RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (8) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: The evolution of coloration in fungi, are brightly colored fungi aposematic?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 26 2007,15:36   

As is common on ATBC, creobots often inspire interest in issues, even with their insipidity.

A recent case is that of whether brightly colored mushrooms are so because of selective pressures leading to aposematic coloration.

the issue CAN be answered with fairly simple experiments, but can also be inconclusive, depending on the results.

so, it got me curious as to what HAS been studied wrt to this issue, which isn't surprising given that my thesis was in part about investigating aposematic coloration in fishes.

so, quick google scholar search turns up potentially relevant articles in 30 seconds, but I don't have access to more than the abstracts.

If anyone else is interested in the topic, and has access, might i suggest we look at the following as a start:

Why Are Some Mushrooms Poisonous, and Do They Signal Their Unprofitability?

Not surprisingly, when you think about common fungivores, there IS evidence to conclude they do indeed signal... but not with visual stimuli.  which, even based on the abstract, leads one to be curious about the genetics of color in fungi, and wonder if color is at all linked to other methods of signalling.

btw, olfactory aposematism is not a new concept:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/t57126l4p7132203/

might also be worth looking more specifically at the biology of some of the more recognizable "brightly colored" mushrooms like Amanita spp.

http://www.journals.cambridge.org/action....=150609

moreover, it might be worthwhile to examine the role of non-commonly thought about fungivores... including other fungi:

http://www.journals.cambridge.org/action....d=35519

I am unable to locate a decent treatise on the genetics of the relevant fungi with a quick search, but there is certainly enough here to start with anyway.

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

-CC

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 26 2007,16:02   

Pasting my comment from the other thread:

It seems that the paper quoted by Martin is almost the only one dealing the the evolution of toxicity in mushrooms. Unfortunately, Am. Nat. is one of the few journals (of ecology) I can't access.
However, I have the list of their cited references, and none of them deals with the genetics of coloration in mushroom, nor their selective role. They also clearly state in the abstract that the topic has received little attention. So I suppose most of the work remains to be done.

However, this reminds me of fascinating stories about coloration and mimicry in orchids. Stuff that has been deeply studied and explained by adaptive models.
Maybe the topic of this thread could shift a little bit. For the lurkers, the origin of batesian and mullerian mimmics (for instance), and the evolution of coloration could be interesting.

Not that I want absolutely to go off topic, but what do you think, Thomas, about this project of genetically engineered mosquito in order to fight malaria? I could start a thread about that as it clearly shows that the evolutionary theories could be extremely useful. It also deals with the concept of selfish gene and the units of selection (allele vs. individual), that we've been discussing from time to time.
But maybe PT already covered it in great details, I haven't been there for a while.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 26 2007,16:09   

the quick search suggests to me that research regarding the genetics of fungi is apparently a pretty wide open field.

considering the implications of fungal chemistry discussed in many biochemistry oriented articles, sounds like a great avenue to take for a student interested in genetics (meaning there is likely some funding available, the subject material is typically easily studied in the lab and in the field, and there is likely budding interest within the larger scientific community).

just a quick tangent.

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

-CC

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 26 2007,16:11   

Quote (jeannot @ June 26 2007,16:02)
Pasting my comment from the other thread:

It seems that the paper quoted by Martin is almost the only one dealing the the evolution of toxicity in mushrooms. Unfortunately, Am. Nat. is one of the few journals (of ecology) I can't access.
However, I have the list of their cited references, and none of them deals with the genetics of coloration in mushroom, nor their selective role. They also clearly state in the abstract that the topic has received little attention. So I suppose most of the work remains to be done.

However, this reminds me of fascinating stories about coloration and mimicry in orchids. Stuff that has been deeply studied and explained by adaptive models.
Maybe the topic of this thread could shift a little bit. For the lurkers, the origin of batesian and mullerian mimmics (for instance), and the evolution of coloration could be interesting.

what about this one:

http://www.journals.cambridge.org/action....d=35519

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

-CC

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 26 2007,16:18   

Well, it seems that we still don't know the role of coloration in fungi.  Closely related species often have some very different colors (in Boletus) for instance. This is puzzling.


VMartin may be right after all.  :p

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 26 2007,16:19   

Quote (jeannot @ June 26 2007,16:18)
Well, it seems that we still don't know the role of coloration in fungi.  Closely related species often have some very different colors (in Boletus) for instance. This is puzzling.


VMartin may be right after all.  :p

I spot a potential quote mine...

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 26 2007,16:30   

Regarding color and toxicity...
If many edible mushrooms have various flashy colors (which can be the case), having such a color would not be a clear advantage for a poisonous species.
And we still don't know whether most fungivores are able to distinguish between colors (I bet slugs are not good at it).

We know that pigments are relatively costly to synthesize for an organism. There must be some selective advantage, evolutionary hitch-hiking would not be sufficient to explain their maintenance.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 26 2007,16:46   

Quote
VMartin may be right after all.  :p


no, not at all.  martin was assuming that coloration was associated with signalling, and if no role for signalling is found in fungi, then the entire darwinian narrative breaks down. It doesn't, since the signalling has been supported in the very paper he chose to cite, just not with visual cues.

but then, I don't give a shit what Martin "thinks", and would prefer the issue being addressed in this thread be the science, and not Vmartin.

it's quite possible that coloration in fungi is fitness neutral, or linked to other fitness related traits.  hence the interest in the genetics.

 
Quote
If many edible mushrooms have various flashy colors (which can be the case), having such a color would not be a clear advantage for a poisonous species.


Indeed, the other issue not taken into account here, is how potential fungivores view the colorations themselves.

Just because they look aposematically colored to US, doesn't mean they appear so to a potential fungivore.

John Endler has done some great work of late teasing out the perception bias in this issue. (not with fungi, but with fish)

it's a great example of how new technologies allow us to answer questions, as it's only been fairly recently that the ability to directly measure how fish and other animals process visual stimuli has been available.

so now, we actually CAN look at how a potential predator views various colors and patterns, and thus make far more relevant conclusions about the role of specific visual cues in signalling.

http://www.lifesci.ucsb.edu/eemb....ns.html

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

-CC

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 26 2007,16:54   

Quote
We know that pigments are relatively costly to synthesize for an organism.


depends on the organism and the pigment.

again, why I was thinking it might be useful to take a gander at the biology of one of the commonly noted "colorful" fungi.

Quote
Closely related species often have some very different colors (in Boletus) for instance. This is puzzling.


Indeed.  Why I thought it worthy of a thread on it's own.
The work I did as a grad student trying to tease out the role of ontogenetic color change in damselfishes was filled with a lot of parallels to this one.  The larger issue of signalling has always fascinated me.

I posted a paper I published on some early work in that area on this board a while back.  20 years later, i still find myself puzzled by it, and still see no conclusive studies on the issue have appeared in the literature.

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

-CC

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 26 2007,17:05   

Quote (jeannot @ June 26 2007,16:02)
It seems that the paper quoted by Martin is almost the only one dealing the the evolution of toxicity in mushrooms. Unfortunately, Am. Nat. is one of the few journals (of ecology) I can't access.
However, I have the list of their cited references, and none of them deals with the genetics of coloration in mushroom, nor their selective role. They also clearly state in the abstract that the topic has received little attention. So I suppose most of the work remains to be done.

I was able to download a PDF version of the paper that JAD's sockpuppet mentioned in the other thread. Send me a PM if you want a copy.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 26 2007,17:15   

done.

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

-CC

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 26 2007,18:08   

Just as a side-note, our very own Ichthyic just scooped up the monthly "Molly" award on PZ's Pharyngula blog.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....t_t.php

Reasons given for former winners include: being a good dancer (our very own shimmy-lady), having access to more than one brain at a time (Torbjorn, also a PT regular), being just hella smart, having good hair, and things of that ilk.

Well, obviously having PT/AtBC affiliations doesn't hurt, but since Ichthyic clearly didn't win for his dance moves, his good hair, his excess of brains (just kidding, ichthy!), we're left with, what else ... his PT/AtBC affiliations?

Anyway, congrats, shark-guy!

C'mon up to Seattle during the short interval before the following promise escapes my pinhead-sized memory, and you'll enjoy one evening of free libations on me (well, maybe I can get the other Sea-AtBC-ers, fine finny fellows all, to help out).

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 26 2007,18:15   

thanks for the invite; I always liked the time I spent in Seattle, and occasionally regret not accepting the invite to the Marine Policy dept. at UW (at the time, I was more interested in behavior and research than policy and application).

long way for me to go now, though.  Might have to wait for one of those "super saver" airfare things.

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

-CC

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 26 2007,19:25   

Well, just so you know that you'll land with a splash in the drinkie...

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 26 2007,19:51   

pool sized drinks, you say?

don't mind if I do!

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

-CC

  
snoeman



Posts: 109
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 26 2007,23:48   

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 26 2007,19:51)
pool sized drinks, you say?

don't mind if I do!

Show up, and we'll take you here for the big drinks.

Two hands, people, if you please...  :D

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,00:10   

should I bring my wetsuit?

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

-CC

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,13:20   

Jeannot

 
Quote

Closely related species often have some very different colors (in Boletus) for instance. This is puzzling.


That's right. I would like to draw your attention also to genera Amanita. We can observe among them very different caps coloration. It might be of interest that one of the most delicious mushroom Amanita muscaria as well as one of the most poisonous Amanita phalloides
belongs to the Genera.

http://www.foto-net.sk/?idi=151&page=1

Red Amanita muscaria has toxic effects and are sought after not only by shamans also by deers. I have read that shamans used extract from it to lure deers.

Amanida phalloides has green cap. So do not follow darwinian rule of thumb that bright aposematic coloration means threat and vica versa with cryptic coloration. The rule will kill you. There is no rule how to recognize edible and poisonous mushrooms.

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

I don't like to disturb cheerfull self-congratulation of darwinists here to Ichthyic great success - he won a prize from doctor of darwinism Meyeres who produces his "random biological ejaculation" at Pharongogola like an automata every two hours unless he sleeps. The last but one winner was dancerin and neodarwinist, surrealist and poet Kristine.

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

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,13:23   

ok, now this idiot is trolling an actual thread about something NOT him.  What's more, the response to his idiocy is even in his own thread.  AND in this one.

look UP idiot:
Quote
no, not at all.  martin was assuming that coloration was associated with signalling, and if no role for signalling is found in fungi, then the entire darwinian narrative breaks down. It doesn't, since the signalling has been supported in the very paper he chose to cite, just not with visual cues.



can we please boot his ass now?

he's more than irritating.

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

-CC

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,13:34   

Quote

ok, now this idiot is trolling an actual thread about something NOT him.  What's more, the response to his idiocy is even in his own thread.


What are you babbling about cretin? What thread? Is it forbidden here to make fun of Meyers and Christine but it is reccomended to denigrate "Javison" in every post however you like? Calm down and go observe your colorful fish-ancestors in aquarium.

Aha, the cretin edited his latest post and make it even more oscure:

Quote

no, not at all.  martin was assuming that coloration was associated with signalling, and if no role for signalling is found in fungi, then the entire darwinian narrative breaks down. It doesn't, since the signalling has been supported in the very paper he chose to cite, just not with visual cues.


I reccomended not to it green Amanita. Do not follow any darwinian rules and any visual cues picking up mushrooms! Is it clear cretine?

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,13:41   

Quote (VMartin @ June 27 2007,13:34)
Quote

ok, now this idiot is trolling an actual thread about something NOT him.  What's more, the response to his idiocy is even in his own thread.


What are you babbling about cretin? What thread? Is it forbidden here to make fun of Meyers and Christine but it is reccomended to denigrate "Javison" in every post however you like? Calm down and go observe your colorful fish-ancestors in aquarium.

Poor widdle VMartin. So afraid to answer questions.

Quote
The last but one winner was dancerin and neodarwinist, surrealist and poet Kristine.


Speaking of which, V, what was the meaning of that bizarre threat you left at Kristine's blog? Something like "something bad may happen to you"? What was that about?

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

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,13:41   

this thread is for discussing the science involved in signaling.

something you haven't the slightest clue about, since you obviously missed the whole damn point of the paper you cited in your attempt to "tear down" evolutionary theory.

It's quite humorous that you are such an idiot that you in fact missed that signaling HAD, in fact, been supported in the paper, just not with visual cues.  which is exactly why I told you to go read up on how potentially neutral traits are maintained in a given population.

now run along back to your own thread where everyone can continue to laugh at you without the distraction of having to actually think about the real issues involved.

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

-CC

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,13:42   

Quote (VMartin @ June 27 2007,14:34)
Quote

ok, now this idiot is trolling an actual thread about something NOT him.  What's more, the response to his idiocy is even in his own thread.


What are you babbling about cretin? What thread? Is it forbidden here to make fun of Meyers and Christine but it is reccomended to denigrate "Javison" in every post however you like? Calm down and go observe your colorful fish-ancestors in aquarium.

It is forbidden to insult Kristine because commenters here have to give each other some minimal respect. Not forbidden to insult "Javison" because he is not here. And PZ's name is Myers, not Meyers.

"Idiot" and "cretin" are insults, by the way, and that should stop.

Edited by stevestory on June 27 2007,14:43

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,13:45   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 27 2007,13:41)
Quote (VMartin @ June 27 2007,13:34)
Quote

ok, now this idiot is trolling an actual thread about something NOT him.  What's more, the response to his idiocy is even in his own thread.


What are you babbling about cretin? What thread? Is it forbidden here to make fun of Meyers and Christine but it is reccomended to denigrate "Javison" in every post however you like? Calm down and go observe your colorful fish-ancestors in aquarium.

Poor widdle VMartin. So afraid to answer questions.

I don't WANT him to answer questions here.

total waste of fucking time.

I don't give a shit what he "thinks" (an oxymoron in his case), he obviously has nothing interesting to contribute, hasn't the slightest clue what he is talking about, and can serve as nothing but a distraction from actually discussing the real issues involved in studying signaling.

seriously, no offense, but if you want him to answer questions, take it back to the other thread.

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

-CC

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,13:46   

Quote
"Idiot" and "cretin" are insults, by the way, and that should stop.


you know how to fix it, permanently in this case.

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

-CC

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,13:48   

ban both of you? I don't want to do that.

   
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,13:51   

I don't know why +++++ +++++++  sends his nonsense here like an automata. But I underestand him on the other side. Darwinists like him do not like the issue - that is also reason why there are so few researches on the colorarton of fruiting bodies of mushrooms. Because the results obviously do not support natural selection as the source of their coloration. And it is what darwinists hate -see +++++ Ichthyic who want to ban me because mentioning it. He would like to obscure problem with "signaling" babble even though I am discussing here COLORATION OF FRUITING BODIES OF MUSHROOMS only. Capito?

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

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,13:51   

Quote
ban both of you? I don't want to do that.


OH PLEASE DO.

that would be just so perfect.

read your PM.

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

-CC

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,13:55   

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 27 2007,14:51)
Quote
ban both of you? I don't want to do that.


OH PLEASE DO.

that would be just so perfect.

read your PM.

1 I don't see any reason to ban either of you.

2 VMartin, cut out the insults, and I'll have Icky do the same.

3 Further discussion of moderation should be by Personal Message.

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,13:56   

already done.

waiting....

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

-CC

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,13:59   

I edited my latest post removing all not-reccomended words.

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,14:02   

Icky, your box is full.

   
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,14:29   

From Henry on the other thread
Quote
Maybe the coloration is caused by chemical(s) that serve some other purpose for the organism? In that case the color could be merely a side-effect.

Maybe, but as closely related species have different colors, its seems unlikely that they serve particular physiological purposes.
For example, the color of blood (a side effect) is the same in all mammals.

And color is often localized on the cap, so it looks like it's there to be seen. I think underground mycelia are devoid of pigments, although I don't know.

I'd be curious to know if some mushrooms grow in caves, and in that case, if they are colored.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,14:37   

Quote (VMartin @ June 27 2007,13:51)
I don't know why +++++ +++++++  sends his nonsense here like an automata. But I underestand him on the other side. Darwinists like him do not like the issue - that is also reason why there are so few researches on the colorarton of fruiting bodies of mushrooms. Because the results obviously do not support natural selection as the source of their coloration. And it is what darwinists hate -see +++++ Ichthyic who want to ban me because mentioning it. He would like to obscure problem with "signaling" babble even though I am discussing here COLORATION OF FRUITING BODIES OF MUSHROOMS only. Capito?

Another hypothesis about why nobody has done much research on the evolution of coloration and its relationship to toxicity in mushrooms might be that there is not a lot of funding for projects like that these days. I think you could find evidence for that hypothesis. Your conspiracy theory about "darwinists" is, per usual, evidence-free.

Did you read the paper you cited?  Do you understand that color cues might not be related to toxicity, but that odor and taste cues could be? Do you understand how that relates to natural selection?

Oh, and you might also want to address that other question that you have left hanging - the one about common descent.

thanks

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,16:32   

Quote

Did you read the paper you cited?  Do you understand that color cues might not be related to toxicity, but that odor and taste cues could be? Do you understand how that relates to natural selection?


I don't argue with that. I would agree that toxicity of mushrooms are probably detected by wild animals by smell, by odor. You - and not only you - could have missed my standpoint. I said that origin of mushroom's coloration is not caused by natural selection, because there is not known selective pressure for their coloration. Subsequently some other force (sexual selection is out of game either) took place. I didn't said it was supranatural - but I can't refute it either. There is also another explanation proposed by great zoologist Adolf Portmann - self-representation, "die Selbstdarstellung". Such force can be innate to living organisms and could represent a force responsible for shapes and coloration of different species. You underestand that such a force have no place in neodarwinism.

Mushrooms are very good example of coloration of species because neither natural selection nor sexual selection could explain it plausibly. If you know about some connection between mushroom's color and it's toxicity feel free to educate us.

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

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,16:54   

Quote (VMartin @ June 27 2007,12:20)
Jeannot

     
Quote

Closely related species often have some very different colors (in Boletus) for instance. This is puzzling.


That's right. I would like to draw your attention also to genera Amanita. We can observe among them very different caps coloration. It might be of interest that one of the most delicious mushroom Amanita muscaria as well as one of the most poisonous Amanita phalloides
belongs to the Genera.

http://www.foto-net.sk/?idi=151&page=1

Red Amanita muscaria has toxic effects and are sought after not only by shamans also by deers. I have read that shamans used extract from it to lure deers.

Amanida phalloides has green cap. So do not follow darwinian rule of thumb that bright aposematic coloration means threat and vica versa with cryptic coloration. The rule will kill you. There is no rule how to recognize edible and poisonous mushrooms.

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

I don't like to disturb cheerfull self-congratulation of darwinists here to Ichthyic great success - he won a prize from doctor of darwinism Meyeres who produces his "random biological ejaculation" at Pharongogola like an automata every two hours unless he sleeps. The last but one winner was dancerin and neodarwinist, surrealist and poet Kristine.

Well no, actually I shared that honor in February with theist Scott Hatfield, and then Blake Stacey and Hank Fox won in March, Torbjörn Larsson won in April, and then Kseniya and BronzeDog won in May. I mean, give shimmies where shimmies are due. :)

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,20:51   

Re "I would agree that toxicity of mushrooms are probably detected by wild animals by smell, by odor."

Re "I said that origin of mushroom's coloration is not caused by natural selection, because there is not known selective pressure for their coloration."

Uh - don't look now, but you just agreed with a probable cause of that natural selection.

Henry

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,11:10   

Quote

Uh - don't look now, but you just agreed with a probable cause of that natural selection.


I don't see the point. I have never agreed that Natural selection is the cause of mushroom's coloration. If I agreed that toxicity of mushrooms is probably detected by wild animal by smell it would not necessary mean that I agree with NS as source of it either. It's only your logic you know.

Toxicity of mushrooms is another puzzle. I have mentioned Lethal webcaps. Digestion of this mushroom will destroy your liver - but sometimes first nuissances are detected only after 3 weeks. Anyway the poison will kill the animal that had eaten the mushroom. Obviously such type of poison was not created and maintained by Natural selection. It has no sense - no animal would be able to make relation between mushroom eating and its nuissance after so many days.

I have mentioned already Amanita muscaria as very delicious mushroom, Amanita phalloides  as most poisonous one and strangely enough - Amanita muscaria with its toxic effects. Due to its toxic effects the muhroom is sought for by some species (deers) and the others (didelphis) are avoiding it. So to find any darwinistic explanation of such diverse "survival strategy" in the same Genera is very difficult. To find out darwinistic explanation of toxicity of Amanita muscaria is impossible.

That's the reason why this thread is dying. Neodarwinists after first research - at least the intelligent among them - see that my point is correct. Natural and sexual selection as the cause of mushroom's coloration is wrong and misleading explanation (and of toxicity as well).

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,11:28   

Let us all remember that the mushroom is just a fruiting body and not the organism itself.  That seems to be getting lost here with all this 'self-representation' business.

Amanita muscaria should not be eaten.  Can kill you but probably just make you wish you hadn't eaten it.  At least according to the reports I have read.  

Amanita caesarea has a bright red cap and is delicious.

Many of the grisette group of Amanitas are safe and delicious, yet have phalliodes colored caps (but striations on margin and other characters denote grisette group).

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,11:29   

Quote (VMartin @ June 28 2007,11:10)
   
Quote

Uh - don't look now, but you just agreed with a probable cause of that natural selection.


I don't see the point. I have never agreed that Natural selection is the cause of mushroom's coloration. If I agreed that toxicity of mushrooms is probably detected by wild animal by smell it would not necessary mean that I agree with NS as source of it either. It's only your logic you know.

Toxicity of mushrooms is another puzzle. I have mentioned Lethal webcaps. Digestion of this mushroom will destroy your liver - but sometimes first nuissances are detected only after 3 weeks. Anyway the poison will kill the animal that had eaten the mushroom. Obviously such type of poison was not created and maintained by Natural selection. It has no sense - no animal would be able to make relation between mushroom eating and its nuissance after so many days.

I have mentioned already Amanita muscaria as very delicious mushroom, Amanita phalloides  as most poisonous one and strangely enough - Amanita muscaria with its toxic effects. Due to its toxic effects the muhroom is sought for by some species (deers) and the others (didelphis) are avoiding it. So to find any darwinistic explanation of such diverse "survival strategy" in the same Genera is very difficult. To find out darwinistic explanation of toxicity of Amanita muscaria is impossible.

That's the reason why this thread is dying. Neodarwinists after first research - at least the intelligent among them - see that my point is correct. Natural and sexual selection as the cause of mushroom's coloration is wrong and misleading explanation (and of toxicity as well).

V

Let's back up and look at the bigger picture.

1) You cited some research by some real biologists pointing out that toxicity and color are not necessarily related in fungi.  These scientists pointed out this lack of relationship. You have not done any real scientific work here at all, but you are relying on actual scientists to look at actual data and get it published. Why don't you do some actual work, generate your own hypothesis about why some mushrooms are colored, test it, and get it published?  That would be a real contribution.

2) Pointing out how neo-Darwinian mechanisms fail to explain a phenomenon leads you into two corners. In the first place, it does not mean that your explanation is correct or even likely, unless you test that explanation and find evidence that is consistent with it. When hypothesis A fails it does not automatically provide support for hypothesis B. The second problem, if you are arguing that mushrooms were created this way, is that this is a god-of-the-gaps argument. If real scientists can do real experiments and find a natural explanation for the fact that some fungi have colorful fruiting bodies, your god just got a little smaller.

3) Science, unlike religion, does not claim to explain everything. There are lots of places where a real scientist, unlike a creationist, will say "I don't know". Such a statement, and such a situation, does not automatically cause the collapse of a theory which is abundantly supported by lots of other evidence. It also, as pointed out above, does not automatically provide support for alternative explanations; you need to do experiments and generate positive evidence for your explanation before anyone will give it more consideration. And even in that best-case scenario, you still have to generate a BETTER explanation for all of the other facts and evidence that support the rival explanation. There is a lot of evidence for common descent and evolution. Pointing out a single instance where scientists say "I don't know" is not enough to overthrow an explanation which is consistent with millions of other observations.

So why don't you give us your explanation of this observation, generate a testable hypothesis, and get busy testing it?

Or if that sounds like too much work, why don't you answer the other question - Do you agree with Davison on common descent?

Thanks in advance for ignoring that question yet one more time.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,11:39   

Galerina autumnalis has a quite similar cap to psilocybe baeocystis and Armillaria mellea (depending on whose classification you are using) sometimes. In general, if you are not familiar with the organisms don't eat them. I have never seen mycelia with any coloration and I've examined a bit. I have seen rhizomorphs with colored tips but I have never heard any research that indicates that this is anything other than a byproduct of the way it grows. BTW, taxonomy in the fungi is no easy task. They are quite unlike other living things. Read this page: about the honey mushroom or just google fungi taxonomy. Students and fundys could get pretty confused. This page, if you've ever sat through an upper division biology class in any specialty, you will appreciate. There is quite a story not told.

Gets you high:


Gets you dead:


Tastes good:


--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,11:54   

Erasmus:

Quote

Let us all remember that the mushroom is just a fruiting body and not the organism itself.  That seems to be getting lost here with all this 'self-representation' business.


You know concept of "self-representation" is based on the visibility. Internal organs of animals are not colored. External very often are. The same for mycelium/fruing body. I have read an opinion that probably as much as 90% of coloration of species have nothing to do with natural selection. If it is right we should reconsider natural selection as "omnipotent" evolutionary force.

 

Quote

Amanita muscaria should not be eaten.  Can kill you but probably just make you wish you hadn't eaten it.  At least according to the reports I have read.  


You are right.  It is Amanita caesarea of course.

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,12:05   

Visibility to what?  Slugs?  Bees?  Bats?  

Internal organs of animals are not colored?  I challenge you to cut your liver out and show me that this is true.  I'm blinded by the tard.

Beefsteak fungus looks just like an ox-tongue, down to the marbling.  Tastes better though.  Not sure where you think this is all going.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,12:13   

Albatrossity2

Quote

Pointing out a single instance where scientists say "I don't know" is not enough to overthrow an explanation which is consistent with millions of other observations.


You are like a Newtonian insisting that all forces could be reduced to gravity. Of course gravity exists. My point is that there probably also is electro-magnetism you know. It doesn't mean that not knowing math behind electro-magnetism means we should dismiss it and hold on gravity even if it explain nothing.

The same for the natural selection. My point is - and not only my of course, there were greater man like me - is that Natural selection is conservative force that just removes extremities and no way play any significant or creative role in evolution.

Mushrooms are better example than the striking coloration and mimicry in butterfly kingdom. Here can darwinists resort to "natural selection" by birds etc... Of course in the case of aposematism and mimicry such an explanation is more claimed than proved. It was thanks Alan Fox who noticed me on the scientific research showing that eyspots on butterflis wing do not scare and deflect  predators as darwinists so self-assuredly claim.

But because mushrooms do not have any significant vision oriented predators such self-assured darwinistic claims can be verified much more easier as for butterflies.

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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,12:20   

Erasmus:

Quote

Internal organs of animals are not colored?  I challenge you to cut your liver out and show me that this is true.  I'm blinded by the tard.


Are they? Do you mean that liver is red, bladder if yellow, lungs blue and the heart is green or what?
Animals coloration is their represanation, colors are there where they can be seen, on the surface.

Another question is if such coloration has any "survival advantage" or serves purely to represantaion of species. Darwinists see everywhere crypsis or aposematism. And this is exactly what I disagree with giving curious cases
of buttefly mimicry and mushroom coloration as examples where natural/sexual selection is not plausible explanation of the coloration.

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

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,12:26   

Muscaria has a long and honorable tradition of being eaten. The slightly similar looking Pantherina however, has quite short traditions of being eaten. Not that you would be likely to die if you only ate a little. I might not try it though





 
Quote
1730: A Swedish Colonel, Filip Johann von Strahlenberg, who spent 12 years in Siberia as a prisoner of war wrote a book titled "An Historico-Geographical Description of the North and Eastern Parts of Europe and Asia" which includes a detailed description of the practice of ingesting tea made from A. muscaria and the practice of drinking the urine of those who have ingested the mushroom in order to recycle the psychoactive ingredients.

   "The Russians who trade with them [Koryak - a tribe on the Kamchatka peninsula], carry thither a Kind of Mushrooms, called in the Russian Tongue, Muchumor, which they exchange for Squirils, Fox, Hermin, Sable, and other Furs: Those who are rich among them, lay up large Provisions of these Mushrooms, for the Winter. When they make feast, they pour water upon some of these Mushrooms and boil them. They then drink the Liquor, which intoxicates them; The poorer Sort who cannot afford to lay in a Store of these Mushrooms, post themselves on these occasions, round the huts of the rich and watch the opportunity of the guests comind down to make water. And then hold a wooden bowl to receive the urine which they drink off greedily, as having still some virtue of the mushroom in it and by this way they also get drunk." (Wasson 1968, pg 235)
link

VMartin, are you aware that in this statement:  
Quote
You know concept of "self-representation" is based on the visibility. Internal organs of animals are not colored. External very often are. The same for mycelium/fruing body. I have read an opinion that probably as much as 90% of coloration of species have nothing to do with natural selection. If it is right we should reconsider natural selection as "omnipotent" evolutionary force.

B doesn't follow from A?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,12:37   

Quote (VMartin @ June 28 2007,11:54)
Internal organs of animals are not colored.

V

Please cut out your kidneys or your liver and send me a scan or a photograph. I'm pretty sure that they have some color, and I'm pretty sure that there are valid, tested neo-Darwinian hypotheses that explain those colors.
   
Quote (VMartin @ June 28 2007,12:13)

You are like a Newtonian insisting that all forces could be reduced to gravity. Of course gravity exists. My point is that there probably also is electro-magnetism you know. It doesn't mean that not knowing math behind electro-magnetism means we should dismiss it and hold on gravity even if it explain nothing.

Well, no, that's a pretty bad analogy. I am merely pointing out that one hypothesis for colors in mushrooms (to warn animals that the fruiting bodies are toxic) has been shown to be incorrect. Perhaps you knew this already, but it may be worth pointing out that scientists generate lots of hypotheses that turn out to be incorrect. One invalid hypothesis is no big deal. Get over it.

Secondly, as I asked in my previous message, if you have an alternative testable hypothesis, I'd like to hear it. If you don't have one, or if it isn't testable, then you can keep that to yourself. But your silence on this matter is troubling. So let's try again.

Why don't you give us your explanation of this observation, generate a testable hypothesis, and get busy testing it?

Or if that sounds like too much work, why don't you answer the other question - Do you agree with Davison on common descent?

Thanks in advance for ignoring those questions one more time.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,12:46   

Can we just ignore vmartin's ravings on this one tiny thread?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,12:54   

Speculation is difficult since there is virtually no way to determine a good phylogenic tree for fungi. If you don't know what is related to who, you can't tell what features were inherited and what features developed at what level. The fungi are horrible examples of any kind of evolution for that reason and because even the question of where one organism ends and a new one begins isn't always obvious. We don't know much about mushrooms because they are just weird.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,14:20   

Quote (VMartin @ June 28 2007,12:20)
Darwinists see everywhere crypsis or aposematism.

"Darwinist" investigate and test the plausibility of crypsis/aposematism, as in the study you just quoted. Meanwhile, I have yet to see any creationist doing that. You are being dishonest, Martin.  
   
Quote
I disagree with giving curious cases of buttefly mimicry and mushroom coloration as examples where natural/sexual selection is not plausible explanation of the coloration.

Can't you really imagine a natural cause for the coloration of mushrooms, ie other than your [dubious and unexplained] PEH?
In the case of butterflies, the current theory explains the observation very well, but let's not derail this thread.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,14:27   

Quote (BWE @ June 28 2007,12:54)
Speculation is difficult since there is virtually no way to determine a good phylogenic tree for fungi.

Why is that? Molecular markers are not reliable?

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,15:03   

A2
Quote

Please cut out your kidneys or your liver and send me a scan or a photograph.


Maybe your liver is as colorfull as a bright picture of Kandinskyi, but surely it is not my case.    

Quote

I am merely pointing out that one hypothesis for colors in mushrooms (to warn animals that the fruiting bodies are toxic) has been shown to be incorrect.


Thank you. That's my point.

Quote

Secondly, as I asked in my previous message, if you have an alternative testable hypothesis, I'd like to hear it. If you don't have one, or if it isn't testable, then you can keep that to yourself. But your silence on this matter is troubling. So let's try again.


My hypothesis are either frontloading or some unknown "internal forces" or Portmann's self-representation. All of them are non-darwinian explanations. They are untestable as well as darwinian explanations are. As far as I know nobody  has "tested" yet that mimicry arouse via Random mutation and Natural selection. It is only a darwinian hypothesis. How would you test that "Natural selection" created polymorhic mimicry of Papillio Dardanus? Your darwinian hypothesis of coloration as outcome of Natural selection is not backed by any experiment even if you think it is.
So you "can keep it for yourself" as well.

Quote

Do you agree with Davison on common descent?


It is forbidden to quote John Davison's thoughts here. On your part it is not correct to ask me questions that misinterpret John Davison thoughts on evolution because it is necessary for me to quote him or to give link to the sites where he addressed the issue. Otherwise your misinterpretation cannot be refuted. But my ban will probably follow imediately in such a case. Unless Wesley R. Elsberry permit me to answer your question quoting Davison's thoughts I will not respond to any questions full of misinterpretation of John ideas like this. I believe you are not a provocateur like Chatfield, but I am preliminary prudent.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,15:50   

Quote

Maybe your liver is as colorfull as a bright picture of Kandinskyi, but surely it is not my case.  


But how can you be SURE, V?

 
Quote

It is forbidden to quote John Davison's thoughts here.


Nonsense. We've already done it. Knock yourself out, V.

 
Quote
On your part it is not correct to ask me questions that misinterpret John Davison thoughts on evolution because it is necessary for me to quote him or to give link to the sites where he addressed the issue.


Coward.

Well how about our questions about who did the designing you posit, and what your 'scenario' is? We're quoting YOU there!

 
Quote

Otherwise your misinterpretation cannot be refuted. But my ban will probably follow imediately in such a case.


It's a simple question, V. Davison said there's no reason to doubt common descent.

Two answers, V:

1) I agree
2) I disagree

Why can't you answer that? What are you so terrified of?

Trust me, we all know your "Wesley will ban me" line is a lie.

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,15:58   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 28 2007,15:50)
 Two answers, V:

1) I agree
2) I disagree

Why can't you answer that? What are you so terrified of?

Trust me, we all know your "Wesley will ban me" line is a lie.

Not exactly - Personally I am hoping that it is not a lie.

But I always have unrequited hopes when it comes to whether or not creationists are lying...

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,16:02   

Quote (VMartin @ June 27 2007,13:34)
What are you babbling about ######? What thread? Is it forbidden here to make fun of Meyers and Christine but it is reccomended to denigrate "Javison" in every post however you like? Calm down and go observe your colorful fish-ancestors in aquarium.

At my day job one of my duties is to feed the fish in the lounge(appropriately name The Aquarium Lounge).  Consequently I get to watch fish for a fairly substantial amount of time.  One of the cool things is watching them 'walk' around.  Now I know they are ray finned and not lobe finned fish(Sir Ichy I may need you to confirm this) but I watch them use their pectoral fins to move across the sandy/pebbly bottom.  Watching this leaves me in no doubt that limbs originated in something similar among the ancestors of these fish.

Sincerely,
Paul

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,16:09   

Quote

Trust me, we all know your "Wesley will ban me" line is a lie.


I have warned him in the case of passing on insults from Davison. Telling people that Davison thinks ill of them will get VMartin booted the very next time he does it.

The discussion of technical details, should any be found relevant, in Davison's formal work is OK. So if VMartin or anyone else wants to quote from a peer-reviewed publication of Davison's, there is no issue there.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,16:12   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ June 28 2007,12:05)
Visibility to what?  Slugs?  Bees?  Bats?  

Internal organs of animals are not colored?  I challenge you to cut your liver out and show me that this is true.  I'm blinded by the tard.

Beefsteak fungus looks just like an ox-tongue, down to the marbling.  Tastes better though.  Not sure where you think this is all going.

Could it be assumed that any color is inherent to the material of the internal organ.  External coloration strikes me as being due to pigments that exist for the purpose of changing the otherwise 'natural' color, something missing for internal organs.

Just asking.

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,17:12   

Quote (jeannot @ June 28 2007,14:27)
Quote (BWE @ June 28 2007,12:54)
Speculation is difficult since there is virtually no way to determine a good phylogenic tree for fungi.

Why is that? Molecular markers are not reliable?

Well, maybe. This is a sample of what I mean:

Quote
Integrating molecular and morphological data in the systematics of fungi

Parmasto, E.
Department of Mycology, Estonian Agricultural University, Tartu, Estonia

The use of molecular characters in addition to morphological ones, and the use of cladistic methods has remarkably changed our knowledge on the phylogeny of fungi. A single classification, common for all users, which is based on all available data ought to be coined. Classifications using molecular characters (sequencing data a.o.) are in several cases congruent with the present system (of mainly genera). In other cases, due to the widespread parallelism in changes of morphological character states, the new phylogeny hypotheses are different from the classification in current use. In these cases, the main conclusion drawn from the contradiction of molecular and morphological data is that we have to re-evaluate the usefulness of the characters we used. But there are also cases when cladistic analyses based on molecular and morphological characters are giving extremely different topologies of phylogenetic trees. One of the examples is the system of Hymenochaetales (Basidiomycota, Hymenomycetes): if the tree based on rDNA LSU sequence data is accepted, there are almost no synapomorphic morphological characters supporting the branching pattern.
Molecular data taken from the GenBank used for a phylogenetic analysis are in many cases erroneous, mainly due to misidentifications. When only one or some representative species are used to characterize presumably monophyletic genera, the topology of the resulting tree depends on the selection of the species. The number of species included in a study is usually relatively small, causing sampling errors; when additional taxa and species of closely related genera are included, the resulting tree topology is changing. Many studies have been published where no attempts have been made to use combined datasets or to compare molecular data based trees with the morphology-based ones. Studies where changes of morphological characters are mapped on trees obtained using sequence data are surprisingly rare.
Shortly: phylogenetic studies of fungi based on molecular characters are extremely fruitful, but we are only halfway in compiling more or less stable classifications. Until that, the modern trend of using rankless taxonomy and denoting clades arbitrarily is causing some chaos. The so-called Linnean hierarchy is nothing more – and nothing less – than a way of showing the phylogenetic relations between species or species groups in an easily understandable way. A system of organisms is a way of communication between all biologists, not only among taxonomists themselves.

link

(emphasis mine)

Now I'm just a user, I don't do any research but when you genetic folks get it all sorted out, I suspect there will still be unhappy people. If morphology doesn't end up being represented in the final product then the product isn't very darn useful for people who are trying to use field guides.

FWIW.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,17:27   

Perhaps this makes more sense:
Quote
Molecular systematic studies of the Agaricales have radically transformed our interpretations of the evolution and classification of gilled mushrooms and their relatives (Hibbett et al. 1997; Moncalvo et al. 2000, 2002; Matheny et al. 2006). The overwhelming majority of species produces fruit bodies with gills (lamellae), but the evolution of gills has arisen numerous times in the Agaricomycetes (Hibbet et al. 1997). Likewise, multiple lineages of “gasteromycetes” (puffballs, bird’s nest fungi, false truffles), species that produce spores in an enclosed fruiting structure, have evolved independently among the Agaricales (Peintner et al. 2001). Studies by Bodensteiner et al. (2004), Larsson et al. (2004), and Binder et al. (2005) have shown that some non-gilled fungi, including reduced or cup-like (cyphelloid) forms and crustose or resupinate forms, share their evolutionary histories with numerous lineages of Agaricales, including some lineages that evolved in aquatic or marine environments (Binder et al. 2001; Hibbett and Binder 2001; Binder et al. 2006). In short, the gross morphology of mushroom fruit bodies is highly plastic and often a poor phylogenetic indicator. These and other studies demonstrated that a broad concept of Agaricales (Singer 1986), including boletes, some polypores, and the genera Russula, Lactarius and their allies, does not form a monophyletic group. Thus, the clade containing predominantly genera and families from the suborder Agaricineae (Singer 1986) was labeled the euagarics clade and represents what we currently regard as the Agaricales (Moncalvo et al. 2002). Most family-level relationships based on morphological characters are artificial, but progress is being made to delimit higher-level monophyletic groups with multiple gene data sets (Matheny 2005; Aime et al. 2005; Hofstetter et al. 2002; Binder et al. 2006). Remarkably, new species and genera continue to be described or placed in the order by molecular phylogenetic analyses.
the agarics. Above the agarics isn't much better either but these pages are worth a read.

Molecular markers are more accurate for the mycologist who needs a name but for research on growth, chemical properties, ecological issues and etc. or for amateur mushroom enthusiasts, the fact that morphology is rarely related to molecularly derived phylogenetic trees can be a bit frustrating.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2007,10:08   

Paul Flocken

Quote

Could it be assumed that any color is inherent to the material of the internal organ.  External coloration strikes me as being due to pigments that exist for the purpose of changing the otherwise 'natural' color, something missing for internal organs.


This is very good point. It represents the view of Adolf Portmann very well. The coloration as "addressed phenomenon" is for the others.

The question is what's the source of coloration. In the case of mushrooms it is not Natural selection obviously. Darwinists here agreed with it reluctantly too. But they claim with one breath that mushrooms are only some kind of exception. Of course mushrooms are not exceptions. Exceptions are cases where Natural selection can be considered as source of coloration. I have stated that development of 90% of coloration of extant species has nothing to do with Natural selection but with other, non-darwinian forces. Darwinists have pretended that the opposite is true having no support for their suppositon either - except belief to darwinism.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2007,10:30   

Am I the only one who noticed that VMartin can't go three sentences without using the word 'Darwinists'?

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

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2007,15:45   

jeanot, Question:

Did my comments make sense to you and is that a reconcilable issue?

edit: the only thing I've noticed about vMartin is a distinct lack of coherency.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2007,15:55   

Coherency?

I've never seen a hint that VMartin even has one herency, much less a pair of them.

And he's quite a bit further from a full house.

Now clemency, that might be in order.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2007,16:36   

Quote (BWE @ June 29 2007,15:45)
jeanot, Question:

Did my comments make sense to you and is that a reconcilable issue?

If morphology doesn't match molecular data, nothing need be done in order to reconcile the two.
But convergence (homoplasy) in sequence data, when using basal metabolism genes such as 16S rRNA, being much less likely than convergence in morphological traits, molecular markers are clearly posited as the accurate tool for phylogenetic analysis.

The only issue that need to be solved is inaccurate identification. Placing a taxon in the phylogenetic tree is pointless if one cannot identify it in nature without a risk of mistake.

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2007,22:09   

But in terms of figuring out the evolution of coloration, it kinda throws a monkey wrench in there doncha think?

edit: don't know why this didn't show up in the post??

You have to look on a case by case by case etc. basis.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 30 2007,06:14   

Quote (BWE @ June 29 2007,22:09)
But in terms of figuring out the evolution of coloration, it kinda throws a monkey wrench in there doncha think?

What does that mean?
Remember that I don't master English/American expressions.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 30 2007,11:41   

Quote (jeannot @ June 30 2007,06:14)
 
Quote (BWE @ June 29 2007,22:09)
But in terms of figuring out the evolution of coloration, it kinda throws a monkey wrench in there doncha think?

What does that mean?
Remember that I don't master English/American expressions.

'Throw a monkey wrench into something' = sabotage something, or add an element to a situation that creates a difficult problem.

--------------
"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: June 30 2007,11:48   

And "sabotage" is throwing a shoe into something.

Originally, anyway.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 30 2007,12:29   

Thanks Arden and Wesley.
Quote (BWE @ June 29 2007,22:09)
But in terms of figuring out the evolution of coloration, it kinda throws a monkey wrench in there doncha think?

Well, it depends.
Studying the evolution of coloration requires building phylogenies of closely related species (typically within a genus), as this trait seems highly variable.
Phylogenies of gene sequences at the genus level usually aren't problematic, they might be if the studied taxa underwent a fast radiation. Otherwise, there is not reason to think that DNA markers should not be reliable.
And regarding coloration, this trait should not be mischaracterized during field sampling.
However, as in every study regarding the evolution of a highly variable trait, problems may come from incomplete sampling: forgetting species, either because some have not been identified yet, or because the are unavailable, or because several have been misclassified in the same species. The latter could indeed happen in poorly studied organisms such as fungi, were two species may look similar while being more closely related compared to others species showing different colors.
But if you want a my personal opinion, I would say that incomplete sampling should not be so problematic. We don't need to know the complete and accurate history of the evolution of coloration, rather a global trend: is it a conserved or a highly variable trait at the genus level? Of course, it may depend on the genus, but a highly variable trait may indicate the action of divergent selection.

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 30 2007,14:20   

Quote (jeannot @ June 30 2007,12:29)
Thanks Arden and Wesley.
 
Quote (BWE @ June 29 2007,22:09)
But in terms of figuring out the evolution of coloration, it kinda throws a monkey wrench in there doncha think?

Well, it depends.
Studying the evolution of coloration requires building phylogenies of closely related species (typically within a genus), as this trait seems highly variable.
Phylogenies of gene sequences at the genus level usually aren't problematic, they might be if the studied taxa underwent a fast radiation. Otherwise, there is not reason to think that DNA markers should not be reliable.
And regarding coloration, this trait should not be mischaracterized during field sampling.
However, as in every study regarding the evolution of a highly variable trait, problems may come from incomplete sampling: forgetting species, either because some have not been identified yet, or because the are unavailable, or because several have been misclassified in the same species. The latter could indeed happen in poorly studied organisms such as fungi, were two species may look similar while being more closely related compared to others species showing different colors.
But if you want a my personal opinion, I would say that incomplete sampling should not be so problematic. We don't need to know the complete and accurate history of the evolution of coloration, rather a global trend: is it a conserved or a highly variable trait at the genus level? Of course, it may depend on the genus, but a highly variable trait may indicate the action of divergent selection.

My hypothesis is that we can't figure out much more till the dang scientists go do some more work on phylogenies.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 30 2007,14:45   

Dave said:
Quote
Another hypothesis about why nobody has done much research on the evolution of coloration and its relationship to toxicity in mushrooms might be that there is not a lot of funding for projects like that these days.

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 30 2007,16:17   

Quote (jeannot @ June 30 2007,14:45)
Dave said:  
Quote
Another hypothesis about why nobody has done much research on the evolution of coloration and its relationship to toxicity in mushrooms might be that there is not a lot of funding for projects like that these days.

In the mean time we can do some fun speculation though.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2007,15:10   

Studying molecular background of coloration of mushrooms or of butterly wings do not help. Even if we know how and where coloration is coded (if it is possible)
it will elucidate nothing. It will not solve problem if coloration is adaptive or not. It will not determine if coloration has cryptic/aposematic function. It will not explain the function of species coloration at all.

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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2007,15:41   

Quote

It will not solve problem if coloration is adaptive or not.


Linkage disequilibrium is established via study of the "molecular background", for sure.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2007,17:38   

Quote (VMartin @ July 01 2007,15:10)
Studying molecular background of coloration of mushrooms or of butterly wings do not help. Even if we know how and where coloration is coded (if it is possible)
it will elucidate nothing. It will not solve problem if coloration is adaptive or not. It will not determine if coloration has cryptic/aposematic function. It will not explain the function of species coloration at all.

It will not solve everything, but as I said, phylogenetic analysis could indicate the action of divergent selection. Of course, it implies that all species of, say, Boletus, share a common ancestor. I hope you don't deny that, Martin.
In the end, if we know the genes coding for this trait, fitness experiment can be done (RNA interference, knock-out) to assess the role of coloration. But they certainly won't be necessary. Positive selection could be detected with sequence comparisons, although you may object that mutations may not be random. ???

Anyway, what do you propose, Martin, in order to test your hypothesis (whatever that is)?

BTW, such analysis is not needed in butterflies, their coloration is already explained.

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2007,18:31   

VMartin,

The conversation Jeannot and I had has nothing to do with things you you are evidently comprehending.

Boletus is a good example. The ruselas are a different story but not one that your comments are displaying evidence of comprehending. Do you have access to a library? Do you have a brick?

(Inside joke. SteveStory's funniest comment ever)

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 02 2007,10:15   

Quote (VMartin @ July 01 2007,15:10)
it will elucidate nothing.

You probably meant: "it must not elucidate anything".
You wouldn't want such thing, as it would ruin your argument (from ignorance).
Again, what is your hypothesis, Martin, and what do you propose in order to test it?

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 02 2007,15:13   

Quote

Boletus is a good example. The ruselas are a different story but not one that your comments are displaying evidence of comprehending. Do you have access to a library? Do you have a brick?


Do not make fool of yourselves. It was me who made claim that coloration of fruiting bodies of mushrooms are a problem for darwinism. You have never any idea that such an anti-darwinian example exists because it has never been mentioned in english language as far as I know.

Now you are angry that you cannot explain the coloration via natural selection. You can pretend to be an expert on fungi and denigrate me if you like. I can only laugh at your ignorance. It is ridiculous how you want to obscure the problem by analysing pigments or DNA that underly the colors of mushrooms. You can continue discussing your artificial, substitutional issue of molecular background however long you like. I am sure you will never explain the meaning of the coloration in such way.

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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 02 2007,15:16   

Quote

BTW, such analysis is not needed in butterflies, their coloration is already explained.


Do you mean that aposematic/cryptic coloration of butterflies can be determined by studying their DNA or what?

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

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 02 2007,15:24   

Quote (VMartin @ July 02 2007,15:13)
Quote

Boletus is a good example. The ruselas are a different story but not one that your comments are displaying evidence of comprehending. Do you have access to a library? Do you have a brick?


. You have never any idea that such an anti-darwinian example exists because it has never been mentioned in english language as far as I know.

But but but....that means you can't have stolen this from Davidson!

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 02 2007,17:44   

Okay, here's a new game: every time VMartin says 'Darwinist', 'Darwinian', or 'Darwinism', take a drink of beer.

Okay, let's start.

 
Quote
Do not make fool of yourselves.


Hmm. Is not answering questions how you keep yourself so dignified, V? Or is it sucking up to lunatics?

Quote
It was me who made claim that coloration of fruiting bodies of mushrooms are a problem for darwinism.


*GULP*

 
Quote
You have never any idea that such an anti-darwinian


*GULP*

 
Quote
example exists because it has never been mentioned in english language as far as I know.

Now you are angry that you cannot explain the coloration via natural selection. You can pretend to be an expert on fungi


Is that what you are, V? An expert on fungi?

 
Quote
and denigrate me if you like.


Thank you! I believe we shall!

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

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 02 2007,17:55   

Ah, sadly I'm on water tonight, or I would love to join in.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 02 2007,17:55   

Quote (VMartin @ July 02 2007,15:13)
I can only laugh at your ignorance.

That's pretty funny.

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 02 2007,17:56   

Hey Martin, ever wonder why everyone thinks you're nutty?

Ever wonder why everyone thinks JAD is nutty?


Think maybe one has something to do with the other?

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 02 2007,19:44   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 02 2007,17:56)
Hey Martin, ever wonder why everyone thinks you're nutty?

Ever wonder why everyone thinks JAD is nutty?


Think maybe one has something to do with the other?

News Flash.

Posting multiple comments in a row in his own inimitable style (I love it so!), JAD has taken over this thread at ISCID, accusing Wes of impersonating VMartin, among other hallucinations.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 02 2007,23:30   

Darwinists are pretty angry. Because they cannot use "natural selection" in the case of coloration of mushrooms they started denigrate me having no other arguments.
First they tried to obscure the problem by gibbering  about mushroom's DNA. Now they only denigrate - as usually btw.

Another case is well-known butterfy Peacock - Inachis io. This butterfly has eye spots on the wings. Darwinistic explanation is again that Natural selection created them. Once they were only indistinct but those butterflies with better eyespots were selected (they scared by them predators you know) and by such way eyspots were refined. Nice story.

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

Everybody knows also Red Admiral (Vanessa atalanta).
They are colorfull without eyespots inhabiting in Europe
vast areas. Here the darwinian story about evolution of their coloration is totally different one.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanessa_%28butterfly%29

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 02 2007,23:42   

Okay, everybody, ready for our next game of 'Darwin'?

Beer bottles ready...

LET'S GO!

 
Quote
Darwinists


*gulp*

[uh oh, that was quick]

   
Quote
are pretty nervous of the case of coloration of animals and started denigrate me having no arguments.
First they tried to obscure the problem by gibbering  about DNA. Now they only denigrate - as usually btw.

Another case is well-known butterfy Peacock - Inachis io. This butterfly has eye spots on the wings. Darwinistic


*chug*

   
Quote
explanation is that Natural selection created them. Once they were only indistinct but those butterflies with better eyespots were selected and by such way eyspots were refined. Nice story.

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

Everybody knows also Red Admiral (Vanessa atalanta).
They are colorfull without eyespots inhabiting in Europe
vast areas. Here the darwinian


*swig*

   
Quote
story about evolution of their coloration is totally different one.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanessa_%28butterfly%29


Ugh, I think maybe I need to lie 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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 02 2007,23:59   

Quote

accusing Wes of impersonating VMartin


I've always found the antievolutionists to provide far more self-inflicted damage than I have time to comment upon. Why should I impersonate anyone, when that would just mean that I'm letting someone else go uncritiqued?

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,01:44   

Quote (VMartin @ July 02 2007,15:13)
Do not make fool of yourselves. It was me who made claim that coloration of fruiting bodies of mushrooms are a problem for darwinism. You have never any idea that such an anti-darwinian example exists because it has never been mentioned in english language as far as I know.

Now you are angry that you cannot explain the coloration via natural selection. You can pretend to be an expert on fungi and denigrate me if you like. I can only laugh at your ignorance. It is ridiculous how you want to obscure the problem by analysing pigments or DNA that underly the colors of mushrooms. You can continue discussing your artificial, substitutional issue of molecular background however long you like. I am sure you will never explain the meaning of the coloration in such way.

This cat seems to have some strange brew baby. The topic of phylogenies being as yet undocumented for many fungi has next to nothing to do with your idea that they throw a monkey wrench into the science of evolution. I would hardly describe myself as an expert on fungi (although I do have a photo album full of polaroids of Labouls (Laboulbeniales) my mother shot using an electron microscope a looong time ago. That's a weird one for you. As a kid I had to care for some decrepit old hens, help collect their lice with a vacuum cleaner fitted with a sheer nylon legging and that doesn't even include our house fly cages. Having a scientist for a mother had ups and downs.) but the subject I was discussing was the difficulty dealing with a lack of data not your ravings. Was I off topic? I'm sorry if I was.

Arden, that's the kind of game that kills college students occasionally. Have you read any of the "debate between myself and AFDave at Richard Dawkins? I started by claiming a beer every time I won a point. I stopped that game in a hurry. As a matter of fact, it's 11:45 and I've already had too many. Can I take a credit?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,14:29   

Your gibbering is off topic.

1) You don't know to explain function of coloration of fruiting bodies of mushrooms.

2) You seem to be unable to explain why some related butterfly species inhabiting the same area and feeding on the same plants have totally different patterns and coloration of their wings. One species has aposematic eyspots to scare predators (?) the other one doesn't. But it thrive as well.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,14:34   

Hey, V, there's some questions for you to answer at the pantloading frontloading thread.

Don't let us down, big guy!

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

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,00:41   

Quote (VMartin @ July 03 2007,14:29)
Your gibbering is off topic.

1) You don't know to explain function of coloration of fruiting bodies of mushrooms.

2) You seem to be unable to explain why some related butterfly species inhabiting the same area and feeding on the same plants have totally different patterns and coloration of their wings. One species has aposematic eyspots to scare predators (?) the other one doesn't. But it thrive as well.

It's actually a koan. When you figure it out you will have attained nirvana.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,14:47   

Quote

It's actually a koan. When you figure it out you will have attained nirvana.


I supposed that "natural selection" is a mantra. Something like incantation. If you call it koan so much the better.

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

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2007,22:20   

Quote (VMartin @ July 04 2007,14:47)
Quote

It's actually a koan. When you figure it out you will have attained nirvana.


I supposed that "natural selection" is a mantra. Something like incantation. If you call it koan so much the better.

What specific issue you are questioning? The idea she understanding is not. I swam near mantra ray in east coast of United states but koan bear I yet have to see. The fruiting bodies the fungi for to have become that way because either accident or benefit. All questions I have answers.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2007,23:53   

Quote

What specific issue you are questioning? The idea she understanding is not. I swam near mantra ray in east coast of United states but koan bear I yet have to see. The fruiting bodies the fungi for to have become that way because either accident or benefit. All questions I have answers.


You have had to change your first question like this:

What specific issue are you questioning?


I would make such order of words. Slavonic languages are synthetic languages and it means that subject, verb and object do not have fixed place in the sentence. You can change their position without changing the meaning of the sentence. It is something you cannot do in English/German which are analytical languages - changing position of subject and object will change the meaning of the sentence. "The reverend ridiculed darwinists" has different meaning as "Darwinists ridiculed the reverend". In our language
"Duchovny sa vysmieval darwinistom" or "Darwinistom sa vysmieval duchovny" has the same meaning  because of suffix "-om" "darwinist-om". By this suffix I know that the first word in the sentence is an object. We have often hidden subject. You say "He was there" and I say "Bol tam". Because of the hidden subject I can very easily make a mistake like in introductionary sentence. If national socialist darwinist like Arden Chatfield  would start to ridicule synthetic languages as "undedeveloped" he should have to consider that Greek and Latin are syntetic languages too.

   
Quote

The idea she understanding is not.


I wouldn't make such a mistake. Obviously you are missing an important point that in Slavonic languages there are some differences between sentences depending on who said them. Woman use different suffixes as man. That's why our languages were called by one prominent linguist as "erotic languages". From the written sentence "I came home tired" I don't know if woman or man wrote it. But I say "Pris-iel som domov unaven-y" (notice also missing subject I - Ja)  and a woman say "Pris-la som domov unaven-a". You see there are two different suffixes. If national darwinist like Arden Chatfield would start to ridicule Slavonic languages as "ancient" ones you should have notice him that according a hypothesis a language using many suffixes prove the contrary that the language is "new".

   
Quote

The fruiting bodies the fungi for to have become that way because either accident or benefit.


If you check my grammar I will have no problem with it. To be frankly it would be more instructive as many stupid responses here.

Topic:
I have questioned the issue of coloration of animals. On some opinion 90% of animal's coloration cannot be explained by natural selection. Because coloration is something everybody sees and coloration play often a major role in recognition, such a view questions natural selection as evolutionary force. I have started with great kingdom of mushrooms where sexual selection cannot obscure the issue. You can contradict me using some special kind of species like white bears of course. But again - you have no answer why swans are white for instance.

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 07 2007,00:21   

I'm sorry, Martin --- did you say something?


(yawn)

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 07 2007,09:54   

VMartin the Darwinist-obsessed creationist is now calling 'Darwinists' 'National Socialists'. This is at least the second time he's done this. I would propose that along with his refusal to answer questions, it's now time to ban him.

For reference, here is the other place he did 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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 07 2007,13:25   

Quote

VMartin the Darwinist-obsessed creationist is now calling 'Darwinists' 'National Socialists'. This is at least the second time he's done this. I would propose that along with his refusal to answer questions, it's now time to ban him.



1) I didn't answer your questions. That's right. You are not worth of it, you know. It doen't mean I don't answer questions from the others if questions are on topic and interesting. I am just one. Answering all questions is impossible considering the fact that I have to respond to many denigrations as well.

2) I didn't call Darwinists "National socialist" generally. I called only your behaviour in that way (and of one guy). You do not represent "darwinists", you represent only the most despicable individual form of social darwinism I hit upon.

This time you managed  that I answered to your post. I hope this is the last time. Unless you start with  East-European psychology analysis using national-socialist manners again.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 07 2007,15:12   

Quote
I didn't answer your questions. That's right. You are not worth of it, you know. It


You've never answered our questions, V. Never since Day One. You've always been too cowardly to answer our questions. And now that you're calling 'Darwinists' 'National Socialists' it confirms that you are indeed as much of a dimwit as everyone here thinks.  But that explains your thing for Davison.

Go back and hide under Davison's coat, V. It's less scary there. The scary Darwinists can't hurt you there. Before you lose your countenace completely.

--------------
"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: July 07 2007,17:03   

You bore me, Martin.

Please go away.

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

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 08 2007,04:09   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 07 2007,10:12)
 
Quote
I didn't answer your questions. That's right. You are not worth of it, you know. It


You've never answered our questions, V. Never since Day One. You've always been too cowardly to answer our questions. And now that you're calling 'Darwinists' 'National Socialists' it confirms that you are indeed as much of a dimwit as everyone here thinks.  But that explains your thing for Davison.

Go back and hide under Davison's coat, V. It's less scary there. The scary Darwinists can't hurt you there. Before you lose your countenace completely.

Oh and if I might point out:  
Quote
A person who will not defend his convictions in a neutral arena is of no value to scientific progress.
John A. Davison, professor (associate, retired)

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 08 2007,21:22   

Re "A person who will not defend his convictions in a neutral arena is of no value to scientific progress."

Only neutral? What about hostile? ;)

(Well, come to think of it, we know Davison didn't really defend his ideas on PT - it was always "go read my paper" or some such.)

Henry

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2007,13:54   

Quote (VMartin @ July 06 2007,23:53)
Topic:
I have questioned the issue of coloration of animals. On some opinion 90% of animal's coloration cannot be explained by natural selection. Because coloration is something everybody sees and coloration play often a major role in recognition, such a view questions natural selection as evolutionary force. I have started with great kingdom of mushrooms where sexual selection cannot obscure the issue. You can contradict me using some special kind of species like white bears of course. But again - you have no answer why swans are white for instance.

Man, first of all you completely missed my joke by zeroing in on the grammar part. Second, so what? Just because you don't know doesn't mean you can't know. Er..., well, that someone can't know.

When you drill down into the specifics like that you are missing the real issues. You might have a wonderful topic for a paper but it wouldn't be about the validity of evolution, it would be about the evolution of color in fruiting...

Sheesh.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,15:40   

Jeanot at Frontloading thread:

 
Quote

Well, coloration in mushrooms has hardly been studied, and the genetic mechanisms of domestication are very well explained by "Darwinismus".

Is that all you have, Martin?


The coloration of mushroom has been studied. We discussed at this thread an scientific article that concluded coloration of mushrooms have no connection with poisonous quality of mushrooms. It is one of the basic claim of neodarwinism that  coloration signals that species is unpalatable or poisonous. Obviously this is not the case of mushrooms.

---

If genetic mechanism of domestication of dogs is so well explained by darwinism, how darwinism explains the fact that we cannot domesticate the majority of animals whatever we do?

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,15:44   

Quote (VMartin @ July 25 2007,15:40)
If genetic mechanism of domestication of dogs is so well explained by darwinism, how darwinism explains the fact that we cannot domesticate the majority of animals whatever we do?

yeah, and what about PYGMIES + DWARVES????

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,15:50   

yeah and why do we still have bacteria?  and archie comics?

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Patrick Caldon



Posts: 68
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,15:54   

Quote (VMartin @ July 25 2007,15:40)
The coloration of mushroom has been studied. We discussed at this thread an scientific article that concluded coloration of mushrooms have no connection with poisonous quality of mushrooms. It is one of the basic claim of neodarwinism that  coloration signals that species is unpalatable or poisonous. Obviously this is not the case of mushrooms.

Heh?  I've only read a couple of textbooks on modern evolutionary theory and population genetics, but each of them went into long descriptions of how mimicry and similar false signals do evolve.

Suppose there is a bird who has learned to avoid butterflies having a specific pattern.  There is then a selective advantage to looking like the poisonous butterfly.  This has been studied quite a lot.

I would hazard to guess that something similar could operate in mushrooms.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,16:07   

Quote (VMartin @ July 25 2007,15:40)
Jeanot at Frontloading thread:

   
Quote

Well, coloration in mushrooms has hardly been studied, and the genetic mechanisms of domestication are very well explained by "Darwinismus".

Is that all you have, Martin?


The coloration of mushroom has been studied. We discussed at this thread an scientific article that concluded coloration of mushrooms have no connection with poisonous quality of mushrooms. It is one of the basic claim of neodarwinism that  coloration signals that species is unpalatable or poisonous. Obviously this is not the case of mushrooms.

---

If genetic mechanism of domestication of dogs is so well explained by darwinism, how darwinism explains the fact that we cannot domesticate the majority of animals whatever we do?

A plausible hypothesis is that such animals don't reproduce very well at home because they are adapted to different conditions. Have you heard of "ecological specialization"? Also, adaptation relies on the level of polymorphism in a species. Of course the reasons can differ between different animals. I really don't see how this should be a problem to the ToE. ???

Regarding mushroom. Yeah, there's one article, that failed to link coloration to toxicity. Clearly that means will never find why many mushrooms are colorful. It has to be prescribed evolution...

You think you're raising some issue? Well you clearly not. You're merely pointing to something that has not been deeply studied and you fail to provide your own hypothesis. You're boring.
Give us something new, some positive evidence for your PEH. Was dog "prescribed", Martin?

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,16:09   

Quote (Patrick Caldon @ July 25 2007,15:54)
Heh?  I've only read a couple of textbooks on modern evolutionary theory and population genetics, but each of them went into long descriptions of how mimicry and similar false signals do evolve.

Suppose there is a bird who has learned to avoid butterflies having a specific pattern.  There is then a selective advantage to looking like the poisonous butterfly.  This has been studied quite a lot.

I would hazard to guess that something similar could operate in mushrooms.

Well, apparently it's not the case in mushrooms. See the other thread.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,17:15   

Martin, are you STILL yammering . . . .?

Geez.

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

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,20:27   

Of course, as Lenny well knows, real martins don't yammer.

Quote
The male song is is a low-pitched liquid gurgling, the female’s a mix of chortle calls and downslurred whistles. Martins have a variety of calls, with the most common being a descending cherr.


Since Vmartin does insist on yammering, however, it's clear he's not real.

And can be as readily ignored as any other annoying, but transient, phantasm.

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2007,14:53   

Jeannot
 
Quote

A plausible hypothesis is that such animals don't reproduce very well at home because they are adapted to different conditions. Have you heard of "ecological specialization"? Also, adaptation relies on the level of polymorphism in a species. Of course the reasons can differ between different animals. I really don't see how this should be a problem to the ToE. ???


All species are adapted to different conditions than living close with a man. You suppose that dog's ancestors somehow lived in conditions similar to that of humans. In the same conditions obviously lived ancestors of sheeps and postal pigeons. All the other species lived in different conditions. One would say that ancestors of humans, dogs, sheeps and pigeons lived once in the same forest or what. All the other species lived somewehere on ice-bergs. And that's why other species cannot be domesticated.    
I would say that problem of domestication is little bit more complicated that materialistic "they come from different conditions" and "ecological specialisation".
Obviously there are some internal factors (genetic variability independent from "conditions")  that enable  
some species to be domesticated and the others not.


 
Quote

Regarding mushroom. Yeah, there's one article, that failed to link coloration to toxicity. Clearly that means will never find why many mushrooms are colorful. It has to be prescribed evolution...


It is not one article that failed link coloration to toxicity. The fact was known long before any research has been done. Yes, it has to be some non-darwinian force behind coloration of mushrooms.

 
Quote

You think you're raising some issue? Well you clearly not. You're merely pointing to something that has not been deeply studied and you fail to provide your own hypothesis. You're boring.


I see. If you cannot explain a phenomenon using standard darwinian explanations  the problem was not deeply studied. I am afraid that if problem was studied more deeply the outcome would be the same. Maybe that's the reason why it is not studied, because it fails to support ToE.

 
Quote

Give us something new, some positive evidence for your PEH. Was dog "prescribed", Martin?


There is something in dog's genotype that enables them to be so close to man and what other species do not posses.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2007,16:11   

Quote
Yes, it has to be some non-darwinian force behind coloration of mushrooms.


What would that 'non-darwinian force' be, V?

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

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2007,17:52   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 27 2007,16:11)
Quote
Yes, it has to be some non-darwinian force behind coloration of mushrooms.


What would that 'non-darwinian force' be, V?



Thank you to whoever put this up originally.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2007,20:54   

Geez, Martin, are you STILL yammering . . . ?

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2007,22:46   

Even if coloration in fungi is an unanswered question at this point, how on earth is that an argument against the overall theory? All current theories have unanswered questions about details (otherwise scientists would be unemployed).

If I'm following this, the color itself doesn't appear to be the controlling factor. But, it's caused by chemicals that the organism produces and concentrates in its outer layers? The chemicals in question happen to be colorful, but has anybody checked on whether those chemicals produce some other benefit that maybe has nothing to do with their reaction to light?

That would after all seem to be the next question if mimicry and/or camoulflage have been determined to be unlikely.

Henry

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 28 2007,01:54   

Henry
Quote

Even if coloration in fungi is an unanswered question at this point, how on earth is that an argument against the overall theory? All current theories have unanswered questions about details (otherwise scientists would be unemployed).


I've put mushrooms as an example where coloration cannot be explained via ToE. I claim that it is only the tip of the iceberg. 90% of coloration in animal kingdom is unexpleinable by ToE. See swans. Why are they white? Because of natural selection? It is the form and color that represents any animal species mostly. It is not detail.

   
Quote

If I'm following this, the color itself doesn't appear to be the controlling factor. But, it's caused by chemicals that the organism produces and concentrates in its outer layers? The chemicals in question happen to be colorful, but has anybody checked on whether those chemicals produce some other benefit that maybe has nothing to do with their reaction to light?

That would after all seem to be the next question if mimicry and/or camoulflage have been determined to be unlikely


We have mentioned already mushrooms genera Amanitta. There are very different coloration in it - red, green, white etc... It is hardly believable that such pigments are byproduct of some process and that they concetrate  at the cap of the mushroom where they are  most visible.````

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

  
Patrick Caldon



Posts: 68
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 28 2007,02:19   

Quote (VMartin @ July 28 2007,01:54)
See swans. Why are they white?

Swans are black where I'm from.  There's a pair of them (with grey-black cygnets) about a mile from where I'm typing now.  Very cute.  The cygnets follow momma swan around and poppa swan chases away all the ducks when people come to feed them.

So why are swans white or black but nothing inbetween?  Well some swans are both white and black.  These are in South America somewhere if I recall.  

So why are some swans white, other swans black and some swans a combination of both black and white?

Dunno.  But I hardly see that the existence of some white swans, some black swans, and some white and black swans destroys the theory of evolution.  It would probably be an interesting project to get to the bottom of.  At the same time it would be interesting to know why black swans have grey cygnets.

  
Patrick Caldon



Posts: 68
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 28 2007,02:23   

Quote (VMartin @ July 28 2007,01:54)
I've put mushrooms as an example where coloration cannot be explained via ToE. I claim that it is only the tip of the iceberg. 90% of coloration in animal kingdom is unexpleinable by ToE.

Forgot to add:  unexplained =/= unexpleinable.  You have to do a lot to show that something is impossible on some kind of theoretical grounds.

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 28 2007,02:33   

Quote (Patrick Caldon @ July 28 2007,02:19)

Dunno.  But I hardly see that the existence of some white swans, some black swans, and some white and black swans destroys the theory of evolution.  It would probably be an interesting project to get to the bottom of.  At the same time it would be interesting to know why black swans have grey cygnets.


White swans on a lake I live near have grey cygnets to.

I have read this conversation refleting prevailing paradigma:

Medieval University:

- Why are swans white?
- Because God determined so.

Modern University, 21st century:
 
- Why are swans white?
- Because it was determined by natural selection.

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

  
Patrick Caldon



Posts: 68
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 28 2007,03:32   

Quote (VMartin @ July 28 2007,02:33)
Medieval University:

- Why are swans white?
- Because God determined so.

Modern University, 21st century:
 
- Why are swans white?
- Because it was determined by natural selection.

I'm not sure you're listening VMartin.  Not all swans are white.  Repeating, not all swans are white.  There are black ones:



In any event I think the modern university would more likely answer: "Dunno, but that sounds like an interesting project for a graduate student.  Let's see if we can get some funding from somewhere."

Given that all variation which has been thoroughly examined to date has been the result of natural evolutionary processes (of which natural selection is one) it would be a bit of a turn up for the books if swans were white (and black, and various other colors) because God did it.

More to the point, let's suppose after several years of hard labor we had some explanation of why swans are white, black, and various other colors, as we now do for lots of other organisms.  You would just pipe up with:  "Why are crimson rosellas red?".  Then another several years of labor.  Then "Why are galahs pink?".  "Why are sulphur-crested cockatoos white?" and so on.

If you're really that worried about bird coloration, make a bequest to a university to study it.

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 28 2007,04:11   

Quote (Patrick Caldon @ July 28 2007,03:32)
I'm not sure you're listening VMartin.  Not all swans are white.  Repeating, not all swans are white.  There are black ones:



I have discussed swans already elsewhere. Folks there noticed that swans are also black in Australia. But I would say it plays more in my cards than it supports neodarwinistic veiw. Because if the same species is white or black it is hardly explainable by natural or sexual selection. It is really very curious - (speaking about Australian/Tasmanian/NZ versus Europian/American fauna)  that natural selection could lead to striking  similarity of placental and marsupial wolf (convergence). The same natural selection would have led in both areas to different and almost opposite coloration of swans.

Quote

More to the point, let's suppose after several years of hard labor we had some explanation of why swans are white, black, and various other colors, as we now do for lots of other organisms.  You would just pipe up with:  "Why are crimson rosellas red?".  Then another several years of labor.  Then "Why are galahs pink?".  "Why are sulphur-crested cockatoos white?" and so on.


I am almost sure you are unable to explain what's behind coloration of mushrooms or swans (eiter white ones or black ones). It is not necessary to make suppositions what else I will introduce if you exlplain it.

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

  
Patrick Caldon



Posts: 68
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 28 2007,05:48   

Quote (VMartin @ July 28 2007,04:11)
I have discussed swans already elsewhere. Folks there noticed that swans are also black in Australia. But I would say it plays more in my cards than it supports neodarwinistic veiw. Because if the same species is white or black it is hardly explainable by natural or sexual selection. It is really very curious - (speaking about Australian/Tasmanian/NZ versus Europian/American fauna)  that natural selection could lead to striking  similarity of placental and marsupial wolf (convergence). The same natural selection would have led in both areas to different and almost opposite coloration of swans.

VMartin,

European grey wolves are grey (hence the "grey" in the name).  Thylacines (tasmanian tigers) were brown with stripes (hence the "tiger").

Trust me, having been to been to both Europe and Australia that the climates, flora and fauna, and geography are quite different in both regions.  For instance, it snows in a goodly portion of the white swan's European range, which was covered in glaciers 10,000 years ago.  It does not snow in much of Australia, and we don't have glaciers.

I'll repeat, I have no idea why they have the colors they do; that does not imply "god did it".   It's a several year research project to work out why white swans are white. If you want to fund the study I'm sure I can find someone to do it for you.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 28 2007,06:19   

Quote

It is really very curious - (speaking about Australian/Tasmanian/NZ versus Europian/American fauna)  that natural selection could lead to striking  similarity of placental and marsupial wolf (convergence).


The convergence seems only to have influenced the gross morphology needed in common for running terrestrial predators, and we know via biophysics why that sort of thing happens. It is not curious at all that the dictates of physics has an influence on what happens via natural selection.

Beyond that, placental wolf and thylacine differ in the coloration, as Patrick pointed out; in cranial morphology; in dental formula; and in behavior; as well as the obvious difference in reproductive systems.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 28 2007,08:28   

Quote (Patrick Caldon @ July 28 2007,05:48)

European grey wolves are grey (hence the "grey" in the name).  Thylacines (tasmanian tigers) were brown with stripes (hence the "tiger").


Those stripes on marsupial wolfs are another puzzle. The same stripes has African Zebra druiker living in Africa. See here:

http://www.naturalworlds.org/thylaci....f_1.htm

Now the explanation is that they inhabit "similar types of habitat". I would say that black and white swans also inhabit the same types of habitat (they are the one species) but in this case the habitat excercises different selective pressure to coloration. In the first case the same habitat led to almost same stripe patterns on thylacine/druiker, in the second case the same habitat led to white or black coloration of swans.
   
Quote

Trust me, having been to been to both Europe and Australia that the climates, flora and fauna, and geography are quite different in both regions.  For instance, it snows in a goodly portion of the white swan's European range, which was covered in glaciers 10,000 years ago.  It does not snow in much of Australia, and we don't have glaciers.


But swans need liquid water to live on. I


I'll repeat, I have no idea why they have the colors they do; that does not imply "god did it".   It's a several year research project to work out why white swans are white. If you want to fund the study I'm sure I can find someone to do it for you.

vvv[/quote]
vvv

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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 28 2007,08:40   

Quote (Patrick Caldon @ July 28 2007,05:48)

European grey wolves are grey (hence the "grey" in the name).  Thylacines (tasmanian tigers) were brown with stripes (hence the "tiger").


Those stripes on marsupial wolfs are another puzzle. The same stripes has African Zebra druiker living in Africa. See here:

http://www.naturalworlds.org/thylaci....f_1.htm

Now the explanation is that they inhabit "similar types of habitat". I would say that black and white swans also inhabit the same types of habitat (they are the one species) but in this case the habitat excercises different selective pressure to coloration. In the first case the same habitat led to almost same stripe patterns on thylacine/druiker, in the second case the same habitat led to white or black coloration of swans.
   
Quote

Trust me, having been to been to both Europe and Australia that the climates, flora and fauna, and geography are quite different in both regions.  For instance, it snows in a goodly portion of the white swan's European range, which was covered in glaciers 10,000 years ago.  It does not snow in much of Australia, and we don't have glaciers.


But swans need liquid water to live on. Maybe you  would like introduce arctic habitat where white coloration may have a cryptic function. Another explanation is that in Europe is/was warmer weather than in Australia and white color has advantage to be not overheated (we know a lot of white mushrooms and I hit on such explanation). So explanation can be different, due winter or hot sun and it is only a matter of belief if you accept such natural selection explanation or not. Obviously phantasy plays in conceiving such explanations greater role than the reality itself.

Quote

I'll repeat, I have no idea why they have the colors they do; that does not imply "god did it".   It's a several year research project to work out why white swans are white. If you want to fund the study I'm sure I can find someone to do it for you.


According Adolf Potmann coloration of species is self-representation "die Selbstdarstellung" of species. If true your research couldn't prove ToE as explanation of coloration in predominant cases of animal coloration.

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 28 2007,08:45   

Perhaps a brief summary of this thread will help point out the futility of "conversing" with VMartin.

He is fond of pointing out that "darwinists" have no explanation for various things. This is a common enough tactic, and confined almost exclusively to those who prefer certainty to uncertainty. When it is pointed out to him that gaps in knowledge are expected and do not mean that a theory is in serious disarray, he ignores it and goes on to another perceived gap.

His fondness for pointing out gaps in our knowledge is exceeded only by his disdain for proposing alternative explanations. Whether this is because he has no alternative explanations, or because he knows that his preferred explanations have less-than-zero experimental support is not clear. This is because he also refuses to answer questions about his mechanistic explanations of anything.

In other words, he is a sniper, moving along and taking potshots but providing only moving targets for his adversaries. Useless in almost every respect.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 28 2007,08:52   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 28 2007,06:19)
   
Quote

It is really very curious - (speaking about Australian/Tasmanian/NZ versus Europian/American fauna)  that natural selection could lead to striking  similarity of placental and marsupial wolf (convergence).


The convergence seems only to have influenced the gross morphology needed in common for running terrestrial predators, and we know via biophysics why that sort of thing happens. It is not curious at all that the dictates of physics has an influence on what happens via natural selection.

Beyond that, placental wolf and thylacine differ in the coloration, as Patrick pointed out; in cranial morphology; in dental formula; and in behavior; as well as the obvious difference in reproductive systems.


I would say that convergence influnced at most the shape of skulls. Placental and marsupial sabre-toothed tigers had very similar skulls. The same is valid for thylacinus/placental wolf. According Dawkins it is not easy to tell them apart. You have to know their dental formulas or to know that there are two holes in the palate bone. At least students at Oxford found it not so easy to tell them apart, I quote Dawkins The Ancestor tale:


Zoology students at Oxford had to identify 100 zoological specimens as part of the final exam. Word soon got around that, if ever a 'dog' skull was given, it was safe to identify it as Thylacinus on the grounds that anything as obvious as a dog skull had to be a catch. Then one year the examiners, to their credit, double bluffed and put in a real dog skull. The easiest way to tell the difference is by the two prominent holes in the palate bone, which are characteristic of marsupials generally.


The question is if such similarities are caused by natural selection or by other (pre-programmed) forces.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 28 2007,10:27   

I honestly believe Martin had no idea that some swans are black. He needs to get out more.  

VMartin, please tell us why you think some swans are white, why some swans are black, and why zebras are striped. All you're doing is listing trivia facts.

DO YOU have a solution? Tell us why these things are so. Repeating "Darwinist have not explanations for this things" doesn't make you clever. It makes you a useless boob who hates 'Darwinism' but can't produce anything in its place.

--------------
"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: July 28 2007,10:37   

Quote

According Dawkins it is not easy to tell them apart.


According to the quote, Dawkins says that the "easiest" way is to notice the two holes in the palate. He doesn't say a word in the quote about "not easy".

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 28 2007,11:07   

Yeah Martin, pointing out facts that have have not been explained yet, mostly because they have not been studied, only prove that you are unfamiliar with the scientific process.

As everyone told you, unexplained doesn't mean unexplainable.
Don't come with another "Darwinism can't explain this or that". We know, probably more than you do, that the evolution of thousands of traits remains unknown. So quit wasting your time with mushrooms and zebras.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 28 2007,11:24   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 28 2007,08:45)
In other words, he is a sniper, moving along and taking potshots but providing only moving targets for his adversaries. Useless in almost every respect.

Well said, Dave.

Martin, I tried to have some sort a debate with you, but it proved to be impossible. Simply because you are a coward.
Don't think I want to be mean to you. I couldn't care less if you die today or live for a hundred years. That's just what you are.  
Prove me wrong and post something, anything about your thoughts on biology. Do you accept common descent and speciation? Do you think beneficial mutations happen? Do you have any evidence for your hypothesis (whatever that is) or a way to test it?

And again, quit babbling about "Darwinism can't explain..."
???

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 28 2007,12:08   

Is Martin STILL gibbering . . . . ?


Wow.

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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 28 2007,12:50   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 28 2007,10:37)
 
Quote

According Dawkins it is not easy to tell them apart.


According to the quote, Dawkins says that the "easiest" way is to notice the two holes in the palate. He doesn't say a word in the quote about "not easy".


You catch up my words. Maybe it is easy for professor Dawkins and folks here to  tell those skulls apart. But obviously  it is not easy for Oxford students. Otherwise professor Dawkins wouldn't mentioned it. What he wrote is also this:

 
Quote

They are easy to tell from a true dog because of the stripes on the back but the skeleton is harder to distinguish.


Maybe "not easy to tell them apart" is totally different from "harder to distinguish", I don't know.


It reminds me to other example professor Dawkins wrote criticising Behe. He wrote about St.Bernardin this:

 
Quote

Or a heavyset, thick-coated wolf, strong enough to carry a cask of brandy, that thrives in Alpine passes and might be named after one of them, the St. Bernard?


When I pointed out that the whole story with cask of brandy is nonsesse folks here criticised me that professor Dawkins didn't say that the dog has done it, but only that St.Bernard is "able to do it". Obviously professor Dawkins cannot be sure if the dog is able to carry a cask of brandy unless he tried it. He cannot induce from a painting of a St.Bernard having a cask of brandy on his neck that the  dog "is strong enough to carry a cask" long journey (or 5 meters only?).

I don't see a point why to adhere so strong to exact professor Dawkins wording. Professor Dawkins (strictly speaking) is not a scientist but more a writer and columnist. It is no need to quote him exactly I suppose. Or is he really so important like Vladimir Iljic Lenin or Karol Marx whose sentences were studied so carrefuly by marxistic exegesists once?

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

  
Patrick Caldon



Posts: 68
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 28 2007,12:53   

Quote (VMartin @ July 28 2007,08:40)
I would say that black and white swans also inhabit the same types of habitat

Bollocks.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 28 2007,13:10   

Martin, we're not talking about Lenin or St. Bernards. No one here is interested in changing the subject.

 
Quote

You catch up my words. Maybe it is easy for professor Dawkins and folks here to  tell those skulls apart. But obviously  it is not easy for Oxford students. Otherwise professor Dawkins wouldn't mentioned it.


Martin, you're babbling.

 
Quote
I would say that black and white swans also inhabit the same types of habitat


Martin, making shit up is not science.

Now, Martin, why don't you tell us now why black swans are black, and why white swans are white? What is YOUR solution?

--------------
"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: July 28 2007,13:27   

Quote (jeannot @ July 28 2007,11:24)
   
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 28 2007,08:45)
In other words, he is a sniper, moving along and taking potshots but providing only moving targets for his adversaries. Useless in almost every respect.

Well said, Dave.

Martin, I tried to have some sort a debate with you, but it proved to be impossible. Simply because you are a coward.


A coward. I see. You are here Knights of the Round Darwinian Table. You are here real scientists, knights, Einsteins, warrior for truth and enlightment of mankind.

Quote

Don't think I want to be mean to you. I couldn't care less if you die today or live for a hundred years. That's just what you are.


You are generous like would-be knight Sancho Pancha de la Mancha.

   
Quote

Prove me wrong and post something, anything about your thoughts on biology.


Did you read my post about German idealistic morphology? Did you read the German article I give link to? It is something about directed evolution, the idea I fully agree.

 
Quote

Do you accept common descent and speciation? Do you think beneficial mutations happen? Do you have any evidence for your hypothesis (whatever that is) or a way to test it?


I have as much evidence as darwinists have for proving than man arouse via random mutation from ancient fish.

Common descent is a complicated problem considering Dacque underestanding of evolution as "entelechie of forms", see my previous post on German idealistic morphology. Did you read it or not?


   
Quote

And again, quit babbling about "Darwinism can't explain..."
???


Why are you so angry that you cann't explain coloration of mushrooms or animals? Do you know how to explain it or not, you noble fearless knight of darwinism? If not do not despair. Just believe that science will be able to prove natural selection behind it. Sometimes in the future. Just believe, you are a fearless knight.

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

  
Patrick Caldon



Posts: 68
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 28 2007,13:31   

Quote (VMartin @ July 28 2007,13:27)
I have as much evidence as darwinists have for proving than man arouse via random mutation from ancient fish.

Half a zillion fossils and the genome of every organism ever sequenced collectively sing: bollocks.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 28 2007,13:43   

Quote
A coward. I see. You are here Knights of the Round Darwinian Table. You are here real scientists, knights, Einsteins, warrior for truth and enlightment of mankind.


Grow up, Martin, this infantile tantrum does not constitute answering the question.

Quote

Why are you so angry that you cann't explain coloration of mushrooms or animals?


Why are you so afraid to answer why mushrooms and animals are colored the way they are?

--------------
"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: July 28 2007,13:44   

Quote

I have as much evidence as darwinists have for proving than man arouse via random mutation from ancient fish.


You have as much evidence for WHAT, Martin?

--------------
"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: July 28 2007,13:46   

Quote
I have as much evidence as darwinists have for proving than man arouse via random mutation from ancient fish.
So provide it. You could write thousands or scientific paper and earn a few nobel prices.  
Quote

Common descent is a complicated problem considering Dacque underestanding of evolution as "entelechie of forms", see my previous post on German idealistic morphology. Did you read it or not?

Which thread? Let's stick to this one. Search is broken on this board and I don't have the time to read all your previous posts.
PS: I don't read german.
Quote
Why are you so angry that you cann't explain coloration of mushrooms or animals?

You're kidding, right? :D
Why in the world someone babbling on a random discussion board on how darwinism is wrong, while hundreds of papers that support the theory of evolution are published every months, should drive me angry?
Nice way to avoid the question.

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 28 2007,13:53   

Quote (Patrick Caldon @ July 28 2007,12:53)
Quote (VMartin @ July 28 2007,08:40)
I would say that black and white swans also inhabit the same types of habitat

Bollocks.


Patrick, why didn't you quote my previous sentence either? I quoted there that striking similarity of stripes on tasmanian wolf and african zebra druiker is to be explained via "similar types of habitat".  Is it also "bollocks" or what? But this time it would be darwinain "bollocks".

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

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 28 2007,13:54   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 28 2007,13:43)
Why are you so afraid to answer why mushrooms and animals are colored the way they are?

He answered that question already.
 
Quote
Medieval University:

- Why are swans white?
- Because God determined so.

Martin endorses the position of the Medieval University.
Quote
You have as much evidence for WHAT, Martin?

Say it, Martin. It's alright. We already know the answer.
Let me begin for you: "God... "

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 28 2007,13:56   

Martin, is your answer to the question "why are (some) swans white" "because God determined so"?

If so, why are you afraid to admit this?

--------------
"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: July 28 2007,14:07   

Quote (jeannot @ July 28 2007,13:46)
Quote
I have as much evidence as darwinists have for proving than man arouse via random mutation from ancient fish.
So provide it. You could write thousands or scientific paper and earn a few nobel prices.    


I have heard about nobel prices for literature, physics, economy etc. Is there any Nobel price for "darwinism"? Who got it?

Quote

Common descent is a complicated problem considering Dacque underestanding of evolution as "entelechie of forms", see my previous post on German idealistic morphology. Did you read it or not?

Which thread? Let's stick to this one. Search is broken on this board and I don't have the time to read all your previous posts.
PS: I don't read german.
[/quote]

Try latest pages on Frontloading's thread or EvC where I started the thred about it on Biological evolution section. I summarized there main ideas of Dacque, Naef and Troll.

Quote

Why in the world someone babbling on a random discussion board on how darwinism is wrong, while hundreds of papers that support the theory of evolution are published every months, should drive me angry?
Nice way to avoid the question.


That's your argument? When something is published it must be right. Once they published in Nature an article that babies faces are similar to those of their fathers, because our predecessors would have killed them otherwise. The Nature was honest enough to publish another article that our predecessor didn't have mirrors.
 
And do not please confuse darwinism with theory of evolution (ToE). Another theory of evolution is Lamarckism, Nomogenesis or professor John Davison's Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. They are all theories of evolution.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 28 2007,14:17   

Quote
aa


Good answer, Martin.

--------------
"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: July 28 2007,14:21   

edit

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 28 2007,14:23   

Jeannot

It was sent by mistake. See my post 163, it is correct now.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 28 2007,14:28   

Quote
I have heard about nobel prices for literature, physics, economy etc. Is there any Nobel price for "darwinism"? Who got it?


Scientists do not consider 'Darwinism' to be the name of a branch of science, dipshit.

Martin, answer this:

is your answer to the question "why are (some) swans white" "because God determined so"?

YES or NO.

Are you afraid to admit this?

--------------
"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: July 28 2007,15:02   

Quote (VMartin @ July 28 2007,14:23)
Jeannot

It was sent by mistake. See my post 163, it is correct now.

Ok, I edited my own post.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 28 2007,15:20   

Quote
I have heard about nobel prices for literature, physics, economy etc. Is there any Nobel price for "darwinism"? Who got it?
"Darwinism" was part of biology, in case you didn't know. And Nobel Prizes of medicine are often given to biologists. Muller got one if I recall properly. I don't know if he was a strict Darwinist himself, but you wouldn't endorse his views. Same goes for Tinbergen.
Anyway, I meant that if you had evidence of you hypothesis, whatever that his, to the same level we have evidence that man descent from fish, you would earn a Nobel Prize.
     
Quote
Try latest pages on Frontloading's thread or EvC where I started the thred about it on Biological evolution section. I summarized there main ideas of Dacque, Naef and Troll.

Maybe I'll have a look at it, but I would prefer you to expose your own views here.
     
Quote
That's your argument?

No, that's not an argument.
     
Quote
When something is published it must be right.

Nope, but at least it tests an hypothesis with the scientific method.
     
Quote
Once they published in Nature an article that babies faces are similar to those of their fathers, because our predecessors would have killed them otherwise. The Nature was honest enough to publish another article that our predecessor didn't have mirrors.

Whatever you say, Martin.
     
Quote
And do not please confuse darwinism with theory of evolution (ToE).

You're kidding again right? Who's been confusing Darwinism with the theory of evolution from the beginning?
     
Quote
Another theory of evolution is Lamarckism, Nomogenesis or professor John Davison's Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. They are all theories of evolution.

I'm talking about the theory of evolution. Not unproven hypothesis or some fantasies of a crank. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
So, you're an evolutionist Martin? Do you support prescribed evolution or special creation? Even that is unclear.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 28 2007,19:52   

Quote
We have mentioned already mushrooms genera Amanitta. There are very different coloration in it - red, green, white etc... It is hardly believable that such pigments are byproduct of some process and that they concetrate at the cap of the mushroom where they are most visible.````  


Why is that unbelievable?

Why should all colorations have to be explained, anyway? If an organism reflects light, it's going to be some color or other. If the color itself isn't relevant to reproductive success, then it's a byproduct of whatever chemicals are near the surface of the organism. If that isn't an appropriate starting point from which to investigate the question, then what is?

Henry

Uh - on second thought, I reckon the coloration is a byproduct of the chemicals near the surface even if it is relevant to reproductive success. But in that case the presenece of those chemicals would be explained by that.

  
Patrick Caldon



Posts: 68
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 29 2007,02:33   

Quote (VMartin @ July 28 2007,13:53)
Quote (Patrick Caldon @ July 28 2007,12:53)
 
Quote (VMartin @ July 28 2007,08:40)
I would say that black and white swans also inhabit the same types of habitat

Bollocks.


Patrick, why didn't you quote my previous sentence either? I quoted there that striking similarity of stripes on tasmanian wolf and african zebra druiker is to be explained via "similar types of habitat".  Is it also "bollocks" or what? But this time it would be darwinain "bollocks".

I have no idea why or indeed if the stripes on these various critters are similar.  Again, it's a multi-year study to get on top of this.  And as soon as a reasonable explanation is found, you'll pipe up with "but why do yellow-bellied gliders have a yellow belly?"; and it's another umpteen years of study to work out if there is some selective advantage or if its a founder effect somewhere or something of that nature.

So I would love to tell you if this is bollocks but I have no idea; on the other hand I know with a very good degree of certainty that the geography (and biogeography) of Europe and Australia are different.  

Do you have some difficulty with the statement: "There are some things we (as humans) do not know because we have never invested the resources to find out"?

We have established that black swans exist.  At least that's good going.

Now we have to get to "the climate in Australia is different to the climate in Europe."

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 29 2007,06:50   

Quote (Patrick Caldon @ July 28 2007,12:53)
Quote (VMartin @ July 28 2007,08:40)
I would say that black and white swans also inhabit the same types of habitat

Bollocks.

Actually, I've found a spot in Wales where Black and white swans live together.


But again, this is one place in one country, so it doesn't exactly show anything.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Patrick Caldon



Posts: 68
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 29 2007,09:12   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 29 2007,06:50)
Quote (Patrick Caldon @ July 28 2007,12:53)
Quote (VMartin @ July 28 2007,08:40)
I would say that black and white swans also inhabit the same types of habitat

Bollocks.

Actually, I've found a spot in Wales where Black and white swans live together.


But again, this is one place in one country, so it doesn't exactly show anything.

Do they have black swans in Wales?  Colour me astonished - I thought they were exclusively Antipodean.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 29 2007,09:17   

Quote (Patrick Caldon @ July 29 2007,09:12)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 29 2007,06:50)
Quote (Patrick Caldon @ July 28 2007,12:53)
 
Quote (VMartin @ July 28 2007,08:40)
I would say that black and white swans also inhabit the same types of habitat

Bollocks.

Actually, I've found a spot in Wales where Black and white swans live together.


But again, this is one place in one country, so it doesn't exactly show anything.

Do they have black swans in Wales?  Colour me astonished - I thought they were exclusively Antipodean.

There's a couple in one place I know of. I think they ended up there after they escaped from somewhere and took up residence on this one large pond.

They certainly aren't native, but as I recall they are breeding.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 29 2007,14:07   

Black swans are belligerent little bastards. I visited the Slimbridge Wildfowl Trust long ago and one of them started menacing me and would not leave me alone. He acted like he genuinely wanted to kill me.

--------------
"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: July 29 2007,14:27   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 29 2007,14:07)
Black swans are belligerent little bastards. I visited the Slimbridge Wildfowl Trust long ago and one of them started menacing me and would not leave me alone. He acted like he genuinely wanted to kill me.

Maybe he attacked you because you were wearing T-shirt with "Black swans support darwinism".

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

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: July 29 2007,14:46   

Has anyone else noticed that Martin's broken english seems to come and go, as if by will?

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 29 2007,14:52   

Quote (VMartin @ July 29 2007,14:27)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 29 2007,14:07)
Black swans are belligerent little bastards. I visited the Slimbridge Wildfowl Trust long ago and one of them started menacing me and would not leave me alone. He acted like he genuinely wanted to kill me.

Maybe he attacked you because you were wearing T-shirt with "Black swans support darwinism".

LOL. Nice one martin. At first, I didn't notice it was you posting.

Now, are you there to add some substance to this thread or just the usual?

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 29 2007,14:55   

Quote (VMartin @ July 29 2007,14:27)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 29 2007,14:07)
Black swans are belligerent little bastards. I visited the Slimbridge Wildfowl Trust long ago and one of them started menacing me and would not leave me alone. He acted like he genuinely wanted to kill me.

Maybe he attacked you because you were wearing T-shirt with "Black swans support darwinism".

Hey, V, why are Black Swans black? Have a theory?

--------------
"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: July 29 2007,15:00   

Quote (slpage @ July 29 2007,14:46)
Has anyone else noticed that Martin's broken english seems to come and go, as if by will?

Yes, that's been noticed. In fact that was one of the main pieces of evidence that he was really a hoax on Davison's part. The other thing pointing in that direction was the preposterousness of Davison having followers.

But whoever our little closeted creationist troll really is, he probably really is from the former Czechoslovakia, since he can write Czech. A (sane) poster at Pharyngula who's from the Czech Republic looked it over and it checks out (no pun intended).

So I guess as far as speaking English is concerned, V "has good days and bad days".

--------------
"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: July 30 2007,00:50   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 29 2007,15:00)
Quote (slpage @ July 29 2007,14:46)
Has anyone else noticed that Martin's broken english seems to come and go, as if by will?

Yes, that's been noticed. In fact that was one of the main pieces of evidence that he was really a hoax on Davison's part. The other thing pointing in that direction was the preposterousness of Davison having followers.

But whoever our little closeted creationist troll really is, he probably really is from the former Czechoslovakia, since he can write Czech. A (sane) poster at Pharyngula who's from the Czech Republic looked it over and it checks out (no pun intended).

So I guess as far as speaking English is concerned, V "has good days and bad days".

Yes, it was Marjanovic who checked my Slovak grammar as far as I remember. Knowing a little bit Russian or what he came to conclusion I am Czech. It was really funny.

Poor pharyngulist Marjanovic tried to discuss the issue of coloration at One blog a day where John Davison was present too. Pharyngulist Marjanovic (PZ Meyeres call his sycophants "knowledgeable evolutionists who rip creationists apart with arguments") knowing nothing about red-green canals invented a brand new theory of color perception. According Marjanovic green = white - red.

You know I pointed out that sometimes you percieve color that is not present in spectrum entering the eye. A linguist and knowledgeable evolutionist Marjanovic has had no problem to explain everything ad hoc.

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

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 30 2007,01:49   

Quote
Now, are you there to add some substance to this thread or just the usual?


Just the usual, apparently.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 30 2007,02:02   

Quote (VMartin @ July 30 2007,00:50)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 29 2007,15:00)
 
Quote (slpage @ July 29 2007,14:46)
Has anyone else noticed that Martin's broken english seems to come and go, as if by will?

Yes, that's been noticed. In fact that was one of the main pieces of evidence that he was really a hoax on Davison's part. The other thing pointing in that direction was the preposterousness of Davison having followers.

But whoever our little closeted creationist troll really is, he probably really is from the former Czechoslovakia, since he can write Czech. A (sane) poster at Pharyngula who's from the Czech Republic looked it over and it checks out (no pun intended).

So I guess as far as speaking English is concerned, V "has good days and bad days".

Yes, it was Marjanovic who checked my Slovak grammar as far as I remember. Knowing a little bit Russian or what he came to conclusion I am Czech. It was really funny.

Poor pharyngulist Marjanovic tried to discuss the issue of coloration at One blog a day where John Davison was present too. Pharyngulist Marjanovic (PZ Meyeres call his sycophants "knowledgeable evolutionists who rip creationists apart with arguments") knowing nothing about red-green canals invented a brand new theory of color perception. According Marjanovic green = white - red.

You know I pointed out that sometimes you percieve color that is not present in spectrum entering the eye. A linguist and knowledgeable evolutionist Marjanovic has had no problem to explain everything ad hoc.

Hey, V, tell us why Black Swans are black!

You know, since natural selection can't be the reason.

I trust YOUR explanation isn't 'ad hoc'?

--------------
"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: Aug. 01 2007,15:00   

VMartin, I can see that you're logged on. Before anything else, can you please tell us why swans are the color they are? Or mushrooms, for that matter?

Because you see, you complain a lot about how 'Darwinists' can't explain these things, but you have yet to tell us what explanation you have. In the absence of a good alternate explanation, your bitching doesn't amount to much.

--------------
"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: Aug. 01 2007,15:10   

Quote (Patrick Caldon @ July 25 2007,15:54)
 Suppose there is a bird who has learned to avoid butterflies having a specific pattern.  There is then a selective advantage to looking like the poisonous butterfly.  This has been studied quite a lot.


I am not sure "it has been studied quite a lot". According (neo)darwinsim wasps have aposemtic coloration to warn and deter predators. Hornet moth (Aegeria apiformis) looks and buzz like a wasp. One would think that the moth has some survival advantage looking like a wasp. But probably no scientist has made a research to prove it yet. Wasps have many bird's predators who eat them.

One of them is bird Merops apiaster living in Europe - Bee eater:

         
Quote


Just as the name suggests, bee-eaters predominantly eat insects, especially bees, wasps and hornets, which are caught in the air by sorties from an open perch.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Bee-eater

or curl-crested jay (Cyanocorax cristatellus) in Brazil:


         
Quote

These observations suggest that predation by birds could play an important role in the dynamics of social wasp populations.


http://www.scielo.sa.cr/scielo.....arttext

It is only a (neo)darwinian pressuposition that a moth  mimicing wasps are protected having wasp coloration. Probably no serious research has been done yet. If it has been done let me notice.

---

Btw. I have read in a text-book published during communism (socialism you know) that birds are able to tell apart a hornet moth and a wasp very well - but there was no resource of the claim. But Frankfurter school of structuralism claims the same - the predators can distuinguish between mimic and model.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,15:16   

Frightened, V?

I will repeat:

Can you please tell us why swans are the color they are? Or mushrooms, for that matter?

Because you see, you complain a lot about how 'Darwinists' can't explain these things, but you have yet to tell us what explanation you have. In the absence of a good alternate explanation, your bitching doesn't amount to much.

--------------
"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: Aug. 01 2007,15:17   

Quote
I am not sure "it has been studied quite a lot". According (neo)darwinsim wasps have aposemtic coloration to warn and deter predators. Hornet moth (Aegeria apiformis) looks and buzz like a wasp. One would think that the moth has some survival advantage looking like a wasp. But probably no scientist has made a research to prove it yet.


Have an alternate explanation, V?

--------------
"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: Aug. 01 2007,15:25   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 01 2007,15:16)
Frightened, V?

I will repeat:

Can you please tell us why swans are the color they are? Or mushrooms, for that matter?

Because you see, you complain a lot about how 'Darwinists' can't explain these things, but you have yet to tell us what explanation you have. In the absence of a good alternate explanation, your bitching doesn't amount to much.



I am here not on a trial, you know. I am trying to infirm some darwinian explanation about coloration using facts.

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

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,15:28   

Quote
I am not sure "it has been studied quite a lot". According (neo)darwinsim wasps have aposemtic coloration to warn and deter predators. Hornet moth (Aegeria apiformis) looks and buzz like a wasp. One would think that the moth has some survival advantage looking like a wasp. But probably no scientist has made a research to prove it yet

Is that a criticism Martin?
Because, you know, there is an hypothesis to be tested. And what do you propose: no hypothesis and no verification.
You're not familiar with the scientific method, are you Martin?
Quote
I am here not on a trial, you know. I am trying to infirm some darwinian explanation about coloration using facts.

Translated : I'm here to bring every possible fact that has not been studied yet and claim that Darwinism can't explain it. But don't expect me to propose anything.
Damn, Darwinism is doomed.  :O

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,15:48   

Quote (VMartin @ Aug. 01 2007,15:25)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 01 2007,15:16)
Frightened, V?

I will repeat:

Can you please tell us why swans are the color they are? Or mushrooms, for that matter?

Because you see, you complain a lot about how 'Darwinists' can't explain these things, but you have yet to tell us what explanation you have. In the absence of a good alternate explanation, your bitching doesn't amount to much.


I am here not on a trial, you know. I am trying to infirm some darwinian explanation about coloration using facts.

So you have no explanation? Figures.

It doesnt bother you that you endlessly bitch about the imagined shortcomings of 'Darwinism', and you can't offer ANY alternatives?

Can you offer ANYTHING except complaints?

--------------
"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: Aug. 01 2007,15:58   

Jeannot
 
Quote

Translated : I'm here to bring every possible fact that has not been studied yet and claim that Darwinism can't explain it. But don't expect me to propose anything.


It has been studied (see coloration of fruiting bodies of mushrooms. Don't you agree with the research's conclusions or what?) But often the result doesn't support (neo)darwinistic explanation of coloration (fruiting bodies of mushrooms, coloration of swans, "warning" coloration of hornet moth) so maybe nobody published them in mainstream resources. It was Alan Fox who noticed me that a research showed that "eye spots" on butterflies wings has no effect to predators.  Published in serious resource.

Summa: You are claiming something about coloration  having no scientific support for it. An idea of "survival advantage" of coloration precedes every serious research. It's a dogma. Your explanation is taken for granted. It is not very scientific, don't you think so? Your claim is - we haven't studied it deeply yet but our explanation is correct neverthenless.
But maybe not.



This study thus provides no support that marginal eyespot patterns can act as an effective deflection mechanism to avoid lizard or avian predation.



http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links....abs

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,16:02   

Quote (VMartin @ Aug. 01 2007,15:58)

This study thus provides no support that marginal eyespot patterns can act as an effective deflection mechanism to avoid lizard or avian predation.



http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links....abs

Wow! Somebody did some experiments and tested a hypothesis.

Contrast that to V, who refuses to even state his hypothesis.

See the difference, V?  No? Let me explain it for you.

One of these approaches leads to progress and an increase in our knowledge. The other approach (yours) leads to stupefaction.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,16:07   

Quote
Summa: You are claiming something about coloration  having no scientific support for it. An idea of "survival advantage" of coloration precedes every serious research. It's a dogma. Your explanation is taken for granted. It is not very scientific, don't you think so? Your claim is - we haven't studied it deeply yet but our explanation is correct neverthenless.
But maybe not.


VMartin: I WILL ASK AGAIN.

You endlessly complain about 'Darwinism', but your whole strategy is nothing more than finding issues that haven't been resolved yet and crowing that 'Darwinism' has no answer.

And yet, YOU HAVE OFFERED NO HYPOTHESIS OR ALTERNATE EXPLANATION YOURSELF. YOU HAVE OFFERED NOTHING.

Martin, there is more to science than unproductive bitching.

Do you or do you not have an explanation for the coloration of swans and mushrooms that is better than 'Darwinism' provides??

--------------
"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: Aug. 01 2007,16:14   

Albatrossity2
Quote

One of these approaches leads to progress and an increase in our knowledge. The other approach (yours) leads to stupefaction.


I see. Criticising the theory of "survival advantage" of coloration leads to stupefaction. Abidance in neodarwinism even if it obviously contadicts facts leads to progress.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,16:16   

Quote (VMartin @ Aug. 01 2007,16:14)
Albatrossity2
 
Quote

One of these approaches leads to progress and an increase in our knowledge. The other approach (yours) leads to stupefaction.


I see. Criticising the theory of "survival advantage" of coloration leads to stupefaction. Abidance in neodarwinism even if it obviously contadicts facts leads to progress.

What do you have to offer that will lead to 'progress', V?

ANYTHING?

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,16:49   

Quote (VMartin @ Aug. 01 2007,16:14)
I see. Criticising the theory of "survival advantage" of coloration leads to stupefaction. Abidance in neodarwinism even if it obviously contadicts facts leads to progress.

No. Criticism is valid. But only if it leads to alternative hypotheses that can be tested, and then to testing of those hypotheses. That is known as "constructive criticism". What you are doing is known as "bitching".

Do you have any hypothesis about coloration in fungi? I haven't heard it yet. Is it testable?  Are you planning to test it?

If the answer to those questions is no, or, even worse, if you ignore them again, we can only conclude that you are a twit. Prove that you are not a twit and give us your testable hypotheses, please.

Thanks in advance for ignoring this again.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,17:06   

Yup, he's already run away. That was predictable.

--------------
"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: Aug. 02 2007,00:48   

Albatrossity2

Quote

No. Criticism is valid. But only if it leads to alternative hypotheses that can be tested, and then to testing of those hypotheses. That is known as "constructive criticism". What you are doing is known as "bitching".


Sorry, but your arguments remind me exactly of those used by communists. They also accepted ctriticism but only if it was constructive . Unbelievable. They used to say "Criticism yes, but only constructive one". You have to add your own solution of the problem, otherwise you was a saboteur. Consequently criticism was almost impossible.

It is interesting that "sciences" like marxism or (neo)darwinism require from their critics to be constructive.  
Do you think it is normal procedure also in the area of real sciences like physics, math? Do not criticise discrepancies in the Maxwell electromagnetic theory! Yet physicists made computations (before 1900) and came to conclusions that this theory is unable to explain some phenomena.
It was Max Planck who gave explanation of them. According you physiscists before Planck were "bitching".

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,01:40   

Quote (VMartin @ Aug. 02 2007,00:48)
Albatrossity2

   
Quote

No. Criticism is valid. But only if it leads to alternative hypotheses that can be tested, and then to testing of those hypotheses. That is known as "constructive criticism". What you are doing is known as "bitching".


Sorry, but your arguments remind me exactly of those used by communists. They also accepted ctriticism but only if it was constructive . Unbelievable. They used to say "Criticism yes, but only constructive one". You have to add your own solution of the problem, otherwise you was a saboteur. Consequently criticism was almost impossible.

It is interesting that "sciences" like marxism or (neo)darwinism require from their critics to be constructive.  
Do you think it is normal procedure also in the area of real sciences like physics, math? Do not criticise discrepancies in the Maxwell electromagnetic theory! Yet physicists made computations (before 1900) and came to conclusions that this theory is unable to explain some phenomena.
It was Max Planck who gave explanation of them. According you physiscists before Planck were "bitching".

Nice try. First you call us National Socialists, now you call us Communists. You are not very bright, are you? And now you're trying to compare yourelf to Max Planck??

Look, moron. You waste our time with your whining about "Darwinism are evil! You are all communist! You are all atheist! All swans are white, Darwinism can not explain!"

You have not attempted to explain ANYTHING. You have not offered ANY HYPOTHESES. You produce NOTHING.

You don't think 'Darwinism' can explain the color of moths and swans? What is YOUR explanation? Do you even HAVE one?

Do you have ANYTHING other than bitching and calling people Nazis and Communists, you pathetic worm?

--------------
"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: Aug. 02 2007,02:17   

Chatfield
Quote

Nice try. First you call us National Socialists, now you call us Communists. You are not very bright, are you? And now you're trying to compare yourelf to Max Planck??
.
blablabla...
.

Do you have ANYTHING other than bitching and calling people Nazis and Communists, you pathetic worm?


Are you having another hysterical attack? I didn't call anyone here a communist or a nazi. Take your Dawkin's Selfish gene and have a rest for a while.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,02:21   

Quote (VMartin @ Aug. 02 2007,02:17)
Chatfield
Quote

Nice try. First you call us National Socialists, now you call us Communists. You are not very bright, are you? And now you're trying to compare yourelf to Max Planck??
.
blablabla...
.

Do you have ANYTHING other than bitching and calling people Nazis and Communists, you pathetic worm?


Are you having another hysterical attack? I didn't call anyone here a communist or a nazi. Take your Dawkin's Selfish gene and have a rest for a while.

Martin, science is not accomplished by bitching about Dawkins,  atheists, communists, and nazis.

DO YOU HAVE any alternate solutions for these things you think Darwinism can't explain?

a) yes
b) no

If no, quit bothering us. Go back to brownnosing 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

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,05:49   

Arden, you're wasting your time.

I understand now Lenny's position.

???

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,06:59   

Dudes, it's like arguing with a CD-ROM.


Pointless.

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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,01:49   

Jeanot

 
Quote

Arden, you're wasting your time.

I understand now Lenny's position.


I am afraid the discussion is over. We hit a point where you accepted probably a fact that darwinism is unable to explain many coloration of living organisms (Arden and Lenny do not follow discussion btw.). You have started to ask me for another explanation. Of course there are many scientists  who devoted their lives studying the problem of coloration and who came to conclusion that problem is more complicated  that neodawinistic oversimplification. The problem was studied on color patterns of butterfly wings and some evolutionary patterns were found that are independent from natural and sexual selection.

1) Theodor Eimer observed  the fact that evolution of color patterns on butteflies wings follows a transformtion rules (Homoegenesis). Many authors  confirmed that this observation is correct. First lungitudinal stripes, their dissolution into spots and tranformation of these spots  into transverse striping and finally into one-coloured appereance. He described even leaf-mimic butterflies and their trasformation from the beginning to the end (break-up of mimicry patterns which should have given "survival advantage" to species and should be strongly selected against its break-up according darwinism.)

http://links.jstor.org/sici?si....rgePage

2) Evolution of color sequences on butterflies studied Piepers, Reuss, Tshirvinskij, Gierfsberg. Hingston (1933) considered natural sequence as green-yellow-red.
The problem was studied by Lucas Peterich (1972): Biological chromatology. The laws of colour and designing in nature.

3) New era represents studies by Svancic, Henke, Suffert.
  Svancic devoted his life studying comparative morphology of butterfly color patterns and worked up a "basic plan" of wings drawings. It is something like "body plan" in animals.  



Much more can be found in Stanislav Komarek book:
"Mimicry, Aposematism and Related Phenomena in Animals & Plants: Bibliography 1800-1990"


http://www.bookfinder.com/author/stanislav-komarek/

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

  
Patrick Caldon



Posts: 68
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,02:52   

Quote (VMartin @ Aug. 03 2007,01:49)
I am afraid the discussion is over. We hit a point where you accepted probably a fact that darwinism is unable to explain many coloration of living organisms ...

Hi VMartin,

Remember where I was talking about limited resources?  What bit of that is unclear?

That is there is a difference between not being able to do something, and not having done something (on account of lack of resources, or interest).  

Are you clear on the fact that these two things are different?

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,03:04   

Patrick,

I am aware of it. Anyway in my previous post at point 1) I reproduced thoughts of Theodor Eimer. He observed something that can be called "law" of evolution of coloration of butterlies/lizards. The problem was studied very thoroughly by many non-darwinian, but evolutionary scientists and I don't see reason to dismiss their work because it doesn't fit to neodarwinian scheme.

I would reccomend you link I have given above about Eimer's idea. It' s just one page.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,03:07   

Quote (VMartin @ Aug. 03 2007,01:49)
Of course there are many scientists  who devoted their lives studying the problem of coloration and who came to conclusion that problem is more complicated  that neodawinistic oversimplification.

got a list?

It's not that I don't believe you, it's just that I don't believe you.

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

  
Patrick Caldon



Posts: 68
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,03:24   

Quote (VMartin @ Aug. 03 2007,03:04)
Patrick,

I am aware of it.

Good.  Because that is a very important distinction.

Now can you see the difference between the following statements:

"Evolutionary biology cannot tell us why there are both black and white swans, because of a fundamental inadequacy in the theory",

and,

"Evolutionary biology has not told us why there are both black and white swans, because no-one has looked at this issue hard (on account of lack of time/resources/gullible graduate students)"

I shall look at your link when I get some free time.  A bit busy just now I'm afraid.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,03:56   

Quote
I am afraid the discussion is over.


For a discussion to be over, it would have first of all to have taken place.

Quote
...about Eimer's idea.


1903? Is there anything more recent? Say, for instance taking account of current developments in embryology and molecular biology?

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,08:47   

Alan Fox
 
Quote

For a discussion to be over, it would have first of all to have taken place.


It was not my fault. I have tried to point out many cases of coloration where (neo)darwinistic oversimplifications are not plausible explanation of development of it.
Folks here denigrated me.

 
Quote

1903? Is there anything more recent? Say, for instance taking account of current developments in embryology and molecular biology?


I quoted some modern researches that deal with the same problem. Because they do not support mainstream neodarwinistic views they are ignored. Nijhout who studied problem of mimicry of butterflies (internet is full of his works on-line) didn't quoted Eimer once. But the problem of mimicry had been studied much more before WW2 as it is now. Nijhout quoted only very briefly Suffert, Svancic and Henke in 1991.

Do you mean that Eimer's many years studies of development of coloration in lizards/butterflies are not valid nowadays? Did you or somebody else refute them?  

Or is it not - like othear unpleasant theories - only ignored  to become dismissed now as "outdated"?

You dismiss almost 80 years of German biological thinking as outdated. Yes, it is ignored (or even ridiculed by you) as was once Goethe theory of color perception. After more than 150 years his theory turned up to be correct. And Goethe was more a philosopher. Eimer  was a scientist.

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

  
Patrick Caldon



Posts: 68
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,10:03   

Quote (VMartin @ Aug. 03 2007,08:47)
Alan Fox
   
Quote

For a discussion to be over, it would have first of all to have taken place.


It was not my fault. I have tried to point out many cases of coloration where (neo)darwinistic oversimplifications are not plausible explanation of development of it.
Folks here denigrated me.

Hi VMartin,

Going back a bit, you stated that the current coloration of swans was implausible via natural evolutionary means.

You never gave any reasons why it is implausible.

Why is it (the color of swans that is) implausible?

If you could address the possibility of drift/founder effects when you answer that would be dandy.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,13:00   

Quote (VMartin @ Aug. 03 2007,03:47)
Alan Fox
     
Quote

For a discussion to be over, it would have first of all to have taken place.


It was not my fault. I have tried to point out many cases of coloration where (neo)darwinistic oversimplifications are not plausible explanation of development of it.
Folks here denigrated me.

     
Quote

1903? Is there anything more recent? Say, for instance taking account of current developments in embryology and molecular biology?


I quoted some modern researches that deal with the same problem. Because they do not support mainstream neodarwinistic views they are ignored. Nijhout who studied problem of mimicry of butterflies (internet is full of his works on-line) didn't quoted Eimer once. But the problem of mimicry had been studied much more before WW2 as it is now. Nijhout quoted only very briefly Suffert, Svancic and Henke in 1991.

Do you mean that Eimer's many years studies of development of coloration in lizards/butterflies are not valid nowadays? Did you or somebody else refute them?  

Or is it not - like othear unpleasant theories - only ignored  to become dismissed now as "outdated"?

You dismiss almost 80 years of German biological thinking as outdated. Yes, it is ignored (or even ridiculed by you) as was once Goethe theory of color perception. After more than 150 years his theory turned up to be correct. And Goethe was more a philosopher. Eimer  was a scientist.

 
Quote
I quoted some modern researches that deal with the same problem.


Link?

 
Quote
Do you mean that Eimer's many years studies of development of coloration in lizards/butterflies are not valid nowadays?


No, but I would distinguish between his observations and his conclusions.  Evo-devo was not a even a twinkle in anyone's eye in 1903.



Quote
You dismiss almost 80 years of German biological thinking as outdated. Yes, it is ignored (or even ridiculed by you) as was once Goethe theory of color perception. After more than 150 years his theory turned up to be correct. And Goethe was more a philosopher. Eimer  was a scientist.


I am not sure you are right about Goethe's ideas on colour being correct, at least in a scientific context. If Eimer's work  is significant, why is it not cited in later research, as is Darwin and Mendel, for example?

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,14:28   

Alan Fox
   
Quote

Link?


As I told you. The research of rules of coloration which  
seem to be inate in animal world (and oddly enough why some combination of colors are not present in Nature) are to be found in work of Lucas H. Peterich
(1972) Biological chromatology. The laws of color and design in nature. ACTA bIOTHER.21:24-46.

(1973) Chomatologie, eine Untersuchung der Chromatik der Fauna und Flora auf deren rein chromatische Gesetzlichkeit hin. Tijdschr. Ent116(8):143-159.

You have to go to library I suppose.

   
Quote

No, but I would distinguish between his observations and his conclusions.  Evo-devo was not a even a twinkle in anyone's eye in 1903.


Eimer published his 500 pages  opus magnum second part of which deals on butterflies in 1895. Because evo-devo was not established in those times (what about HAECKEL?) all his conclusions are wrong? Consequently all conclusions of prominent darwinists like Edward Bagnall Poulton or Ronald Fisher about mimicry are wrong either?

   
Quote

I am not sure you are right about Goethe's ideas on colour being correct, at least in a scientific context.


I am much more sure and you can open a thread about it.
Last time I argued about it with pharyngulists I was surprised by ignorance of "knowledgeable evolutionists" about the matter of complicated process of color perception.  

   
Quote

If Eimer's work  is significant, why is it not cited in later research, as is Darwin and Mendel, for example?


It was cited before 2 WW very often. It is neverthenless very curious that works of Naeff, Eimer, Dacque, Troll are not to be found on inet. Leo Bergs Nomogenesis appeared in Russian just recently and Adolf Portman's  
"Neue Wege der Biologie" is available on-line in Czech translation only. The great tradition and work of these scientists is almost fully forgotten. If you think it just because they were wrong it is your opinion.

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

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,14:32   

Even better, those lynching laws (the ones that permitted lynching, that is) were talked of often before the 1960's!

Jesus, if that's your best card you don't have a good hand, do you?

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,17:31   

Jesus H Christ, is Martin *****STILLLLLLLL****** gibbering?

(yawn)

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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2007,11:49   

Arden Chatfield pursuits me with his stupid questionary "how old is the Earth" whenever I wrote something. I am afraid Alan Fox catches the same monomaniacal urge. He pursuits me not only here but also at ISCID where he continues giving me his own  question from AtBC about dino's DNA age.

http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000548-p-21.html


Folks here are obviously unable to adress any problem I have proposed and restrict themselves to refinig their questions and questionaries instead.

I am afraid I draw their attention like ladybirds draw attention of wasps (oviposting into ladybird):




---

And now back to coloration. Obviously a ladybird is very conspicuous with its red coloration. Darwinists need to explain the fact, but they do not have any explanation except aposematism. Ladybirds are according their armachair preconception poisonous and they signal it by red color (darwinists of course dismiss the fact that some concicinellids are yellow, or black or red with black dots and predator should remember all their patterns.) ? ?

The extract from the "poisonous" ladybird blood was used as medicine in the previous century.

Ladybirds has many avian and insect predators. There are experiments that proved their palatability for many kind of beetles.

Neverthenless darwinists see in similar coloration of other species ladybird mimics.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2007,12:02   

Quote
Arden Chatfield pursuits me with his stupid questionary "how old is the Earth" whenever I wrote something.


('Pursues', Martin. 'Pursuit' is a noun. And you want 'question' here, not 'questionary'.)

Why is the question 'stupid', Martin? Seems very relevant to me. Is it 'stupid' because you're afraid to answer it?

Here's your chance to redeem yourself.

*ahem*

1) do you believe common descent is correct?

2) the Earth is:

a) 4.5 billion years old
b) around 12,000 years old
c) around 6,000 years old
d) probably a couple million years old
e) none of the above.

I'm sure this time you'll have the courage of your convictions to answer. Right?

--------------
"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: Sep. 06 2007,12:18   

Quote

Why is the question 'stupid', Martin? Seems very relevant to me. Is it 'stupid' because you're afraid to answer it?


I have addressed some problems of biological evolution. As you know I am of opinion that evolution is a fact, but random mutation and natural selection play no role in it.

There is most probably many frontloadings as John opinion is or there is some kind of "entelechie" that directs evolution. In both cases biology have some limits exploring the deepest secrets of evolution of life.

We are here not at a geological forum and we are not here even on a geological thread. That's why your question is off-topic. I will never answer your off-topic questions at these threads.

But feel free to asking them again and again.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2007,12:21   

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 06 2007,12:18)
Quote

Why is the question 'stupid', Martin? Seems very relevant to me. Is it 'stupid' because you're afraid to answer it?


I have addressed some problems of biological evolution. As you know I am of opinion that evolution is a fact, but random mutation and natural selection play no role in it.

You still haven't answered the questions, Martin.

You seem very afraid, Martin. Why is that?

--------------
"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: Sep. 06 2007,12:40   

Why do you think I am afraid answer them? Not at all. But the discussion here is about coloration of fungi.

I would appreciate if you gave some arguments or ideas supporting "natural selection" view in fungi or insect realm. You have so many examples - so many fruting bodies of fungi, so many "perfect" or "imperfect" wasp mimics, so many ladybirds as aposematics or almost perfect mimicry of many leaf insects. Why don't you discuss anything? Why is that?

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2007,12:41   

Martin, there's now a whole thread devoted just to you and these questions. Dig in.

--------------
"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: Sep. 06 2007,12:46   

Thank you Arden. Waiting for your ideas about coloration of ladybirds.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2007,12:51   

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 06 2007,12:46)
Thank you Arden. Waiting for your ideas about coloration of ladybirds.

Martin, there's a whole thread asking you about these questions.

We've been waiting for your answers for weeks.

C'mon, V, DAVISON would answer these questions! He'd insult everyone in the process, but he'd answer them!

Why are you afraid? What's your excuse now?

--------------
"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: Sep. 06 2007,12:56   

But you know, I am not John. Btw. who is asking except you? Who are "we"?

If more people ask me I will answer of course. Now I see only you and you have never adressed any issue I proposed except denigrating me. I see no reason to discuss with you off topic questions.

Bye.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2007,13:00   

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 06 2007,12:56)
But you know, I am not John. Btw. who is asking except you? Who are "we"?

If more people ask me I will answer of course. Now I see only you and you have never adressed any issue I proposed except denigrating me. I see no reason to discuss with you off topic questions.

Bye.

Martin, certainly you must have firmly held convictions regarding these two questions, why do you refuse to proudly share them?

--------------
"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: Sep. 06 2007,13:58   

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 06 2007,12:46)
Thank you Arden. Waiting for your ideas about coloration of ladybirds.

I don't no squat about ladybirds, but I know how you will react if we formulate hypothesis about their coloration:

"Ha, but this doesn't explain this and that <insert biological fact that has not been studied yet>, Darwinism sucks!"

Then we would ask "what's your theory then?"

And your answer: "..."

So what's the point?  ???

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2007,14:06   

VMartin I am asking too.

By the way, natural selection explains the distribution of trophic groups of aquatic organisms along the River Continuum.  But you can address that much later after you get done on the other thread telling us about your lofty opinions about such things as the age of the earth and common descent.  Toodles!!

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2007,18:12   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 02 2007,06:59)
Dudes, it's like arguing with a CD-ROM.


Pointless.

Not pointless. It's entertainment. But getting actually upset can certainly ruin a perfectly good insult.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2007,14:43   

Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 06 2007,13:58)
 
Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 06 2007,12:46)
Thank you Arden. Waiting for your ideas about coloration of ladybirds.

I don't no squat about ladybirds, but I know how you will react if we formulate hypothesis about their coloration:

"Ha, but this doesn't explain this and that <insert biological fact that has not been studied yet>, Darwinism sucks!"

Then we would ask "what's your theory then?"

And your answer: "..."

So what's the point?  ???

You are wrong. The problem has been studied. All you can do is to stick on aposematic coloration of ladybirds. Darwinism has no other answer as far as I know. Despite of fungi ladybirds has been studied much more thoroughly and there ire many researches of them.

Heikertinger dismissed aposematic coloration of ladybirds as well as natural selection as source of it.

The facts are following - ladybirds have many predators, especially birds. To those predators are their coloration very convenient signal.

In North America they are eaten by species of Muscivora, Myiarchus, Sayornis, Myiochanes and especially Empidonax. About E.minimus wrote Beal (1912) that in their stomach only three beetle species were more present. Chapin (1925) researched Virco-species nourisment and concluded that Coccinelidae make 1/12 of their food income. In Vireosylva philadelphica they make more than 1/5 of beetles they ate. By V.gilva more than 1/2 of eated beetles and 1/12 of food income...
Vireo Huttoni: 5/8 of eated beetles...

There were once a much more greater research of stomach contents of birds. Csiki on Hungary during 1905-1915 reserched more than 2.000 stomachs of birds. Of course he found there suprisingly great number of wasps, ladybirds etc... I am afraid darwinists do not continue in such research any more. Such researches undermine their phantasies of warning coloration of wasps, ladybirds etc. They make nowadays only indoor experiments with birds, but those expariments do not prove anything. The only expriments that counts are those outdoors, in the countryside.

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

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2007,14:46   

Mein Gott Martin, have you travelled forward in time 60 years or something?

Do you not have ANYTHING recent?

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2007,23:52   

Maybe those birds beeing instructed by darwinists about poisonous qualities of ladybirds do not eat them anymore.

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

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2007,00:10   

Hey, VMartin:

I think you have some unanswered questions over on your thread.  Care to answer?

Look, I'll give you an example of how easy it is:

Blipey, how old do you think the Earth is?

Why, Blipey, I do believe it is 4.5 billion years old.

Look how easy that was!

edit:  please answer on the appropriate thread.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2007,00:36   

It's 'fantasy', Martin. Not 'phantasy'. If you're going to say moronic, evasive, ignorant things with terrible syntax, at least get a dictionary and spell the words properly.

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

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2007,03:15   

well, if you've taken phar-out drugs, it might be phantasy. You just can't tell.

V-Martin, what the heck do you think is the case? That evolution doesn't happen? Is god involved in this little shennanigan?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
  215 replies since June 26 2007,15:36 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (8) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >