someone asking him for the most basic clarification of his PEH.

You've gotta feel sorry for the guy - he's got some serious mental problems that he's not dealing with very well.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2006,19:39   

Indeed, let's try analyzing a randomly chosen chunk of 'VMartin's' English, shall we?

 
Quote

Are all the folks here so stupid and ignorrant like you?
During stalinism and later only accepted theory was lysenkism. Lysenko contradicted Darwin. Lysenko claimed that only environment forms living beings and he tried his theory with catastrofical outcome in prax. All the time they denigrated morganism.
If you at that time  had tried contradict Lysenko with darwinism you would ended in Gulag, you stupid american villager.


Now, here's what I would consider to be an idiomatically correct version of the preceding:

 
Quote
Are all the folks here as stupid and ignorant as you? During stalinism and later the only accepted theory was lysenkoism. Lysenko contradicted Darwin. Lysenko claimed that only the environment forms living beings and he tested his theory with catastrophic outcome in prax [? ?]. All the time they denigrated morganism.
If you at that time had tried to contradict Lysenko with darwinism you would have ended up in the in Gulag, you stupid american villager.


Okay, let's analyze this.

Note that the great majority of things that had to be corrected were little grammatical particles: missing definite articles (3 times), missing infinitive 'to' (once), missing 'have' (once), missing prepositions (two), a couple ostentatious misspellings ('catastrofical' ) and one or two screwy word choices ('tried' for 'tested'.) Mostly SUPER basic stuff.

(Then of course he throws in "you stupid american villager" for that snappy little Borat touch, like the cherry atop the sundae.)

However, note what he does NOT get wrong: basic word order, basic syntax, complex verb tenses, and complicated words like 'accepted', 'catastrofical', 'denigrated', 'outcome' and 'contradict'. All fluent.

So he's screwing up the really basic stuff, stuff an English speaker trying to sound 'funny foreign' would screw up, but the syntax and most of the sophisticated vocabulary is perfectly fine.

Doesn't add up. If you haven't mastered super basic shit like articles, you're not going to get complex syntax and verb tenses right.

So he's a faker, a troll. The only questions is who. Again, I'd bet a lot of money that it's someone who's already spent time here under a different name.

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2006,20:45   

Kristine,

Quote
Mine too!

Got that? Love it down.

I write it so!

(Someone help me.)  :D


Er, help you do what, exactly? :)

Henry

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2006,20:47   

Let's watch it with the cracks about "slopeheads," by the way...

???

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2006,22:18   

...I blame your new avatar as having planted the idea in my head subliminaly.

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

-CC

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2006,23:55   

Ichthyic
Quote

hey you slopeheaded slovak!


Drž hubu pomajbo. Používaj spisovné výrazy, spisovnú angličtinu a k veci. Nie som tu aby si ma skúšal, na svoje priblblé otázky si nájdi odpoveď na wikipedii. Potom sa prípadne ozvi, alebo si prečítaj moje hodnotenia komplexného javu napodobovania v prírode (údajného) a ak máš niečo k tomu, čo som napísal, tak odpíš, ale spisovne prosím.
 

O.K.?

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

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2006,00:24   

nope.  not OK.

get lost, faker.

as i suspected, you haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about.

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

-CC

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005