AE BB DB Explorer


Action:
Author:
Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):


form_srcid: VMartin

form_srcid: VMartin

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 23.20.20.195

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: VMartin

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'VMartin%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2006/11/05 00:51:16, Link
Author: VMartin
REC:

No doubt there are other examples which cited also Davison in Manifesto and that are no way to be explained away as "superficially resemblance" as you do in case of placenta, tasmanian wolf etc.. Davison cited Punnet who believed that gradualismus cannot explain many baffling examples of mimicry and saltus is needed. Problem of mimicry consist in fact that to be effective there have to be initial resemlance between model and mimic to be deceptive for predators. No initial gradually step is enough to do this. Even today many experts on batesian or mullerian mimicry of butterflies conform with view of saltus even if in guise of "genetic effect of large magnitude".

Maybe you did not see one of most puzzling case of mimicry, where we have 14 different female morphs of Papilio Dardanus and many of them mimics unpalatable species (Batesian mimicry):

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/taxome/jim/Mim2/dardanus.html

According Nijhout (2003) :

"Initial step in the evolution of mimicry is likely to have been due to a genetic effect of large magnitude".

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

And do darwinian have enough fantasy to explain even origin of mimetism described by Poulton, when mimics and his model lived in different and distatnt areas?
For instance Limenitis albomaculata lives in West China and their model - males Hypolimnas misippus - southeast Asia?

http://main2.amu.edu.pl/~skoracka/china/tn_49.html

http://www.inra.fr/papillon/papilion/nymphali/texteng/h_misipp.htm

(One darwinian explanation is this: it is due migrating birds that somehow remember archetypes of unpalatable species and to image of which mimic species in West China accomodated!;)

Date: 2006/11/06 08:26:48, Link
Author: VMartin
Surely Davison do not dwell in his Manifesto on mimicry, he just cited Punnett, who do not believe on graduall steps that could eventually led to mimicry. Yet I consider Davison Manifesto one of the best critic of darwinism I have ever read.  

As to your remarks that Davison sources are out of date it seems to me very strange, while neoDARWINISm stands on naturalist phantasy of Darwin who lived in 19 century and had no idea, that something like DNA exist.

If you claim, that Punnet is also outdated I must remind you that there are more scientists, who studied insects, mimicry and related phenomens and do not believed in neodarwism - for instance Heikertinger - he and Punnet claimed that behind development are "internal factors".  
Something, that propose also Davison and what is in accord with Grasse.

Modern scientist who visited Amazonia and do not believe in neodarwinism at all, but propose some Goethean approach and other developmental forces is Andreas Suchantke who wrote in 1994 "Metamorphosen im Insektenreich".

Date: 2006/11/06 08:45:27, Link
Author: VMartin
Jeannot.

It would be fine, if you put beside Davison photo your own. We would than might see your fysiognomia and amuse ourselves.

Date: 2006/11/08 15:02:50, Link
Author: VMartin
Alan Fox

Quote
Can you support this assertion?


Surely I can. You might not read link on my first post
on Papilio Dardanus so I cited from there - page 580:

Quote

Batesian mimicry is believed to originate by means of aninitial mutation that has a sufficiently big effect on the phenotype to give a passable resemblance to a protected model, followed by the accumulation and selection of mutations in modifier genes that progressively refine the mimicry (Fisher 1930; Carpenter and Ford 1933; Sheppard 1959; Clarke and Sheppard 1960c; Charlesworth and Charles-worth 1975a; Turner 1977; Charlesworth 1994). Charlesworth and Charlesworth (1975b,c) calculated the conditions under which mimicry will evolve, and their calculations suggest that modifying mutations that refine the mimicry will be maintained if they are tightly liked to the gene that conferred the initial advantage, thus providing a plausible explanation for the evolution of a supergene.


I underestand that neodarwinists do not like hear of initial big step and prefer to gradual changes. Yet in case of mimicry it is more than 100 years that such theory is accepted as only possible.  

I suppose that even hardcore neodarwinist  do not believe, that "initial mutation" was a one that affected randomly one-two nucleotides and these small random mutation changed completely wing patterns and colors that even birds are unable distinct it from model species.
In Papilio Dardanus most of 14 morphs mimics unpalatable species, so this "randomness" occurs many times.

Date: 2006/11/16 16:20:25, Link
Author: VMartin
Davison cited prominent modern scientists who dismissed darwinism. I would like add one name from "small philosophy" - atheist Friedrich  Nietzsche who ridicules Darwin very. I cannot find english translation of his last book Gotzen dammerung, but German original  can be found easily on inet.

Nietzsche on darwinism AND MIMICRY in Gotzen Dammerung (see especially that Darwin forget spirit (Geist) - "das ist englisch!"), :

Anti-Darwin. - Was den berühmten Kampf um's Leben betrifft, so scheint er mir einstweilen mehr behauptet als bewiesen. Er kommt vor, aber als Ausnahme; der Gesammt-Aspekt des Lebens ist nicht die Nothlage, die Hungerlage, vielmehr der Reichthum, die Üppigkeit, selbst die absurde Verschwendung, - wo gekämpft wird, kämpft man um Macht... Man soll nicht Malthus mit der Natur verwechseln. - Gesetzt aber, es giebt diesen Kampf - und in der That, er kommt vor -, so läuft er leider umgekehrt aus als die Schule Darwin's wünscht, als man vielleicht mit ihr wünschen dürfte: nämlich zu Ungunsten der Starken, der Bevorrechtigten, der glücklichen Ausnahmen. Die Gattungen wachsen nicht in der Vollkommenheit: die Schwachen werden immer wieder über die Starken Herr, - das macht, sie sind die grosse Zahl, sie sind auch klüger... Darwin hat den Geist vergessen (- das ist englisch!;), die Schwachen haben mehr Geist... Man muss Geist nöthig haben, um Geist zu bekommen, - man verliert ihn, wenn man ihn nicht mehr nöthig hat. Wer die Stärke hat, entschlägt sich des Geistes (- "lass fahren dahin! denkt man heute in Deutschland - das Reich muss uns doch bleiben"...). Ich verstehe unter Geist, wie man sieht, die Vorsicht, die Geduld, die List, die Verstellung, die grosse Selbstbeherrschung und Alles, was mimicry ist (zu letzterem gehört ein grosser Theil der sogenannten Tugend).

http://manybooks.net/support....xp.html

Date: 2006/11/16 16:57:49, Link
Author: VMartin
Am I now banned like Davison?

Date: 2006/11/19 13:37:35, Link
Author: VMartin
I do not see what is this thread is about - I see no arguments only "jokes" missing any meaning.
Arguments against Davison I do not see at all, not even against prominent scientists he cited. I cited also Punnet mentioned in Manifesto who did not believe in darwinian gradualism as sufficient explanation of mimicry. I suppose that you will ridicule also this response but anyhow I cannnot help myself but send it - I never suppose that prominent neodarwinian scientists would support their phatasy how mimicry evolve by "transvestite evolutionary step" in 21 century!

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


1)

   
Quote

The niobe phenotype can be obtained with the niobe allele of the mimicry locus (Hni) but also as a heterozygote between the planemoides and trophonius alleles (Hpl/HT), yielding the so-called synthetic niobe (Clarke and Sheppard 1960a).
 



I would say that color on back wings of niobe is distinctly different from that of plamenoides and trophonius. So from where this color came from?

2)

   
Quote

Our studies on the correlated variation of pattern elements revealed a substantial amount of phenotypic variability in the various forms of P. dardanus. Assuming a similar mutation load, patterns that are subject to strong selection should exhibit less genetic and phenotypic variability than patterns that are under weaker selection.
.
.
The absence of correlated variation among pattern elements in mimicking forms stands in contrast to the neighbor and regional correlations observed in the nonmimetic patterns.
 



Again I would say - studying neodarwinian explanation of Batesian mimicry - that mimic should be protected against any shift of patterns and colors that would anyhow diminish its resemblance to distasteful model. I would also say that no such constrains would exist in nonmimetic patterns, while there I see no protection and subsequntly no selective pressure to look same. Yet the measured values for Papilio d. are exactly opposite to this consideration.

3)

There is accepted theory that even if males of P.d. look same throughout species its patterns and colors are not ancestral form - probably as I assume it would complicated neodarwinists phancy how to explain initial mutation from these ancestor to others mimic morphs. Instead according Nijhout archaic patterns look like P.phorcas. There should be than only 6 mutations that changed patterns on forewing - author probably forget on hindwings and colors - but even these 6 mutations occuring simultaneously from 12 measured patterns give probability 1/3.000.000.

What is more interesting is that supposed ancestor of P.d. morphs have 2 female morphs that are eatable so question aroses how it comes that these two morphs exists when there is no selective pressure? Neodarwinists do not lack phantasy at all:

   
Quote

The polymorphic female form of P. phorcas is believed to have originated as a male-mimicking ‘‘transvestitism’’ from a primitively sexually dimorphic color pattern (Vane-Wright 1976; Clarke et al. 1985).
 


If you never heard about transvestite evolution than again:

   
Quote

This suggests that the species may initially have
been sexually dimorphic (with brown/yellow females and
black/green males) and that a so-called transvestite evolutionary
step (Vane-Wright 1976; Clarke et al. 1985) produced
male-like females and was the origin of the female color
 



So that is the modern, "scientific" neodarwinistic account for Papilio dardanus polymorphism - resting partly upon "transvestite evolutionary step" with subsequent "genetic effect of large magnitude".

Date: 2006/11/19 15:24:22, Link
Author: VMartin
I would appreciate if you addressed my post on mimicry instead of talking on somebody who is banned and cannot defend himself. I agree with Davison Manifesto on Punnet and mimicry. I would appreciate any comment of this part on Davison Manifesto or on my previous post connected with it.

Date: 2006/11/20 13:04:49, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

Dude, do you honestly think we're going to argue about JAD's "theories" with you?  Are you serious?


Darling I do not suppose you folks here are able  discuss any problem outlined by Davison.  Your discussion here is only childish mockery of Davison of no value. Whats more  he is banned and so unable defend himself.

Your mockery with naive and unscientific opinion on mimicry like this one from Jeannot Nov.5:

Quote

I don't see why the first steps of mimicry would require mutations of large effects in all species.


explain everything.

Enjoy your inane discussion!

Date: 2006/11/21 13:18:50, Link
Author: VMartin
And why dont you read discussions on brainstorms?

http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-forum-f-6.html

Whats more - Davison has full access there and he also has some allies there - me too. Davison is right with his conclusion that "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."

Date: 2006/11/21 16:03:23, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

If you think Davison is correct with his PEH, all you have to do is ask him why he, nor ANYBODY else, has EVER attempted to test any prediction resulting from it.


Davison named his Manifesto "A NEW HYPOTHESIS FOR ORGANIC CHANGE". He is no way I dare say so arrogant as darwinists and communists to call his facts and very originally thoughts to be "scientifically proved".

Btw what are the tested prediction of darwinism and communism?

Why not go to Brainstorm where John Davison is not banned and can give you explanation personally?

Date: 2006/11/21 16:11:43, Link
Author: VMartin
Jeannot.

That is no argument what is written in darwinian books.
If Davison do not read them he might be right. Why to waste time with it? Here in Central and East Europe we were forced to read marxistic bullshits, in every University there was department of marx-leninism and people in Russia were prisoned as insane if they doubted on marx-leninism wordl-view.

Critics of communism were marked as "insane" - just like you marked Davison right now.

Do not forget that marxism and darwinism are similiar outdated naturalistic theories from mid 19 century.

Date: 2006/11/21 16:49:05, Link
Author: VMartin
Steviepinhead.

Do not ridicule yourself with your "holy" book. There is interesting discussion on mimicry on EvC with people who underestand little bit of it and I hope it will be going on Brainstorm as well.

If you speak german (weg gehen) you can also scan book from Andreas Suchantke "Metamorphosen im Insektenreich". You will learn something interesting from modern author who dismissed neodarwinism as explanation of insect mimicry completelly.

If you have something say except of presenting books  for reading you are welcome. Try read my answer on Brainstorm to REC and give me some neodarwinistic arguments. Thanks.

http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi....#000291

Date: 2006/11/22 14:59:36, Link
Author: VMartin
Steviepinhead
Quote

It doesn't take a whole bunch of mutations to have a major impact on phenotypic patterns--it takes relatively small changes to signalling genes.


Vow - it seems you discovered America. Is this the "secret wisdom" from your extraordinary book of evo-devo?

Btw on talkreason.org the Carrolls book is marked as book "For the grown-up layman" .

So you are a layman very impressed by first book you read on hox genes. This partly explains your arrogance towards Davison and me. If you will have more knowledges  you would have appreciate more Davison Manifesto and his original conception of evolution.

You would also have read more carrefuly my remarks on mimicry of Papilio Dardanus and Nijhout genetic explanations of the phenomenon. Knowing more on topic you would realise that mimicry is no way to be reduced to genes and genetic backrounds and their regulation but to the fact that one species resemble other one to allegedly protect itself (however it is more claimed as proved)  and how this resemblance could be achieved by random mutation and natural selection. This process is hardly explainable by neodarwinism - even prominent contemporary neodarwinists resort in case of Papilio Dardanus to conceptions like "transvestite evolutionary step" with subsequent "genetic effect of large magnitude".

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/taxome/jim/Mim2/dardanus.html

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

Or even trying to explain hypothetical phantasy of evolution of P.dardanus from P.phorcas with dimorphic non-mimetic females - which should be explained of course while there is no selective advantage - their forged other phantasy how arouse male-like female form - Cook, et al. (1994) suggest that while male-like forms are more visible and prone to predation they may allow females to escape 'sexual harrasment' by males.    

Is there really any final wisdom of these phenomenons in your "compendarium" that enables you treat Davison and me with such an arrogance?

Date: 2006/11/23 14:32:47, Link
Author: VMartin
Hi folks. I am much impressed by your linguistic analysis of my poor english. Do you work like level-experts sorting pupils in Berlitz-school or something like that? Its big pleasure to discuss some mimicry issues with linguistic experts too.
   
--------------------------------------------------------------------

REC:

Quote

Why can't a gene cluster, or a single master regulator be changed? Especially with interspecies breeding, predation, sexual pressure on mate selection, are we suprized complex traits emerge?



Yes. Might be that modern neordarwinsts are not surprized but when the case of Papilio Dardanus was first published in 1868 it was shock to the scientific world.

I consider the case as something that can be hardly explained by random mutation and selection.

First I would like to notice again that male-like, mimetic and non-mimetic female morphs of P.dardanus live in the same region and make up the same race. You would probably agree that colors of mimetic trophonius and non- mimetic leighi are very different (even if they belong to the same group hippocoon according Nijhout.)But not only that, there are other forms in mentioned race (Shepard and Clarke 1959):

Quote

This race (cenea) inhabits South Africa, northwards to Delagoa Bay. The males are monomorphic, yellow, tailed and nonmimetic as they are wherever the species is found (Figure 1). The female forms that have been studied by us are the nonmimetic f. leighi, f. natalica and f. salaami and the mimics f. hippocoonides, f. cenea, f, trophonius (Figures 2-7) and a modification of f. trophonius in which the large apical spot on the forewings is buff and not the normal white (for a description of the forms, their models and their distribution see FORD19 36 and CLARKaEnd SHEPPAR1D9 59a).



Together with mentioned case in my previous post where male-like females make up 80% of population and mimetic females only 20% question stands like: How is it possible that mimetic form are not prevalent? If the mimic do not thrive better than non-mimic what forces had driven evolution of such a form? It was hardly selection due predation - predation on mimetic and non-mimetic forms seem to be same otherwise one of the form would die out. We see similar process in neodarwinistic icon peppered moths - there according scientists only small selective advantage of melanica vs.
typica would led in only few decades to their clear prevalence.

Explanation of mimicry that neodarwinists offer are that of batesian/mullerian mimicry. It should led to greater protection of mimetic form and subsequent survival.

As we clearly see this is not the case - non-mimetic forms thrive as well - even better!

Sole mutation of regulatory genes as you and some other people here proposed is without selection inconcievable - how it happens that random mutation of "master gene" alone would lead to the same wing patterns and colors distribution as exist in unpalatable species?
Btw. here comes neodarwinistic dialectic - first step was due "genetic effect of large magnitude" and than follow tuning of mimicry to the model via small mutations. You generally cannot argue with such a dialectic - neodarwinist would shift border between tham according situation.

Yet that such process would led to 14 different morphs in one species most of which are mimetic without any selective advantage over non-mimetic morphs - I would say that also hard-cored neodarwinist should be little surprised - expect he is the linguist-polyglot of course.

----
Summary: on my opinion chance and selection cannot play a role in the case of polymorphism of P.dardanus (Mocker Swallowtail). It is in accordance with professor John Davison claim that evolution was never driven by such forces.

Date: 2006/11/23 14:55:41, Link
Author: VMartin
Takže mládenci ja Vám nieèo poviem - nie som John Davison, ale vážim si jeho prácu "Evolutionary Manifesto". Je to jedna z najlepších vecí, ktoré som èítal z kritiky darwinizmu, kde cituje popredných vedcov na poli biológie a palentológie.
Pod¾a mojej mienky väèšina ¾udí tu nesiaha Johnovi ani po päty  a bol by som radšej keby ste kritizovali nieèo z jeho Manifesta , alebo z toho èo Vám píšem ja - toto je prázdne mlátenie sena.

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

Date: 2006/11/23 16:57:35, Link
Author: VMartin
jeannot
Quote

Do you think some individuals pop-up, created by the hand of the great Prescriber?


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

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

Date: 2006/11/23 18:16:42, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

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



Kto ma poznat tu vasu hantyrku s tym KERFUFFLE alebo nebodaj DAVETARD ?  Myslis ze si mam cas tvoje dristy vyhladavat v nejakom slovniku aby som pochopil tvoj primestsky dialekt? Pokial budete pisat nezrozumitelnou predmestskou hantyrkou, budem vam odpovedat vo svojom jazyku takto - vyjde to na rovnako ta diskusia hlucheho s nemym.


Got it?

Date: 2006/11/24 00:21:13, Link
Author: VMartin
Whats about issuing phenomenon of P.dardanus boys and looking on it from other view?
As you see there is no clear advantage to be mimic in the case. We can say that mimicry doesnot exist in this case. Something proposed by Franz Heikertinger who also - like many by Davison mentioned prominent scientists - accounted for internal factors too.

Date: 2006/11/26 15:12:06, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

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



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

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

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

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


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

Date: 2006/11/26 15:58:50, Link
Author: VMartin
As you know John is banned here. You should better write him an email or go to Brainstorm.

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

M.

Date: 2006/11/27 14:46:49, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

No one here CARES who you are.  (shrug)


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

Date: 2006/11/27 23:54:13, Link
Author: VMartin
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Nov. 26 2006,18:05:

Quote

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


and after 20 hours:

Quote

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


Arent such reactions something I would call bipolar?

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

Date: 2006/11/30 15:37:56, Link
Author: VMartin
O.K. Air seems to be clear, adolescent darwinists probably move to other forum (linguistic). And we may continue.

jeannot

 
Quote

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


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

 
Quote

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


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

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

 
Quote

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


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

Date: 2006/12/01 13:30:24, Link
Author: VMartin
Occam's Aftershave
   
Quote

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



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

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

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


   
Quote

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


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

   
Quote

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


Enjoy.

Date: 2006/12/01 14:22:35, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

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


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

Date: 2006/12/02 16:42:05, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

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


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

   
Quote

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


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

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

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

Date: 2006/12/03 03:55:30, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

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


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

 
Quote

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

 
Quote

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


 
Quote

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Date: 2006/12/03 05:41:08, Link
Author: VMartin
Alan FoX wrote to Professor Davison on his own forum:
Quote

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


instructed yesterday John Davison that:

Quote

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


Would you beleive it?

Date: 2006/12/04 12:34:01, Link
Author: VMartin
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posted: Dec. 03 2006,15:24

Quote

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



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

Date: 2006/12/04 12:44:14, Link
Author: VMartin
Since the folks here like nice english, I dug out something from prominent writer and former scientist Nabokov on mimicry - of course attitude is antidarwinian one -

Quote

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

Date: 2006/12/05 11:04:56, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

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


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

Date: 2006/12/05 11:11:04, Link
Author: VMartin
Steviepinhead
Quote

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


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

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

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

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

Date: 2006/12/05 12:35:06, Link
Author: VMartin
PWE.


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

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

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

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

Date: 2006/12/05 14:11:07, Link
Author: VMartin
Arden Chatfield:
Quote

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

Occam Aftershave:
Quote

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

Jeannot:
Quote

It can't be Paley.

Arden Chatfield:
Quote

Maybe VMartin is actually Lenny Flank!

Richardthughes:
Quote

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


and last but not at least:


"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
Quote

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



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

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

Date: 2006/12/06 23:55:49, Link
Author: VMartin
Ichthyic
Quote

hey you slopeheaded slovak!


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

O.K.?

Date: 2006/12/07 11:30:42, Link
Author: VMartin
Jeannot,

why do you want close the bar that have already been closed? Anyway, you cannot supress Davisons work to influence more and more people. His Manifesto summarized best antidarwinian thoughts from prominent scientists and his theory of derepression of pre-loaded potencialities via chromosome inversion during meiosis is his addition to their work.

He and his Manifesto become more and more known and neodarwinists seem to loosing nerves - let me cite from article from American Chronicle (March 2006):

 
Quote

Needless to say, Davison had to pay a price for his dissent from the Darwinian doctrine. He was subjected to harassments by various members of the faculty, and his salary remained frozen at the 1995 level. Eventually he retaliated by publishing ?What It Means to Be an AntiDarwinian at the University of Vermont.?


And not only that, he is denigrated on forums he has no access to.

Interesting article on darwinism mentioning Davison
"The Evolutionist Campaign to Suppress the Truth"
from Kazmer Ujvarosy is on:


http://www.americanchronicle.com/article....ID=6623

Date: 2006/12/07 13:57:41, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

What is your definition of an intermediate, and how would you recognize one if you saw it?


First of all we should define what intermediate is and if we know at least one. I have a long discussion on slovak-forum one year ago. I disputed with one darwinist about Ambulocetus that darwinists consider as "proved" intermediate between halfbear-halfwolf-halfcow creature Pakicetus and a modern whale. As you know Pakicetus means  "Pakistan cetacea" or pakistan whale - even though  Pakicetus lived on ground and do not swim at all - it has hoofs like Ambulocetus. Ambulocetus is then in translation "walking whale". Funny no?
The skeleton of Ambulocetus is so incomplete that Gingerich dismissed it from his research on supposed transition row from ground mammals to whale.
Yet the nomenclatura of "walking whale" is not the only fraud. They present us in museums this skeleton of Ambulocetus, walking whale with hoofs:

http://www.researchcasting.ca/ambulocetus.htm

and whad Thewissen really found:

http://www.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Hans/AmbulocetusPhoto.jpg
   

------

Same is applicable on mimicry. We know some insects that mimic ants in movement but they do not see like ants at all so no creatute can be mislead by such a mimic. Anyway darwinists claim that we are witnissing ongoing transition insect form to ant mimic!

Date: 2006/12/07 14:38:15, Link
Author: VMartin
Do you think we are at school and you are some kind of teacher giving questions hehe? Now you are teaching informatics instead english?

Define what "information" is and we can continue.

Be aware that in the text there should be information that we are not aware of - like in hebrew Bible where reading text backwards you obtain answer to question you are actually reading (see Umberto Eco: Quest for a lost languages). So information in genetic code may be same - combinations of exons in same gene give us different outcome. In that sense I do not see obstacles to Davison conception of pre-loaded information. Just rearrangemets of existing code can lead to new species. Its like text which give no sense - junk DNA - (or only few pages are readable). Then reshuffling words (no by chance, but using some key) hidden text reappear as was written originally (and other hitherto readable text may become unreadable at the same instance or change meaning).

Date: 2006/12/08 11:03:15, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

Tell me VMartin:
How would you recognize a 'transitional fossil' if you saw one?
How would you recognize 'new information' in a genome if you saw it?
They're simple questions, why are they giving you such problems?

Questions are not simple - they are stupid.
Let me change them a little bit in order to make them what they really are.

How would you recognize a 'dog fart' if you heard one?
How would you recognize 'neutron' in a nucleus if you saw it?
How would you recognize  'acrid odour' if you saw one?

****************
And now more seriously:
   
Quote

If you're so ignorant that you can't even define 'transitional fossil' or 'new information' for us, how can you expect anyone else to believe the claims that such things don't exist? You're so ignorant that you wouldn't know them if you saw them, right?


I am not the one who claimed that transitional fossil exist. I am also not the one who claimed that there exist a trasitional particle between electrone and positrone. So why should I even try to define such a transitional particle (transitional fossil)?

As to the "new information" - I gave you example that information can be in a text if you read the text backwards. The question  How would you recognize 'new information' in a text if you saw it? has no sense. You and I see the TEXT - not information.  The text I  may underestand but you may not (or vice versa). I would say  the same process we may find in genome. Information written in DNA is the function of "reading frame" - each different reading frame read different information. I have read that in some cases information in a gene is overlappinig. Reading and underestanding of what has beed coded is what matters. For instance you do not underestand Magyar and let say you have a magyar book. Do you think that information is there or not? I suppose that to decide such a question would require to learn Magyar first. Observer (reading frame) is for recognising of information crucial.

---
Summary - I dont know what does it mean to "see information" in genome as much as I do not know what does it mean to "smell information" in genome. You might be probably aware that DNA is not information - DNA is only bearer, carrier of information and not the information itself.

Date: 2006/12/10 13:20:47, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

Does that really mean that in bacteria the reading of the gene might start at any base pair, even if two genes start at positions that aren't separated by a multiple of three?


Thats right. There is documented case where reading frame is shifted only by 1 nucleotide to obtain different outcome and then again by 1 nucleotide to obtain another different outcome! It was observed in bacterial virus sigmaX184.
All three results of the reading are fully functional!

1. ABC ABC ABC ABC ABC ABC
2. (A) BCA BCA BCA BCA BCA BCA
3.  (AB)C CAB CAB CAB CAB CAB...

So you see that exegese or interpreation or hetmeneutic
is what is important. Even if someignorants here insist
that I am evading the "simple" question how would I "see" new infrormation in genome (???).

Date: 2006/12/11 14:45:57, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

Of course, on its own, a genome means nothing, it carries no information (except the information about its particular sequence of base pairs), so where do the interpretative rules reside?


So your opinion seems to be correct - information is non-material and as a such we cannot see it (Shaved Occam is incapable to underestand this and he hunts me with his stupid question how would I "see" new information).

I would say that interpretative rules reside in the organism as a whole or more specifically at the beginning in zygote. Without zygote is interpetation impossible. My opinion is that DNA is not enough to create life - even if we would have complete DNA from marsupial wolf we would never recreate one without its zygote - which we do not have.

Anyway Davison observation that development of gonads in different species seems to be unexplainable from common ancestor is interesting.
It would mean that zygotes between species differ more
than darwinists believe.

Date: 2006/12/12 00:02:01, Link
Author: VMartin
Shaved Occam ravage:
Quote

Now we see VMartin is both a coward and a liar.  I clarified and asked you for your definition of biological information, and how you would determine (not "see") if new information was present.


Everybody on this thread can check your stupid questions:

Quote

How would you know ‘new information’ if you saw it?

Quote

How would you recognize 'new information' in a genome if you saw it?


So who is a liar? Or are you as bipolar as Rev Dr Frank?

Date: 2006/12/12 12:23:28, Link
Author: VMartin
Shaved Occam

I am much impressed by your exceptional ability to "see" information in a genome. Its a big gift, do not waste it.

Anyway John has something to tell you:

Quote

Since I cannot post at After The Bar Closes, please post this for Occam's Aftershave (whoever that is) as a response to what Francis Crick believed.

"But according to Darwinian doctrine and Crick's central dogma, DNA is not only the depository and distributor of the information but its SOLE CREATOR. I do not believe this to be true."
Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, page 224, his emphasis.

Date: 2006/12/12 12:46:22, Link
Author: VMartin
You want to hear something about Batesian mimicry boys? So Nabokov ridicules darwinistic logic behind the phenomenon by these words - enjoy:    

 
Quote

...pursuing this goal consciously, having conferred beforehand with the model and determined that the latter, during the full number of centuries required by the toiler at evolution toward a gradual attainment of resemblance, would remain unchanged (in the kind immobility that a painter demands of his model).

The process would accelerate further if the model just as consciously indulged the imitator by mutating part way in proportion to the mime's mutations, or if the very goal of the imitator were to change concomitantly with the evolutionary metamorphoses of the model, in the same way a painter, having begun a nude of a young female model, might strive for a likeness with such ardor that, as he tirelessly recorded every trait, he would, in the end, find that he was depicting the old woman into which the model had evolved during her plurennial pose.

Yet the concept of evolution in no way presupposes either the existence of a conscious and focused will within a developing creature, or a coordination of actions between two creatures or between a creature and its environment.

As for the presumption that nature mesmerizes subjects selected for mimetic study, influencing them to perform specific roles, that notion must be relegated to fantasy, for where are the anchor points for the cobweb of hypnosis?

The same variations that might result from a blind struggle for survival, no matter how credible their results may appear … endlessly retard the putative course of a given evolutionary process, for it is here that the element of happenstance reappears. (Nabokov's Butterflies 225)


Be sure Nabokov was an expert - he also supposed that patterns on wing cells are independent of each other what was ridiculed at his time. Yet new research approved his concept (see Nijhout).

Date: 2006/12/12 13:09:33, Link
Author: VMartin
AfterShaved Occam

O.K. Ill try to respond to your intelligent question:

Quote

How would you know ‘new information’ if you saw it?


Answer:
New information has red color and looks like a cube.
Are you satisfied?

Date: 2006/12/12 14:41:02, Link
Author: VMartin
PWE

 
Quote

Do you suggest that all species have a different origin?


I suppose that fact of missing links is accepted - it were Eldredge and Jay Gould who wanted to solve the problem by "punctuated equilibrium".

So either are correct Creationists or Davison who represent tradition of Nomogenesis and macroevolutionary saltationism.

My opinion is - and its thanks Davisons Manifesto -
that evolution is a fact. But it WAS driven by forces we are not aware of. Forces that probably are not in effect nowadays. I do not believe with Davison in random mutation and natural selection as forces behind evolution of mankind.

I agree with great Russian philosopher S.Bulgakov that evolution is driven by inteligentsia and in some point of development man obtained spirit. Spirit present itself in language.

Language and speech of mankind cannot evolve by random mutation and natural selection too. It is also  Noam Chomsky opinion.
(some folks here like linguists very).

Date: 2006/12/13 00:20:58, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=124611

you have a lot of work to do to show how ALL of these peer reviewed articles (the ones not dealing with fossils, anyway) are NOT evidence of current evolution (and those are but a very small subset of all the recent articles out there on the subject).


I looked in the link and I found there this:

Quote

Nature 434, 973 (21 April 2005)

Insect behaviour: Arboreal ants build traps to capture prey

Dejean et al

To meet their need for nitrogen in the restricted foraging environment provided by their host plants, some arboreal ants deploy group ambush tactics in order to capture flying and jumping prey that might otherwise escape. Here we show that the ant Allomerus decemarticulatus uses hair from the host plant's stem, which it cuts and binds together with a purpose-grown fungal mycelium, to build a spongy 'galleried' platform for trapping much larger insects. Ants beneath the platform reach through the holes and immobilize the prey, which is then stretched, transported and carved up by a swarm of nestmates. To our knowledge, the collective creation of a trap as a predatory strategy has not been described before in ants.


Really - it seems to me that random mutation is better explanation like intelligence behind such phenomen, hehe. It really support darwinism excellently hehe.

Date: 2006/12/13 14:23:00, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

Mr. Davison. Why do you never answer a straight question?


I am not John Davison. If you know something more about internet topology you would know that nobody in USA would access internet through slovak-telecom and pay for it.

I dont know what question I am supposed to answer:

1) How would I recognize information if I "see" one?

2) Whats the difference between Batesian/Mullerian mimicry?

Such stupid questions are not worth to answer. Anyway you can "see" that I answered pwe who knows something about evolution and what information is.

Date: 2006/12/14 11:54:28, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Dec. 13 2006,23:18)
Hey VMartin

It's apparent that you can't defend any of JAD's stupidity about 'no transitional fossils' or 'no new information'.  He11, you even have a hard time keeping your accent going. ;)  Since you seem to be so tight with JAD (sorta like Bruce Wayne is to Batman)  maybe you can post this over at ISCID for me.

"John Davison, why are you such a coward and intellectual lightweight who refuses to defend your own ideas?"

Like the good little lickspittle you are, I'll wait for you to bring JAD's reply here.


Surely I can:

Quote

Would you please explain to Occam's Aftershave (whoever that is) that I don't need to defend my ideas as they are published. Furthermore, if the folks at ATBC want to know what I think, they only have to permit me to express myself in that venue.


So let  John Davison full access to this "high demanding scientifically-technical forum" and he can answer your "questions" himself.

Date: 2006/12/14 12:01:30, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Steviepinhead @ Dec. 12 2006,14:36)
Yo, you complete self-annointed moron (since, leave us not forget, that's what rigorous application of Vmartin's "key-within-the-text" as applied to the text of Vmartin's self-selected screen-name led us to), Nabakov qualifies at most as a distinquished lay "expert" in butterfly--a high-level hobbyist.

His true expertise was literature.  As a butterfly hobbyist, he may have been superb at identification and collection.  As an evolutionary biologist, he has no credentials whatsoever.



Certainly folks here consider themselves to be experts on batesian and mullerian mimicry and consider themselves to be prominent lepidopterists too.

The lepidopterist "hobbyist" Nabokov who  worked at the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University have no chance in such a noble society.

Date: 2006/12/14 12:08:19, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Ichthyic @ Dec. 13 2006,22:42)
no, not really, and this one has gotten just as boring.

BTW, i could easily imagine John, desperate for attention as he is, actually paying to get access to this blog via slovak telecom.

really.


Certainly it will bring you some relief if you let your fart go out through your arse instead of mouth. Maybe you should try to pull out the Pandas thumb from your ass for a moment.

Then you can put it again so deep as you prefer.

And you can come back on this "demanding technical-scientific forum" and give me some
stupid darwinistic questions.

Like:
"Did you ever see a new information? How does it look like?"

"Can you explain us what the Batesian mimicry is?"

"Can you explain us what frequency dependent selection means?"

Date: 2006/12/15 12:33:52, Link
Author: VMartin
Kristine wrote:
       
Quote

*Ring! Ring!*

VMartin: Hello? JAD, it's for you. It's the guys [hey!] at the Slippery Floor

Saloon.

[Better than sticky, I say.]

JAD: Tell those worthless uncredentialed lesbos that I'm not home.

VMartin: He says he's not home. *Hangs up*

JAD: We have them on the run, Martin!



Kristine you are witty.  

***********************

Anyway there is no need for John Davison to explain his view outlined in Manifesto.
All that he has written there seems to be correct. First I was struck by his claim (or better his citation of Broom) that evolution is finished.  Brooms claim:

         
Quote

In Eocene times -- say between 50,000,000 and 30,000,000 years ago -- small primitive mammals rather suddenly gave rise to over a dozen very different Orders -- hoofed animals, odd-toed and even-toed, elephants, carnivores, whales, rodents, bats and monkeys.  And after this there were no more Orders of mammals ever evolved.  There were great varieties of evolution in the Orders that had appeared, but strangely enough Nature seemed incapable of forming any more new Orders...
                               (1951), page 107


I checked it in modern sources and I found this:

         
Quote

"..i.e., euprimates: lemurs, tarsiers, monkeys, and apes) and Perissodactyla (odd-toed ungulates such as horses, tapirs, and rhinos)-also appeared abruptly and in abundance in early Eocene Holarctic deposits, with little indication of their ancestry."


Darwinists to defend their views use a claim that "the mammalian Orders" is a human invention and in fact such division does not exist in Nature (its btw old philosophical dispute between nominalism vs. realism). Anyway its hardly to believe that mammalian families are also the human invention. Yet:    

         
Quote

"A number of mammal orders show peaks of family diversityaround the Eocene-Oligocene boundary, such as Soricomorpha, Rodentia, Primates, Artiodactyla and Proboscidea."


         
Quote

The great diversity of Holarctic primates during the
Eocene indicates that at least 90% of modern diversity
would already have been reached by the Middle Eocene.


         
Quote

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


and much much more that supports Brooms and John Davisons conclusion that evolution is finished.

John Davison need not search sources that support his claims. Internet is full of them. Just check it yourself.

***

And you as a perfect woman might know that according Heidegger poets are pillars on which the history stands. So I would not ridicule prominent writers as Nietzsche or Nabokov who ridiculed darwinism. Their views have certainly more to do with intuition but  good Art is much more closed to the truth as science.

I am only surprised that the greatest writer of modern era Fyodor Dostoevsky did not adressed problem of darwinism. He as a pneumatolog (he was no way "psycholog" as is common view) adressed atheistic and communist thinking in his novel The Possessed.
Why he did not addressed darwinism at all I do not know.

Date: 2006/12/15 14:19:08, Link
Author: VMartin
Should be I am wrong:

Quote

Dostoevsky's general attitude towards Darwin is reflected in an article from his Diary of a Writer (1873) entitled "One of the Contemporaneous Falsehoods":

Please note, gentlemen, that all of these high European teachers, our light and our hope -- all those Mills, Darwins and Strausses — sometimes consider the moral obligations of modern man in a most astonishing manner. (13)


http://www.utoronto.ca/tsq/DS/09/063.shtml

Date: 2006/12/15 16:59:17, Link
Author: VMartin
Shaved Occam still having darwinistic Pandas thumb in his ass wrote:

   
Quote

Or his 'evolution has stopped' brain fart, when there are dozens of papers written every week describing ongoing examples of evolutionary processes.


Really?

     
Quote

By the middle of the Eocene epoch (45 MYBP), most of the twenty or so present-day mammalian orders are identifiable, including forms as diverse as Chiroptera [bats] descended from Protoeutheria and Cetacea [whales] descended from Condylarthra.




Adaptive Radiation of Mammalian Orders

modern chart (2005) that unequivocally supports Robert Brooms and John Davisons  claim:

http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Mammalian_Adaptive_Radiation.htm

Enjoy.


*****************
and the biggest Occams Aftershave fart:
Quote

...where not only can't he (professor Davison) define 'biological information', he can't tell how to measure or even detect its presence.


I have already told you that you are a kind of prophet: you can "see" new information in genome. Great gift.

Date: 2006/12/15 18:12:17, Link
Author: VMartin
Rev Dr" Lenny Flank.

Do you have another serious bipolar attack? Try to calm down reading some Goulds treatise on Pandas thumb.

Date: 2006/12/17 05:51:07, Link
Author: VMartin
Gad-fly Arden Chatfield:
 
Quote

How about an answer? Is 'Darwin's imaginary common ancestor is a parody of Christ'?

Is it a bad thing 'if evolutionists keep insisting that Christ is not the Creator

or universal common ancestor of the cosmic system'? Does 'the theory of creation

from Christ's body' satisfy 'rational requirements'?



Surely my opinion is that it is creative force that stands behind the life. I do not believe that
mankind aroused via random mutatation and natural selection from an ancient fish.
I do believe with Carl Gustav Jung that every human creature possess spirit.

As to the naturalistics belief from midsts 19 century that mankind aroused via RM and NS from primitive cell I can agree with Ujvarosy. Such a conception is really some gogolian devil parody to the depth of the life.


 
Quote

Incidentally, on the off chance you're not actually Javison, and you're actually, heaven forbid, SINCERE in your admiration for him, I should warn you, you couldn't possibly have picked a worse 'scientist' to glom onto, unless you too want to end up as another embittered, irrelevant laughing stock crackpot like John has.


I dont care about your warning. Allmost all of here (some rare exception of course) do not have nothing to offer  me(except stupid denigration). If you denigrate Davison you denigrate also many prominent sources his conception rest upon.

Date: 2006/12/17 06:24:13, Link
Author: VMartin
Occam wrote:
Quote

BTW John, do you think the theory of plate tectonics has been destroyed because there have been no new continents produced in the last 100 million years?


I have already told you - your "vision" is exceptional. You do not only "see" new information in genome long before it is expressed, you can also see that Davison and I are the same person! Unbelievable.

To your intelligent observation I would apply neodarwinism - new geological plates cannot arise while they do not have enough "ecological niches" for themselves.
 

I would even say that new planets do not arise nowadays in such a hurry as they aroused after Bing-bang. They simply do not have enough "ecological niches" now in space.
The same is applicable to Mendelejevs chemical particles - all niches in his table are full.

Anyway it might be that neodarwinism put a some kind of blindness before eyes. Neodarwinists probably do not see that the 9-months physical development of human embryo is something different from 9 month physical period of an adult. Forces behind embryonal development are not in force in the adult. Yet the darwinist would claim that the adult would further develop neverthenless - he just do not have "ecological niche". Internal forces exist for them neither in ontogeny nor in phylogeny.



   
Quote

What reasons can you give us for why you think evolution has to continue to produce new mammalian orders after all the available ecological niches were filled?  


Why not? As you know there were much more mammalian families in Eocene as today are.
Do you mean that there were much more "ecological niches" at that time comparing nowadays?

Date: 2006/12/17 06:43:47, Link
Author: VMartin
Ichthyic seems to be after attack:
 
Quote

the concerns over mimicry VMartin are thinking of were dealth with as early as 1927 by Fisher.

here's some light reading for ya:

http://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/coll/special/fisher/59.pdf

now stop trying to play biologist and go back to lurking like a good boy.



A such article can persuade only those already persuaded. There was a long dispute between Punnet and Poulton and Fisher only added some new arguments - that more common species in mullerian mimicry can tend to resemble lesser common species while changes are undirectional and those changes towards lesser common unpalatble species are preferred. Anyway the main problem persist in Batesian mimicry - are predator really such stupid that they can be deceived by small gradual mutation? Do not forget that birds have much more acute vision as humans and see also in UV having four-colored rod-sensitive vision.


REC and I gave here some materials and I cited Nijhout too. From these modern materials it is clear that first step of palatble butterfly towards unpalatable model species have to be great enough to decept a predator. Such gradual step development as proposed by Fisher in 1927 is unthinkable in insect mimicry (unless you are hard-core neodarwinist of course).

Date: 2006/12/18 11:33:16, Link
Author: VMartin
Occam Aftershave:

 
Quote

Of course ToE doesn't say that every single predator must be completely fooled by every small mutation. All that has to happen is that the mutation gives a small survival advantage, even as little as 0.01, to its possessors.  Insects that look a teeny bit more like undesirable prey than other insects have a teeny bit better chance of surviving and passing along their genes (along with the mutation) and having the mutation become fixed in the population.  Given a population size of billions, and millions of generations, it's a virtual certainty that will occur.

That's Basic Biology 101, but apparently VMartin is too much of an intellectual lightweight to get it.


I would say in a such case the model species  would obtain selective advantage also - having mutation that put them away from their mimics, dont you think?

I suppose mutations like you - but it give advantage
greater than 0,01% while it still resemble original.

We do not talk on Mullerian mimicry but on Batesian one - so the model has no way tendency to resemble mimic but in contrary (only if they make with mimics some agreement, as ridiculed Nabokov).
 
Do not forget that we often observe that mimics are much more common as their models, that they outnumber theirs model in many areas. I would say that there should be strong advantage for models that develop traits having no counterpart in mimic. Such mutation is much more probable (because should be undirectional, only different from mimic patterns) that directional mutation in mimic that lead mimic to the same pattern as possessed by model. Other mutations that do not resemble model also do not have selective advantage.

At last but not at least it is very funny that Ichthyic (btw. having probably bipolar fit again) asserts us that problem was solved by Fisher. It was only few years ago  observed that birds taste unpalatable butterflies repeatidly during their life so all Mullers math models (that birds teach from first tasting) seems to be wrong.

Date: 2006/12/18 11:39:13, Link
Author: VMartin
And John asked me on ISCID to add also some compliment for you:

 
Quote

"Natural selection is a real factor in connection with mimicry, but its function is to conserve and render preponderant an ALREADY EXISTENT LIKENESS, not to build up that likeness through the accumulation of small variations as is so generally assumed."
Reginald C. Punnett, Mimicry in Butterflies, page 152, my emphasis.

In other words - in complete accord with the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.

Date: 2006/12/18 14:59:46, Link
Author: VMartin
Stephen Elliott, Chatfield:

I would prefer if you at least have tried to rebut my latest post (or Davison citation of Punnett view on mimicry) as these feeble-minded posts.

But your only methods of discussion are these - neglect or haughty denigration of your oponents.

Date: 2007/06/11 13:23:26, Link
Author: VMartin
Front-loading is also an idea proposed by John Davison in his extraordinary anti-darwinian work Evolutionary Manifesto. Such an idea of front-loading seems to better explain evolution as darwinian mantras of random mutation and natural selection does.

I would say that the Nature itself gives us some examples when the same DNA  contains information for different morphological structures - larvae, pupa, butterfly - as is the case of metamorphosis. That these three different morphological structures of the same indivudal evolved gradually via random mutation&natural selection is probably another darwinian fancy.

Date: 2007/06/11 13:54:32, Link
Author: VMartin
It somehow happens that I am allowed to be here with you guys again. You have had a lot of opportunities to participate and write something at One blog a day. Instead you ridiculed here me and John Davison - the same at Pharyngula btw. where we are banned either. Obviously you need your own niche without opponents to be witty.

Woot is btw. some perplexed darwinian who sees in prolonged legs of Australian toads "evolution in action". Of course the whole "evolution in action" is fully reversible, because what we see is expression of existing alleles.

Another expert there (Pharyngulist Marjanovic) conceived there ad hoc brand new theory of color perception.He even wrote that green=white-red - having no idea about red/green canal.  

There are many other darwinian simpletons whom doctor of darwinism Meyeres flattered as "knowledgeable evolutionist" that will tear you apart with "arguments".

 
Of course the only arguments are denigrations.

Date: 2007/06/12 12:59:00, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

Davison has been very banned. I am not privy to exactly why, and haven't asked, but I would guess the answer is something like "relentless insanity".


And I guess the problem is John Davison's concept of prescribed evolution you are so afraid of. An idea of directed evolution is something darwinists hate at most. They somehow feel deep inside that mystery of life can't be an outcome of random mutation&natural selection. To supress their conscience they only  bawl as if at a football match. Yet darwinists have no arguments - see this thread  or One blog a day where John is participating.

It is also weird that folks here mentioned insanity. It looks here like in a cage of fools. Many of darwinists are probably ventilating here their atheistic frustration from their senseless life.

Also the literary surrealistic woman dividing her time between oriental dancing and neodarwinism is a curious case.

So I would reccomend that John Davison should be let in, becasue his opinions are sound and his concept of evolution shed light on evolutionary process.

Date: 2007/06/12 15:41:48, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

And since that was a moderation decision, further discussion of it here can be considered excessively annoying immediately. If you think you have the extraordinary evidence in hand, communicate that via PM or email, not in discussion threads.


This is really very interesting. The name and topic of this thread is as far as I see  

Topic: JAD was banned again from UD..., Can we let him post here again?


So what is this topic about?  Does "Can we let him post here again" mean in neodarwinian newspeak that any darwinists here can denigrate John Davison whenever he likes but adressing the topic itself is somehow excessively annoying ? And must be adressed via PM or email, not in this discussion thread ?

Date: 2007/06/13 12:45:34, Link
Author: VMartin
From the article:
Quote

The bottom line is that the evolutionary hypothesis, exaptation, predicts the evidence perfectly; the ID hypothesis is flatly contradicted by it and can only try to explain it away or invent mystical and unknown processes to circumvent the evidence.


Yet I somehow missed information for what these genes in the sea sponge serve for. Are we really witnessing "exaptation"?

Quote

So it seems to be with the genes for synapses.


Aha, so it just only "seems". Yet the readers are expected to blindly believe it.

Quote

The sea sponge did not use them for their current purpose, but that doesn’t mean the genes had no use.


So the sea sponge did not use these genes for current purpose. Yet according "selfish gene" conception genes use organisms as their vehicle for their survival. So sometimes the genes use organisms and sometimes an organism uses the genes. It depends what darwinists want to explain. So or so. Darwinism is very flexible and dialectical theory.

Date: 2007/06/13 14:17:30, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

Well if they serve no purpose and are the result of frontloading then I suggest that you write a grant to perform some experiments to confirm this.


It's your conviction they have some purpose. I've only asked what.

You know it reminds me little to mushroom coloration. There should be some cryptic or aposematic function of  mushroom coloration according darwinism - and yet nobody know to explain it.

Date: 2007/06/13 14:22:32, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

...do you and JAD share a prescription?


Let's call it using Bateson words: '...an unpacking of an original complex which contained within itself the whole range of diversity which living things present'.

More on John Davison opinion on the topic at:

http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000370-p-44.html

Date: 2007/06/15 14:02:10, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

I'm basing my assumption on the fact that the functional regions of the proteins have been conserved and they are expressed in the sponge, most noticably in cells that perform a sensory function.


There might have been many independent creations and no common ancestor. I am not sure that sponge and a human has anything common. Their evolutionary ancestors might have been created independently and so no common ancestor of them ever existed.

It is often the case that new organisms showed up "abruptly" without predecessors. The origination of mammalian orders seems to be such a case. Then the evolution slows down and no new "body plan" evolves.
In such cases we can presume that an ancestor bear all genetic setup for further evolution. Subsequent evolution only unfolds front-loaded dispositions.

Btw - can you explain me your position? I suppose that also according darwinism life could arose many times in different places too. So maybe according darwinism sponge and human may have no common ancestor either?

Date: 2007/06/16 02:20:30, Link
Author: VMartin
There is no answer to my latest post but never mind. It is better to discuss here some linguistic nonsense as usually. Darwinists like linguistic because origin of languages are as obscure as origin of species. Probably darwinists are able to discuss not only evolution of languages but also their origin (even though French Academy do not publish works at such obscure issues anymore).  


Neverthenless John Davison's opinion on frontloading is that it probably occured many times independently:

Quote

There may have literally been tens of thousands of either origins or, more likely, that many front loadings of a lesser number of original creations. The origin of life was a miracle, and thousands of miracles are no more miraculous than one. Miracles are like that don’t you know.


And John Davison's opinion of evolution of Orders:

Quote

It is perfectly possible that life originated as many times as there are Orders of animals and plants.


seems to be well supported by "abruptly" origin of many Orders. Mammals are very good example where darwinism have to resort to the curious explanation of this "abruptly" origin - Yucatan meteorite, empty niches or :


Modern orders of mammals that appeared abruptly on northern continents coincident with the global warming event marking the Paleocene-Eocene boundary are hypothesized to have originated on the Indian subcontinent, but no relevant paleontological information has been available to test this idea.


The article is from Geology, vol. 31, Issue 12, p.1097 Publication Date: 12/2003

Date: 2007/06/16 06:26:28, Link
Author: VMartin
oldmaninthesky....

Quote

You say probably. Is there some doubt in your mind then? What experiments could be conducted to remove that doubt?


There is no need to make experiments - we see that evolution is over. Former evolutionary forces are not taking place anymore. No mammalian Order evolved from Eocene - and probably even more. But it is up to you to make experiments and show how homo sapiens evolved gradually from an ancient fish. If you have no experiments that show such a nonsense to be correct and scientific - why do you adhere to darwinism? And why do you demand "contra" experiments?

Date: 2007/06/16 09:53:00, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

 
Quote
 
No mammalian Order evolved from Eocene - and probably even more.


Bald assertions don't really cut the ice. Again, I notice the word probably. Is there doubt in your mind then? What could you do to remove this doubt? When people talk about evolution they don't say "Man evolved (probably evolved, but he *might* have been poofed into existence)". Well, not unless they are FTK and her ilk anyway.

What can you do to remove the probably? Are you really happy with a guess?


Probably - again - you didn't read my previous post completely. There was a quotation of abstract from a scientific journal.  You probably din't make any own research to find out and disprove my "bald assertion" when mammalian orders evolved.


At least five lineages of placental mammals
arose more than 100 million years ago, and most of the modern orders seem to have diversified before the Cretaceous/Tertiary
extinction of the dinosaurs.


Amolecular timescale for vertebrate evolution
Sudhir Kumar & S. Blair Hedges
http://www.kumarlab.net/pdf_new/KumarHedges98.pdf

or have a look at the chart please:



http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Mammalian_Adaptive_Radiation.htm

Date: 2007/06/17 13:53:51, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

Speaking of not answering questions, here's one you've ignored twice: how do you feel about Davison's belief that God has died?


What's the point? Has the question anything to do with darwinism and origin of mammalian orders?  Are we here solving some theological problems?

Date: 2007/06/18 10:17:55, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

But we should be the ones asking you the question : how does the radiation of mammals support your view? It's unclear. Is it for the same reason as JAD's (God's death)?



Once the Earth was created there is no need to create it again and again, don't you think?  The same for mammalian Orders - the forces that led to mammalian diversification are not active any more. The evolution is finished. The nature of the forces that led to mammalian diversification is unknown nowadays. Yet they obviously have nothing to do with random mutation and natural selection as darwinists claim.  If they had there would have been no reason why there didn't arise any new mammalian order after Eocene. Because random mutation and natural selection operate according darwinism permanently there should have been evolved some new mammalian orders at least. But they didn't.

Maybe it was prescribed evolutionary process via saltationism, maybe some spiritual forces were taken place and maybe both of them.

John Davison's view as far as I know is that evolution is finished with it's terminal product homo sapiens.

I fully agree.

I will not discuss theological problems with atheists like you. It is wasting time and off topic.

Date: 2007/06/18 12:35:15, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

Or, maybe all the evolutionary niches available were filled?  


Because mammalian orders evolved long before K/T boundary when allegedly majority of species died out your remark seems to be irrelevant to the matter. Only if you presumed that there had been enough empty niches for mammals to evolve among dinos...  

Quote

Hmmm, I see a closed mind.


Why do you look in the mirror?

Date: 2007/06/18 14:39:58, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

Because natural selection is constantly observed, and its role in speciation is essential, but I am not aware of huh... how would you describe it?


Natural selection is anti-evolutionary device which only removes extremities from extant species. Its role is conservative.


Otherwise "natural selection" is somehow frozen as well. How would you describe the fact that no mammalian order evolved more than 50 mil. years? Is it really possible that in such huge scale of time with K/T extinction there were really no emptied niches where new mammalian order could evolve?

Date: 2007/06/18 15:17:20, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

Hey, V, I keep asking you! Do you agree with Davison's idea that God is dead?


I have read already your question several times. As you see I don't answer. The question is off topic. But feel free to ask me again.

Date: 2007/06/19 11:15:22, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

Okay, I'll ask you again, V:

Do you agree with Davison that God has died?

Why do you seem afraid to answer this?

Don't be afraid of going off-topic. It's okay, Steve is quite forgiving about that kind of thing.


O.K. I believe you - unless you have provoked me. You do not comprehend Davison opinion on the matter.  John Davison opinion is this one:


...It was a rhetorical trick on my part to claim that God or Gods are dead because that is impossible to ascertain with certainty as someone promptly reminded me. I agree.

My point WAS then, and still is NOW, that there is no need for a living God within the postulates of the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. The scientist cannot assume the existence of that which cannot be demonstrated. However he can be convinced of such a prior existence which is exactly what the PEH maintains...


I quoted these words from ISCID where everyone can find them, post June 5th 2007:

http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000548-p-14.html

So his claim is different as you thought. He used such words  only as "rhetorical trick". Consequently your question is not expressing the real John's opinion. You should formulate it differently at least.

Date: 2007/06/20 10:26:33, Link
Author: VMartin
Richard Simons.

The Evolution is directed process. It is following a scenario. Because Natural selection and sexual selection are conservative forces which have nothing to do with creative evolution - they only removes extremities - possible explanation of evolution is front-loading.

I repeated Davison's claim that there could have been as many frontloadings as there are animals/plants Orders.

Evolution  also proceeds abruptly, via saltationism (I have given many examples of saltationism in butterfly mimicry where darwinists use newspeak   "mutation with great phenotypical effects"). Of course saltationism need something like frontloading.
 
Quote

how large would the initial genotype need to be if it contains all the variations on DNA that are going to be required?


There is no common ancestor but many independent ancestors created de novo. Human genome contains more than 90% junk DNA and the Carp as far as I know
has 10 more times DNA as homo sapiens. Function of this unused DNA making majority of DNA is still unknown - maybe it is remnants of some past evolutionary prescriptions.

Date: 2007/06/20 13:21:18, Link
Author: VMartin
Chris Hyland:

Because in many cases of butterflies mimicry it is hardly  
imaginable that random mutation in mimic hit at once wings pattern and coloration of the model. It must occurs at once by saltus  - otherwise predator wouldn't be deceived.  Such evolutionary process supposed that wing patterns and coloration had been there already as hidden potentiality.  

Dawkins proposed in his Blind Watchmaker his own fancy explanation - mimicry evolved in dusk when visibility was low etc. and predator was unable to distinguish imperfect  resemblance.  
Of course he didn't explain was was consequently selective force that drive mimic to the perfection of mimicry.
He also somehow supposed that predator in semidarkness was still aware of coloration and patterns of unpalatable species.

One have to be hard-core darwinist to believe to such curious gradualistic explanation as Blind Watchmaker offers.

Date: 2007/06/20 13:46:20, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

Who directs it, and what exactly is the 'scenario'?


John Davison claims - I fully agree - that evolution is over. So your question should stand like:

Quote

Who directed it, and what exactly was the 'scenario'?


I am not sure you want to know response to such a question. If you want feel free to ask me.

Date: 2007/06/20 14:57:12, Link
Author: VMartin
Chris Hyland.

I have given  you examples where saltationism is the only explanation that make a sense. It's the butterfly mimicry, e.g. polymorphic mimetism of P. dardanus.

If you are interested of mechanism of saltationism in higher taxa I reccomend you John Davison's Evolutionary Manifesto where he deals with chromosome rearrangements and where he proposed his own contribution of semi-meiotic mechanism of evolutionary changes. It is very interesting and I recommend you to read it.

Date: 2007/06/20 15:08:22, Link
Author: VMartin
Arden Chatfield

Quote

We're asking, V.


And may I ask you what are you asking? You copied my entire post and added this sentence. Because I see no question  I suppose that it is only your off topic comment.

Date: 2007/06/21 12:40:22, Link
Author: VMartin
Henry

Quote

Given the huge number of species in the insect order, why is it all that unlikely that there'd be a few that happen to somewhat resemble an unpalatable species?


Do you think that the following case of polymorphic case of butterfly mimicry also "happen" in accordance with statistics and probability? I would like to notice you that on the right sight are females of the same species:

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/taxome/jim/Mim2/dardanus.html

Of course darwinists here will suppose that Natural selection is responsible for such a striking similarities. Obviously even neodarwinian  explanation of the phenomena have to resort to saltationism to be somehow plausible. Look at neodarwinian newspeak for saltationism, hehe -


"Initial step in the evolution of mimicry is likely to have been due to a genetic effect of large magnitude".



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

Date: 2007/06/21 13:57:45, Link
Author: VMartin
A.Fox

Quote

This story may interest you VMartin. There is a considerable  amount of research being directed to establishing the role of non-coding DNA, which may be a more fruitful approach than mere speculation.


Thank you - but the link is blocked. I suppose that this is the same article:
junk dna

It is interesting you are right. The next to the last sentence from the article about "junk RNA":


We don't think they're produced by accident," he says.


If "junk" RNA is not produced by accident then
"junk" DNA is consequently also not produced by accident, don't you think?

But it is interesting that darwinian scientists having not enough knowledge of the problem in previous years claimed that DNA is junk. They have never admited that "we don't know". Having not enough knowledge they always claim a problem doesn't exist.

Date: 2007/06/22 10:38:32, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

I understand you were once a Marxist, and are now disenchanted. Given how events have unfolded in the former Communist states of Eastern Europe, I am not surprised, but consider, do you not conflate Marxism, atheism and "Darwinism" as tools of state control, and the revival of Catholicism in the wake of the retreat of Soviet control has induced this somewhat  hysterical reaction to current evolutionary biology?


What a brilliant nonsense Alan! Congratulation.

You should better readmit John Davison. He could explain his semi-meiosis hypothesis and also his opinion on meiosis as such. His views on the process are very interesting and it would be no doubt more instructive than Ichthyic, Chatfield "witty" posts and questions.

Btw. there is a question asked by Chris Hyland  what is behind "frontloading", what mechanisms took place. I can only copy/paste from John's work. It would be more relevant if he could explain it himself. He as former University teacher and proponent of frontloading would be  the right person for this thread, don't you think?

Date: 2007/06/24 14:08:15, Link
Author: VMartin
Wesley R. Elsberry
 
Quote

Now, concerning the re-raising of moderation issues outside of private communication channels... You have been warned once on this; now you get a second warning. Three strikes and you will be out. Hopefully, that is clear enough for you. If not, use PM or email, not comments in public areas.


I see. It was the last time I asked it publicly here. Anyway I would like to know how neodarwinian "democracy" works here. First I thought I would put here your photo with some idiotic text following it. Exactly as jeanot and Richardthughes did with Davison's photo. How would you like it? Is it wellcome here?

Richardthughes

 
Quote

I can write a JAD simulator.

It will:

Refer you to the PEH
Tell you evolution has stopped
Do the transpose letters thing
Offer 3 random / crap quotes
offer a "sock it to me", "I love it so" etc type ending.


And I can write AtBC song:

We are all here atheists
and ignorants par excellence
we love chance and random mutation
we ban everyone
who disagree with us and chance
we ban you
after giving you stupid questions
par excellence.

Stephen Elliot:

 
Quote

On a more serious note, he possibly has serious medical problems and it is bloody difficult not to throw insults at him after a few of his posts. It is a bit like those Victorian freak shows.


The most serious problem here have Ichthyic, Reverend Dr. Lenny Frank and you. Some of you suffer from serious schizofrenia. I would reccomend you to visit a psychiatrist. Tell him also that you firmly believe beyond any doubt that you originated from fish and that your cousins are mollusks.      


Arden Chatfield
 
Quote

Making VMartin uncomfortable is not without its charms.


I remember how one of your cronies kept asking me how  he could see new information in genome. I told him that information cannot be "seen". Some folks here evidently like to ask stupid questions repeatedly.


----

Anyway if some guy here want to discuss curious polymorphic mimicry of P. dardanus or evolution of mammalian Orders I am prepare. Both cases are good examples of saltationism.

Date: 2007/06/24 14:52:37, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

C'mon, Borat VMartin, you can do it! SHOW us how superior your outlook is!


Yes, Borat, a beautiful film. It's pity he didn't make some interview with a neo-darwinist like you. You would have explained him how man originated from fish. It would have been the most funny part of the film, don't you think so?

Date: 2007/06/24 15:28:27, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

In both cases, you've been unable to demonstrate how this disproves the current theory and how your hypothesis would explain the data better.


Both cases are important because both cases shows that random mutation and natural selection are not forces causing them.

Darwinists seeing polar bear consider white color to be cryptic color of bear. Maybe right, maybe not in the case. Anyway they boldly extrapolate such case to the whole Nature. They consider white color on white swan to have some cryptic (or aposematic) meaning too. Obviously it is not the case. Maybe 90% of coloration of animals have no cryptic/aposematic meaning. It means that  coloration is not caused by Natural selection but by other force - Adolf Portmann called it "Selbestdarstellung". Another case are mushrooms - coloration is spectacular and no way explainable by natural selection (even another darwinian mantra of sexual selection is inapplicable) .

Many cases of mimicry, end of mammalian evolution, unexplainable coloration of many species clearly shows that  darwinian explanations  sounds absurd in these cases at least.

Natural selection - even if true in some cases -cannot be extrapolated ad hoc on the whole Nature as darwinists would like to do.

John Davison addressed some of these problems, Adolf Portmann others.

Date: 2007/06/24 15:41:59, Link
Author: VMartin
Arden Chatfield:
Quote

This is another excellent question, VMartin. Davison supports common descent. Do you reject it, nonetheless? If so, why?


Does he? Really? I quoted him in the post Nr.90 here. Do you have any problem with your memory - some kind of Alzheimer? It's a pity, but do you see any reason why to answer your question if you forget the answer at the moment you read it?

Date: 2007/06/24 15:57:42, Link
Author: VMartin
jeannot
Quote

Because of course, natural selection on color could only act via mimicry/aposematism...


The problem is that darwinists see aposematism/mimicry also there where it is not. But let us assume you are correct. If there is no aposematism/mimicry in the given case detected, what is the reason of coloration? Please consider mushrooms to avoid mantra of "sexual selection".  


Quote

I would repeat a question you've never clearly answered. What would control the frequency of an heritable trait (allele) in a species if not its reproduction rate (fitness)?


This question has anything to do with macroevolution. Macroevolution and origin of Orders are not caused by these mechanisms. You cannot so boldly extrapolate without any experiment that would prove it that change of frequency of existing alleles in one species lead to new species. Obviously you need new genes and new alleles. Or do you believe also in frontloading?

Date: 2007/06/24 16:05:58, Link
Author: VMartin
Arden Chatfield:
Quote

Post number 90? No such thing. Prove it.



Sorry, posts are not numbered here. It was my post from June 16 2007,02:20 where I quoted John. But you didn't answered me why you are asking on the same thing only few days after the question has been answered?

Date: 2007/06/24 16:15:52, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

Let me rephrase : what would explain the frequency of a heritable color in a species, if not the reproduction rate of the allele coding for said color?


Obviously I am not here on a trial. You didn't answered my questions and you didn't discussed my posts. The only things you are able to do is giving new and new questions in very arrogant way. This is not discussion.

Quote

I'm waiting.


Feel free to wait however long you like.

Date: 2007/06/25 13:38:46, Link
Author: VMartin
Chris Hyland

 
Quote

Andy why exactly does the colour of mushrooms have to be a selectable trait?


It's exactly my point. Striking coloration of mushrooms is not outcome of Natural selection because there are only few - if not only one - vision oriented mushroom eaters (squirrels). Whats more interesting is that mushrooms do not follow darwinian rule of thumb - poisonous are not aposematic and edible are not cryptic. Very often the opposite is the case. So going into the forest do not follow darwinian mantras on cryptic coloration - do not pick up green Amanita phalloide (Death cap).  


Poisonous mushrooms do not tend to be more colorful or aggregated than edible mushrooms, but they are more likely to exhibit distinctive odors even when phylogenetic relationships are accounted for.



http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/resolve?id=doi:10.1086/497399

Also it might be of interest that effects of some poisonous mushrooms are very curious - their effects shows up sometimes after many days or even weeks.  The poison of Lethal webcaps kills sometimes after three weeks. Obviously even if an animal survive it will be unable to make connection between the mushroom and it's nuissance.

So I presented here mushrooms as part of Nature where their coloration and sometimes their lethal effects are almost impossible to explain using Natural or Sexual selection. Maybe it is only free play of life to present itself, something that is hidden under veil of Natural selection before eyes of darwinists.

Btw if something is not selectable trait as you claim shouldn't have it been according darwinism already extinct? Somebody here claimed that genes that are not under selective pressure would degenerate and perish. So it is like contra-evidence against front-loading. But coloration of mushrooms not under "selectable" pressure are sometimes very vivid!   

 
Quote

I'm not an atheist.


I don't underestand how one can be a darwinist and believe in some supernatural power as well.  It would mean that he believe life and man arouse by chance and yet some Higher power did not care of such process (but for what process such Supernatural power takes care of?). This  Power would exist independently even if human didn't arise by chance obviously.
So I suppose you to be some kind of budhist or something like that.

Date: 2007/06/25 13:50:06, Link
Author: VMartin
Arden Chatfield
Quote

Wrong.


And you are not atheist and you believe in darwinism, right? In that case see my previous post.

Quote

um, 'ignorants' isn't a word.


According urbandictionary it is a noun:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ignorants

Quote

Pay closer attention. You're not banned. Remember?

Answer the questions, V.


I am not banned. I remember. Thank you for a question. Any other questions? I will not answer to any questions that you copy and paste from my own posts. I am not here to discuss and answer my own questions from my own posts you copy-paste you know. Btw. try to write some sentences yourself concerning ongoing discussion.
Something that make sense you know, not only copy-pasted questions.

Date: 2007/06/25 14:30:17, Link
Author: VMartin
Richardthughes
Quote

Bwahahahahahahah....

*remembers to breathe*


What are you doing Dude? Are you reading the latest "biological ejaculation" from doctor Meyeres or what?

Date: 2007/06/25 15:08:34, Link
Author: VMartin
Chris Hyland (and others who would like to discuss some issue concerning the topic)

In the main article of this thread is written:

Quote

Natural selection can only work on genes that are expressed. If a gene is "turned off" then it is subject to runaway mutations that will render if useless in short order.


In the case of mushrooms the genes for coloration are expressed (it is not always pigments btw) but obviously there is not natural or sexual pressure that could refine or check the quality of expression. So there is no reason why should some mushroom be so colorful (no one cares of it you know). If they are so colorful despite of lack of NatSel or SexSel, it would mean that there is some other non-darwinian force behind preservation of such genes (Portmann's self-represantation for instance). It would also mean that the same force could preserve frontloaded genes that are "turned off" despite of common darwinian meaning.

Date: 2007/06/25 16:02:29, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

So, let me get this straight, the fact all mushrooms are not what, black, white? Let's say a single colour. And re-try.


I see, you are a darwinist from AtBC. You don't want to discuss problem but only to ridicule. As usually. I am fed up with people like you but I'll try to answer you neverthenless.

I would say that coloration should be white, black or gray (many mushrooms have such colors btw). I would compare situation to nocturnal animals where there is  no natural selection or sexual selection present as active force to modify coloration. Generally speaking moles are not as colorful as butterflies are. I have never heard about red owls with white dots. I have never heard about yellow or green bats. But there might be some cryptic function during day.

I would appreciate some ideas but you may keep ridiculing my posts if you like. You are a frustrated darwinists from AtBC I underestand you.

Date: 2007/06/26 13:42:26, Link
Author: VMartin
Arden Chatfield

Quote

Moreover, he's from Slovakia, and he seems to have bought the notion that anything 'leftwing' -- like not being a fundie, being an atheist or a 'Darwinist' -- means you're the same as the atheistic Communist meanies who stomped on Slovakia for 45 years. In other words, he's another one of those Eastern Europeans who becomes a total rightwinger purely as a reaction against the Soviet period.


I dare say you are not only a prominent linguist but also a promiment psychologist. Congratulation!

Date: 2007/06/26 14:15:01, Link
Author: VMartin
jeannot

 
Quote

A trait can be neutral Martin, and in no way neutrality implies that a trait should "perish" (if that means anything). Where did you get that idea from?


I missed this post of yours  yesterday. I take it for granted that according darwinism "structure" that is not used is "phased out". Wikipedia writes:


As the function of the structure is no longer beneficial for survival, the likelihood that future offspring will inherit the "normal" form of the structure decreases.


So the structure would degenerate consequently, wouldn't it? To be sincere I do not see darwinian explanation why should  "neutral structure" or "neutral gene" persist intact during evolution. Might be neutral drift could remove harmful mutation on "neutral genes"
but I don't know. But if yes you have a problem. Fronloaded genes that are not used could be kept "ready" by the same mechanism, don't you think so?

Do you mean that such mechanism (neutral drift or even neutral draft) lies under bright coloration of mushrooms once it developed?

Quote

You want to prove your conclusion with dubious arguments, Martin.
You seem to think that all mushrooms should be pigment-less (white). In that case, a toxic species (or a species that interacts with animals in any way) would not be as easily recognizable.


I quoted a serious research that poisonous mushrooms do not tend to be more colorful as edible ones. I mentioned a fact that there are no other vision-oriented mushroom eaters as squirrels (unless you prove that deers, slugs and turtles are vision oriented and proceeds selective pressure on mushroom coloration). There is not known case of wild animal poisoned by mushrooms.


 
Quote

This should favor a particular color.


Again: suppososing there are vision oriented mushroom eaters. In other case such explanation is not correct.

Date: 2007/06/26 14:27:08, Link
Author: VMartin
[No channeling of banned posters. Do that again and your posting privileges will be lifted. -- WRE]



Date: 2007/06/27 12:18:21, Link
Author: VMartin
Another "psychologist"  with very nice nick "Rev. BigDumbChimp":

 
Quote

JAD is a Joke and the fact that you're his lapdog makes you one as well. He's growing increasingly insane and ...well... the fact you can't help but wag your tail in his shadow says alot.


I would like to congratulate you for another deep "psychological" insight (darwinists are not only brilliant scientists but also prominent linguists and psychologists as we see here) but I am afraid you are only projecting your own dismal situation to John and me. But it is O.K. - darwinists project humans relation also to animal kingdom seeing everywhere "struggle for life", "evolution in action" and "mimicry".

Date: 2007/06/27 13:20:35, Link
Author: VMartin
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.

Date: 2007/06/27 13:34:39, Link
Author: VMartin
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?

Date: 2007/06/27 13:51:35, Link
Author: VMartin
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?

Date: 2007/06/27 13:59:18, Link
Author: VMartin
I edited my latest post removing all not-reccomended words.

Date: 2007/06/27 16:32:31, Link
Author: VMartin
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.

Date: 2007/06/28 11:10:46, Link
Author: VMartin
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).

Date: 2007/06/28 11:54:01, Link
Author: VMartin
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.

Date: 2007/06/28 12:13:41, Link
Author: VMartin
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.

Date: 2007/06/28 12:20:46, Link
Author: VMartin
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.

Date: 2007/06/28 15:03:23, Link
Author: VMartin
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.

Date: 2007/06/29 10:08:45, Link
Author: VMartin
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.

Date: 2007/06/29 11:02:52, Link
Author: VMartin
Because Wesley R. Elsberry wrote:

 
Quote

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.


we may discuss a question that provocateur Chatfield asked repeatedly to obscure John and my view.

The question on me was if I share John's opinion on common descent. I would like to say that John's opinion is different as people here presume. If there is no problem I would quote his thoughts on common descent here. But it was not published in "formal work". But it was so interesting that I quoted it in One blog a day about doctor Meyers Pharyngula.


Of course anybody can review John Davison's interesting work Semimeiosis as an evolutionary mechanism published in Journal Of Theoretical Biology in 1984. I reccomend it becauese it can elucidate the question of common descent with scientific arguments.

Date: 2007/07/01 14:50:17, Link
Author: VMartin
Chris Hyland

Quote

EDIT: I mean a link to the paper, not just the abstract.


Semi-Meiosis as an evolutionary mechanism is available here:

http://hkusua.hku.hk/~cdbeling/Semi-Meiosis.pdf

I would say that facts mentioned there by John Davison are very  uncomfortable for modern neodarwinism.
The origin of the definitive germ cells is really baffling and would support his conclusion:

Quote

Since the sources and modes of invasion (of germinal cells) are not homologous from group to group, the continuity of the germ plasm is a myth.
.
.
.
... contemporary reproductive cell lineages cannot be ancestral but have independently replaced the original (semi-meiotic) lineage and that the latter is no longer extant.      

Date: 2007/07/01 15:10:36, Link
Author: VMartin
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.

Date: 2007/07/02 15:13:11, Link
Author: VMartin
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.

Date: 2007/07/02 15:16:17, Link
Author: VMartin
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?

Date: 2007/07/02 15:32:35, Link
Author: VMartin
It is not easy for me to defend John Davison's ideas in more details especially this one. He studied the problem very carefully and whoever wants discuss with him can do it at Brainstorm. It would be more proper that my copy/paste from his works.

Preliminary I restrict myself to constatation that I agree with Davison's claims that evolution is over, that nomogenesis or orthogenesis played in evolution the main role, that Natural selection is conservative force having no role in creative evolution and that some kind of saltationism is needed to explain evolution. There might have been many independent creations.  Information for further evolution was pre-programmed, or frontloaded.

Date: 2007/07/02 23:30:14, Link
Author: VMartin
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

Date: 2007/07/03 14:29:01, Link
Author: VMartin
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.

Date: 2007/07/03 14:37:13, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

"The Designer reach perfection so there's nothing to be front-loaded anymore."

Then why are there still VMartin's and JAD's?


I am not perfect. But haughty darwinists at AtBC reach the point of perfection (in use of abuses instead of  arguments you know).

Date: 2007/07/04 00:14:24, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

(sniffle)  (sob)  Boo hoo hoo.


First try to fart. If it doesn't help read Darwin's Origin of species. It will help you no doubt.

Date: 2007/07/04 14:47:06, Link
Author: VMartin
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.

Date: 2007/07/04 15:15:08, Link
Author: VMartin
Biologist Jaroslav Flegr from Charles Uni Prague came to the same conclusion as Broom, Huxley and Davison  - that evolution is somehow frozen (darwinian newspeak for finished you know). Of course Flegr give his brand new - as far as I can judge - theory of the phenomena. It should be due "frozen plasticity" of species. It is also crux of his probably original idea that domesticated animals are "evolutionary" youngest, just developed. The other, older species are so "frozen" that they cannot be domesticated whatever effort you make using selection!

An interesting idea. Flegr is heretic and yet he is a kind of evolutionary scientist who don't need God. He wrote monography Evolutionary biology.

The english content of his latest book "Frozen Evolution Or, that’s not the way it is, Mr. Darwin" could be found here:

http://frozenevolution.com/

I quote him from there:

While Darwin’s original theory assumed that the species that are encountered in nature are evolutionarily plastic and more or less willing to respond to the selection pressure of the environment – i.e. usefully adapt to its changes, the new theory 1.4 assumes to the contrary that the vast majority of species does nothing of the sort and, in fact, cannot do so.

Date: 2007/07/05 01:07:38, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

Otoh, is there any actual reason to think current species aren't accumulating genetic changes over multigeneration time frames? And if so, what is supposedly preventing that from happening?


Maybe they are. I quoted Flegr because he came to the same conclusion that Davison proposed in his works. Of course Flegr is so to say mainstream evolutionary biologist even if a peculiar one. He declared that most species are "frozen" - unable further development. Flegr actually contradicts your assertion - the most predisposed species for further evolution are those that accumulated very few genetic variability. Mutation in such species could lead to new development. Species with great genetic variability behave like "rubber". Quoting Flegr:

   
Quote

These species respond to changes in their environment like rubber – initially they give in to the environmental pressure and change somewhat, however, the more their traits differ from the original state, the greater resistance they exert against the pressure until, at a certain point, they cease to react to even the greatest pressure. While, in a Darwinistic world, all the species gladly develop and continuously change in response to ever newer demands from a changing environment, in a world with frozen plasticity, species remain more or less unaltered and mostly only sadly wait until the changes in their environment accumulate to such a degree that they will have no other alternative than to simply pass into extinction.


Obviously his thinking explains very well the fact that some species cannot be domesticated whatever you make. I noticed this interesting fact in my previous post but nobody responded (this is typical for this forum).

The another question is what mechanism is behind evolution of "non-frozen" species. In this point I disagree with Flegr. But even here (as you can check) he does not put stress on "natural selection" either.

Date: 2007/07/05 04:28:24, Link
Author: VMartin
Kristine off topic:

       
Quote

JAD called me a sexual prejorative at my blog, for example, and I informed him and VMartin that statements about my alleged sexual behavior would be resolved between attorneys if it happened again.


There are some interesting legal cases no doubt. I am not a lawyer  but you have written in your blog this:

       
Quote

Kisses!

From a real woman this time.

Probably the closest you're going to get. Bye now.

June 18, 2007 8:58 PM  


I wouldn't be surprised if anybody get disgusted by such an idea and lost his countenace completely.


--
Arden and company  - I don't see a point why you are so upset. Some darwinists here denigrated  John Davison and me using all sort of abuses and lies. But you are somehow very sensitive to honor of people you are brownnosing, aren't you?

Date: 2007/07/05 12:39:53, Link
Author: VMartin

Frontloading - dumbest Idea evar?


Folks here are pretty sure that frontloading is impossible because genes that are not expressed would degenerate. Because on such genes allmighty natural selection doesnot make any selective pressure they should be destroyed after some time by deleterious mutations. That's why the idea of frontloading should be dismissed and ridiculed.

Oddly enough some scientists try to restore DNA more than 70 millions years old which is preserved in soft tissue or eggs of dinosaurus. So we are to believe that DNA degenerate only in living cells where also repairing mechanisms are present, but somehow DNA is stable in dead tissues.
 
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/14/5/589

or

Quote

"If we have tissues that are not fossilized, then we can potentially extract DNA. It's very exciting."


http://www.nytimes.com/2005....ei=5070

Date: 2007/07/05 13:00:22, Link
Author: VMartin
stevestory.

Aren't you an atheist darling? You should better use
"Oh my natural selection".

Date: 2007/07/05 13:46:20, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

Hang on, is it just my ignorance, or are non-expressed genes totally different from DNA in dead material?


The example I have given some people use to corroborate claim that dino coexists with humans and that dino extinction should be postponed to the recent time. I am not sure of that but the fact of DNA preserved after 70. milion years is very weird, isn't it? Maybe it is normal that there should be no deleterious changes on information inside DNA after so vast period, but again - is not DNA more stable as scientists presume?

Date: 2007/07/05 13:53:04, Link
Author: VMartin
Arden
Arden Chatfield
Quote

I can't help but wonder if people back in Slovakia find V to be as hopelessly bonheaded and annoying as Anglophones do.


My post addressing your and Cristine behaviour has been deleted today. Consequently I will not respond your posts here anymore. You can find my clearly expressed opinion on your little person at ISCID forum. Good luck.

Date: 2007/07/05 13:58:51, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

Hint: dead tissue is not actively making new copies of its DNA.


I know. But dead cells do not repair DNA as well. Aren't you surprised that DNA of dino endured intact more than 70. million years? Some scientists didn't believe it is possible. If your point is that deleterious mutation are due copying or processes in nucleus of living cells I have no argument. Yet DNA macromulecule as such is very stable, isn't it?

Date: 2007/07/06 17:18:18, Link
Author: VMartin
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
 
Quote

(sniffle)  (sob)  Boo hoo hoo.


Because you think you descended from apes and you are bipolar I feel pity for you. Have a rest for a while.



Rev. BigDumbChimp
 
Quote

Please, don't let VMartin hijack this thread. I don't want to have to go through his regurgitations to find out how Wes is doing on the investigation.


I know - you investigated first how human arouse from ancient fish by random mutation and now you are investigating who wrote lies at Wikipedia.  Nice hobby, I hope you will solve this puzzle soon.


But you both are only petty darwinists "born that way" as John described yours alike.

What's more startling are these social darwinists using vocabulary from the Third reich:

Albatrossity2 on my posts:

 
Quote

A tumor implies that these trolls have a permanent effect. I think it's more like a localized inflammatory response; the bacteria infiltrate, then you get lots of fever and pus for a while, but everything calms down and gets back to normal eventually.


and  Arden Chatfield:

 
Quote

I can't help but wonder if people back in Slovakia find V to be as hopelessly boneheaded and annoying as Anglophones do.


Obviously these  guys are bottom of the barrel and I addressed their behaviour at ISCID.

Quoting from it:


Poor Arden Chatfield started pondering over my nationality in his latest posts. First he made some cute obvservations about East-European psychology, afterwards he adderssed my country and nationality more directly. He has made bold claims about Slovakian and English people. He seems to be seriously afflicted by darwinism to be short. I am afraid the poor Arden is suffering from the most virulent form of darwinism which gave rise to social darwinism and which was so misused by national-socialists.

The other guy there was afraid that my post could lead to "tumor" around it. People there seems to like the word "tumor" immediately. I am also a "nuissance" "nut" "stupid" "idiot" etc. for them.

I am waiting for some more cute comments using another words from national-socialists vocabulary like "parasite" etc...

Date: 2007/07/06 23:53:40, Link
Author: VMartin
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.

Date: 2007/07/07 13:25:41, Link
Author: VMartin
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.

Date: 2007/07/10 14:46:52, Link
Author: VMartin
Jeanot July 1st:

Quote

It's clear that sexual reproduction uses different mechanisms in distantly related vertebrates, however, it doesn't necessary imply that sexual reproduction appeared independently from a pre-sexual ancestor. One could easily imagine that a lineage can evolve different sexual mechanisms (sexual chromosomes, environmental determinism) without reverting to asexuality between those. For instance, opisthoconta (animals and fungi) share common structures in their spermatozoids, and I'm not even considering these homologies within vertebrates. So it seems that sexual reproduction has a single origin in this phylum.


Anyway facts mentioned by Davison are interesting. Germ cells in birds and mammals seem to have their origin in different embryonal structures which serves as
source of different body organs. Davison:

Quote

In birds the cells destined to become the germ cells first appear in the extra-embryonic endoderm (germinal crescent) anterior to the head of the developing embryo.
Incidentally, this region has no homologue in the hatched bird as the extra-embryonic endoderm is, by definition, resorbed as nutrient for the developing chick. From there the presumptive germ cells enter the circulatory system and, after a period of time in the bloodstream, penetrate the walls of the venous  circulation and invade the gonad where they differentiate into the definitive gametes. In mammals the presumptive germ cells first appear in the endoderm of the allantois, a structure destined to become the urinary bladder of the adult. From here they migrate in amoeboid fashion anteriorly and laterally to reach the gonad where they complete their differentiation. Thus, there is no way that the reproductive cells of mammals can be homologized with those of birds as they originate from opposite ends of the embryonic axis and reach the
gonads by completely different means.


I would say his conclusion is more persuasive as hypothetical "One could easily imagine...". Why should I imagine something where facts do not support common ancestors having both sex? Only to prove plausibility of  darwininian explanation? I do not see there any  reason  (inside eggs or embryo and his  development) that should reorganize the source of germ cells or their journey into gonads.

Date: 2007/07/13 17:41:35, Link
Author: VMartin
Behe obviously doesn't believe in random mutation as the source of evolutionary novelties. If he believes in frontloading I don't know. But what may be of interest is John Davison's comment about the latest Dawkins critique of Behe's book in the New York Times.

http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000370-p-48.html

Columnist Richard Dawkins published his view on evolution and Behe's book in the NYT.

I am surprised by Dawkins arguments - Darwinism is a science because of "Ronald Fisher, Sewall Wright, J. B. S. Haldane, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Richard Lewontin, John Maynard Smith and hundreds of their talented co-workers and intellectual descendants." But Fisher's  arguments against  Punnet's conception of saltationism of butterfly mimicry he didn't mention. Somebody could check them, you know.

Dawkins picked up dogs to show that random mutation is responsible for their diversity. I would like to see if Dawkins is able to domesticate also lizards or tigers, hehe. Obviously in those species is random mutation somehow frozen.

Date: 2007/07/13 23:57:00, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

As for house cats, I mean Tigers, well, you stumped me there.


If you know about domesticated cats as great as Bernardines let me know. Let me also know about domesticated cats/tigers used in Army or by guards.

 
Quote

Actually some lizards, like monitors, are pretty bright, and can learn to run mazes as well as a rat can.


Do you think that running mazes is preliminary test before domestication or what? People domesticate animals many thousands years. One of the result is observation that some animals couldn't be domesticated.  Another is that you cannot create from one species another one  by any artificial selection .
It's only in darwinian imagination that selection can lead to speciation.  


 
Quote

Martin is just making noises out his anal orifice again.  Like all creationists, he displays an incredible amount of sheer utter pig-ignorance about the natural world around him.   (shrug)


You are angry because your hero Dawkins is obviously wrong. You should send him to retirement. It's him who  "displays an incredible amount of sheer utter pig-ignorance about the natural world around him." No wonder that sitting drowsily in his University armchair he conceived not only selfish gene nonsense but farted also this sentence in NYT:

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? Behe has to predict that you'd wait till hell freezes over, but the necessary mutations would not be forthcoming.


The facts are these:

Quote

As for the barrel on the collar, it first appeared in a painting by artist Edwin Landseer called “Alpine Mastiffs Reanimating a Distressed Traveler” in 1820; Landseer was only 17 at the time. The cask was thought to contain brandy and quickly caught on in the public imagination, though the monks and their dogs never actually used such a thing. (Alcohol, after all, could hasten dehydration—not a good treatment for a snowbound traveler.)

Date: 2007/07/16 14:54:18, Link
Author: VMartin
JAM
Quote

Would you mind explaining the mental processes that lead you to believe that your first sentence is accurate, and that your second sentence has any logical relationship to the first?


The problem of domestication is very important. Dawkins avoided the main problem - why we have domesticated only few species? Many species we can't domesticate - they simply die. Of course Dawkins conclusion is unfounded that random mutation is behind all variety of dogs races . It's only hypothesis that all alleles aroused via random mutation.  

Quote

Dogs show more variation than other species because artificial selection was intense and taken in multiple directions.

The underlying source of genetic variation is the same (mutations), but more of it is evident in dogs because we did the selection.


Underlying source of genetic variation is not the same. It is greater in Jaguars, Leopards and Pumas than in dogs. Heterozygosity in dogs is also lower than in lynx. Consequetly artificial selection should be there as successful as in dogs.  

Quote

Therefore, Behe is a dishonest twit because he tries to pass off limited diversity caused by reversing selection pressures (Plasmodium) as a low mutation rate, and you're a twit for believing him.


You have no idea what are you babbling about but you have still enough audacity to call Behe dishonest twit.


Quote

If you disagree, answer these questions:

1) Why did Behe extrapolate from Plasmodium to humans instead of using mutation rates measured in humans?

2) Why do people who don't believe that humans and Plasmodium share a common ancestor defend Behe's extrapolations?


I am not Behe's advocate. I personally consider more valuable resource of anti-darwinian thinking Davison's works. But on the other hand I am almost sure that Plasmodium and humans don't share common ancestors.
Anyway criticising Dawkin's stories about dogs doesn't mean defending Behe's book, you know.

Date: 2007/07/17 00:10:48, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

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


What kind of inscription did you have on your T-Shirt when you protested against the war in Korea? And what T-shirt do you wear now? Did you buy the one Dawkins wears? Richard Dawkins has really nice T-shirt - look at inscription on it "Evolution greatest show in history" here:

http://richarddawkins.net/article....Dawkins

(I suppose T-Shirt with inscription "Random mutation is the rigt answer" with picture of St.Bernard having brandy cask would be more fitting, but this one is good too).

Date: 2007/07/17 12:48:27, Link
Author: VMartin
Jam
Quote

Why do we see new alleles appearing all the time? And why are you so dense that you don't realize that "random" only applies to fitness?  


Can you give me an example of some new allele that appeared suddenly by random mutation and it wasn't consequently present in the gene pool before? I mean something that is not degeneration of previously existed functional allele.


Quote

I know. I also know that you either don't understand, or are pretending not to understand, why Dawkins brought up dogs in a review of Behe's book.


You are right. I don't know why Dawkins brought it up (with those example of St.Bernadine bearing cask of brandy). Dogs are good example of the fact that evolution has nothing to do with natural selection. You can breed dogs however you like (diversity in dogs are greatest in mammals) they still remain dogs. The strongest artificial selection  couldn't change the fact. That's probably the reason no one observed selection as creative force of evolution before Darwin. It also prove the fact that the process is almost fully reversible -dogs  left for themselves would return after some generation to their former state.

Dogs prove the fact that most species are unable to evolve and they only somehow react to pressure by their innate diversity. After some point they are unable to accomodate themselves and die. Consequently what  species do under pressure is they change their alleles frequency but do not instigate evolution of new species by such process.

Dawkins mentioned the domesticated species that defy to evolve as evolutionary example against Behe.

Date: 2007/07/18 14:47:42, Link
Author: VMartin
Jam
Quote

Many of them. Are you denying that such events have ever occurred? If so, how much are you willing to bet on your certainty?

Get this through your thick skull--"random" is only wrt fitness. Your incoherent use of the adjective makes you look stupid.



If anyone here looks stupid it's you. Random mutation is random whatever effect it has on fitness.  

Quote

I do too. Your retarded view of biology certainly is degenerate!


I see. Your view is "scientific".

Quote

Also, we already disposed of your lie that Dawkins claimed that St. Bernards actually did carry brandy; he just noted that they are capable of doing so. Why do you continue to lie about that?


Aha. So he know they are only "capable of doing it". How does he know it anyway?  Because he saw a picture painted by 17 year old yougster from 19 century? Or did he really put a barrel on the neck of St.Bernard and ran with it 10 kilometers?

Quote

Dogs are a good example of the extent of genetic variation that can be brought out by artificial selection.


You probably mean phenotype variation.


Quote

Yes, we call them dogs to reflect their common origin.


No. Our ancestors called them dogs and they knew nothing about "common ancestor". We call them dogs because they are the same species. It is very simple.

Quote

If you dumped 100 St. Bernards and 100 Chihuahuas on a large island with no other canids, would they ever interbreed? Could they interbreed?

Haven't we already met the major criterion for speciation?


Do you  mean that St. Bernards on a large island
with no other canids will be the same race  St.Bernards also after 200 generation? If yes you don't know anything about breeding and artificial selection. You probably suppose that St.Bernards and Chihuahuas have their genetic variability exhausted (common mistake of darwinists) or that they are in genetic homeostasis. So or so the answer to your foolish question is -  we haven't met criterion for speciation.

Date: 2007/07/20 11:24:24, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

No, I asked if they would interbreed. Do you not understand what the word means? If so, just ask, instead of stupidly pretending that I had asked you a completely different question.


I wrote you it will take some time until both races change their phenotype and they would look alike. Of course after some generations feral dogs of those species would be able to interbreed.

But I don't see your point. Do you mean seriously your question that

   
Quote

Haven't we already met the major criterion for speciation?


Because it sounds very weird - dog can hybridize with wolf, coyote, Ethiopian wolf and golden jackal and produce fertile offspring with them. Why do you think that especially dogs are good example of speciation?


---
   
Quote

I like watching VMartin make an asshole of himself.


And we enjoy discussions with you at ISCID where John sometimes commented some posts here. Anyway  the ongoing discussion with you about dogs is really entertaining. Especially how you defend nonsensical Dawkins story about ability of St.Bernard to bear cask of brandy. You have never answered consistently any problems (except using denigration and abuses) about evolution of mimicry, coloration and now you claimed that dogs almost " met the major criterion for speciation". You make perfect fools of yourselves.

Date: 2007/07/20 13:00:08, Link
Author: VMartin
Arden Chatfield'  lies about my latest posts at "Frontloading" thread:

Quote

His stock reply can be summed up as "of course you are thinking that because of you are all foolish atheist Darwinist". Press him harder and he'll denounce your morality ("something bad may happen to you") and call you a Nazi. And he ignores about 90% of the serious questions put to him.


Check the thread "Frontloading" and make your own conclusion who is more denigrated.

As to "something bad may happen to you" it is shameless misinterpretation of my sentence I wrote Kristine:


"Otherwise you could come to a bad end like we (John Davison and me) and Bruno, Nietzsche, and Nabokov as well."


We were all banned from Pharyngula by PZ Meyeres and I warned Kristine that she could be banned as well. That was a good advice her not to agree with us, otherwise she will be banned by PZ Meyeres. Check it yourselves on Kristine blog:

http://amused-muse.blogspot.com/2007....ed.html

I didn't call anyone here  "Nazi". I only expressed my opinion that Chatfield - and he only - is like National socialist because he repeatedly brought up my  nationality and made  bold off-topic generalisation about psychology of East-European and Slovak people.

Quote

And he ignores about 90% of the serious questions put to him.


The latest question - if some dogs races could interbreed and if they  represent ongoing speciation I answered at Frontloading thread. Check it again yourselves.

Date: 2007/07/20 17:16:08, Link
Author: VMartin
Chatfield about Pharyngula and me:
Quote

He has also done something particularly contemptible: using other people's username and email address to try and sneak past the filters.


Uf. Thats horrible and despicable. But it was also doctor of darwinism PZMeyeres himself who sneaked his own filters and wrote this obscene post:

 
Quote

#45

I don't need to masturbate. I have VMartin for that.
I love it so!

Posted by: John A. Davison | May 21, 2007 08:11 PM


John Davison had been banned at those time you know.
But I underestand that PZM was very upset that somebody else sneaked his "filters" too.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/05/its_still_going_on.php

Date: 2007/07/21 01:35:44, Link
Author: VMartin
Becuase you didn' response to the problem of dogs I suppose you realized clearly it was incorrect inference from you - that they could speciate. Dogs cannot speciate and support your view about evolution. But if anyone here has different opinion I would like to know it and discuss the issue further.

Maybe another question.

   
Quote

And why did it (evolution) stop?


Because the human is the terminal product of the evolution and there is not other morphological "Typus" or "Form" that any organism can have. Because you are here obviously excellent linguists I would like to support  such a view and concept of directed evolution by this quotation of paleontologist Dacque:

   
Quote

»Typen - soviel wenigstens läßt sich mit übertragener Ausdrucksweise sagen - sind den wirklichen Formen zugrunde liegende, in ihnen realisierte Artpotenzen. Es sind keineswegs nur Abstraktionen aus den konkreten Formen, sondern sind letzte genotypische Realitäten und Potenzen jenseits des Gegenständlich-Phänotypischen.


Such concept is supported by the fact of saltationism and stasis what could be often in many cases observed in fossil record (puctuated equilibrium in darwinian thinking - Eldredge and Gould). The succession of indiduals in the course of the process of evolution is to be explained by this way :

   
Quote

»Die Folge der Individuen, die wir ja allein haben
und sehen, ist nicht die Entwicklung selbst, so wenig wie die Individuen die Art sind, sie sind auch nicht das, was sich entwickelt im stammesgeschichtlichen Sinn, sondern sie sind allenfalls das herausgestellte Ergebnis der Entwicklung des Lebens an sich, sind dies auch
schon als Same und Ei, so gut wie als fertige Tiere. Sie sind eben in jeder Weise Symbol eines inneren Zustandes, einer Entelechie, einer Potenz, oder wie man sonst sagen mag, da sich solches niemals konkret nennen lässt. Und deshalb können - um nun zum Stammbaum und damit zum Werden der >Arten< überzugehen - auch Formenreihen, die man historisch aus ihnen zusammenstellt, wenn man genug fossiles Material hat, nie die Entwicklung als solche zeigen,
sondern uns nur die Symbole für eine solche geben.«


So pigs can start ridicule Dacque. Go on.

Date: 2007/07/21 04:15:56, Link
Author: VMartin
Except denigration, abuses, lies and stupid questions you dont know anything. You cannot read German.  

I have tried to open a thread at EVC forum where the contibutors are on much higher level than stupidos here. So especially for you:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before 2nd WW German idealistic morphology had many prominent proponents. Nowadays the concept of idealistic morphology is obviously a forgotten theory of biological evolution. Neverthenless its basic concept of directed evolution lives poorly on the verge of the scientific interest (John Davisons PEH).

The basic concept of IM is that there are idealistic, non-darwinian forces behind the evolutionary process - "Zeitgeist" or "Typus" or "Urformen" (pre-existing formen). The main idea of the paleontologist Dacque is that human is final product of evolution. There are only idealistic, platonic "Formen" that underlie biological evolution. New types arouse suddenly and science doesn't have enough instruments to elucidate the process. The evolution is teleological process aimed for perfection and emergence of human. "Entelechie" of human is present from the beginning of the evolution and consequently human have no ancestors. It may be of interest that Leo Berg mentioned Dacque in his Nomogenesis - evolution directed by law. His concept is very similar of that of Dacque of development of a pre-existing Plan.



The interesting material about thinking and concepts of Naef, Dacque, Troll in German is here:

"Goethes langer Atem: »Methodologische Ideologien«
in der Deutschen Morphologie des 20. Jahrhunderts*".

http://www.evolutionsbiologen.de/goethesatem.pdf

Some materials could be found also on internet. Troll was a prominent botanist whose work was accepted world-wide.

[Wilhelm Troll (1897-1978). The tradition of idealistic morphology in the German botanical sciences of the 20th century]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites....itation

Date: 2007/07/22 23:58:09, Link
Author: VMartin
Jeanot

Quote

- What are the evidence for your hypothesis? You haven't shown anything yet. Sorry, "I bet you can't domesticate a lizard" or "look at those colorfull mushrooms" don't count.


I put those examples (together with mimicry) only to show that darwinismus is unable to explain them. That's all.

Quote

- When did evolution stop and why?


Because the man is final product of evolution the evolution is now over.

Date: 2007/07/23 00:05:23, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

So he thinks what, that some bio-engineer(s) deliberately manufactured humans to be a slightly modified copy of the predecessors of chimpanzees? And that's supposed to somehow be a route to perfection?


Human pre-existed before evolution started as a "Typus", "Archetype".
Evolution was directed process and nowadays human corresponds with the  pre-existed platonic "typus" or idea.

According Naeff:
Quote

»Der Typus ist also für uns eine bloß gedachte Form, die Idee eines Naturwesens.«

Date: 2007/07/25 15:16:21, Link
Author: VMartin
Wesley R. Elsberry

   
Quote

PE is by no means either synonymous with "saltationism", nor did Gould's essay on Richard Goldschmidt "link" PE with Goldschmidt's "hopeful monster" conjecture. Gould wrote an article that has caused much confusion. "Return of the hopeful monsters" sought to point out that a hatchet job had been done on some of the concepts that Richard Goldschmidt had formulated. The discussion of systemic mutations as mutations which affect rate or timing of development has caused many people to assume that Gould was somehow linking PE to this concept. A close reading of the article shows this to not be the case.


I didn't read the article. I hit on Gould's observation in Pandas Thumb (he mentioned Goldschmidt there too). Gould wrote there that new forms shows up in geological columns abruptly and it should be explained. Geological columns shows according Gould  stasis and no way gradual development. Frankly speaking I was surprised by this observation when I read it first many years ago.It is the part of Pandas Thumb I thought about.  Gould supported his explanation of this phenomenon somehow with soviet science. He probably thought that marxistic law of change of quantity into quality could be helpful. As far as I can judge it is not correct, because such a rule would prove more saltationism than gradual development. Btw. in that time many marxists adopted structuralism and they tried to explain biological evolution also via contradiction of parts and structures inside living organisms.

As far as I can judge the sudden change of morphology in geological columns is sometimes explained by alopatric speciation. On my opinion it is only hypothesis because nobody can prove it showing transitional fossils.


Gould prominent predecessors like paleontologists Dacque and Schindewolf also noticed the fact of stasis in fossil record and of abrupt change of it. They supported idea of saltationism with the same fossil record that led Gould and Eldredge to PE.

Schindewolf:
   
Quote

"We might as well stop looking for the missing links as they never existed."


As I noticed before once very popular German idealistic morphology is nowadays almost forgotten theory and Gould appreciated work of great paleotologist Schindewolf as "spectacularly flawed". Probably Gould was quite sure that his opinions are correct.

Date: 2007/07/25 15:40:49, Link
Author: VMartin
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?

Date: 2007/07/27 14:53:01, Link
Author: VMartin
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.

Date: 2007/07/28 01:54:28, Link
Author: VMartin
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.````

Date: 2007/07/28 02:33:51, Link
Author: VMartin
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.

Date: 2007/07/28 04:11:48, Link
Author: VMartin
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.

Date: 2007/07/28 08:28:15, Link
Author: VMartin
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

Date: 2007/07/28 08:40:00, Link
Author: VMartin
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.

Date: 2007/07/28 08:52:44, Link
Author: VMartin
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.

Date: 2007/07/28 12:50:40, Link
Author: VMartin
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?

Date: 2007/07/28 13:27:33, Link
Author: VMartin
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.

Date: 2007/07/28 13:53:03, Link
Author: VMartin
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".

Date: 2007/07/28 14:07:33, Link
Author: VMartin
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.

Date: 2007/07/28 14:23:07, Link
Author: VMartin
Jeannot

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

Date: 2007/07/29 14:27:51, Link
Author: VMartin
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".

Date: 2007/07/30 00:50:05, Link
Author: VMartin
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.

Date: 2007/08/01 15:10:11, Link
Author: VMartin
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.

Date: 2007/08/01 15:25:46, Link
Author: VMartin
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.

Date: 2007/08/01 15:58:04, Link
Author: VMartin
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

Date: 2007/08/01 16:14:33, Link
Author: VMartin
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.

Date: 2007/08/02 00:48:59, Link
Author: VMartin
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".

Date: 2007/08/02 02:17:38, Link
Author: VMartin
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.

Date: 2007/08/02 15:53:43, Link
Author: VMartin
German scientist Theodor Eimer was a proponet of a directed evolution or orthogenesis. His works are somehow unaccessible via internet even though reading them would be very intresting I suppose. I hit on the page describing his concept of "undulatory development". Especially noticeable is the last sentence about Eimer's law of posterior-anterior development which has obviously nothing common with darwinism:


http://links.jstor.org/sici?si....rgePage

Because he is decribing the color patterns of common European lizard the issue is connected with coloration of animals discussed in the thread "coloration of fungi". Obviously Eimer's explanation of development of coloration of lizards is independent from natural selection  and is due to some "internal forces" - it would help if somebody has access to the all article btw. It could provide an explanation to your questions what is behind coloration of animals if (neo)darwinism is unable to explain it in many cases .



Anyway orthogenesis as theory is more related to this thread so I put it here.

Date: 2007/08/03 01:49:32, Link
Author: VMartin
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/

Date: 2007/08/03 02:17:12, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

Is Martin ******STILL******  blithering?


You know, it was Gadow's "blithering" about Theodor Eimer, the prominent scientist and the founder of Orthogenesis. We are having fun at ISCID reading your stupid responses.

Date: 2007/08/03 03:04:46, Link
Author: VMartin
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.

Date: 2007/08/03 08:47:01, Link
Author: VMartin
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.

Date: 2007/08/03 14:28:10, Link
Author: VMartin
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.

Date: 2007/08/07 14:20:07, Link
Author: VMartin
Doctor Meyeres published (or random ejaculated?) an article few days ago:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....evo.php

The name of the article: Cephalopod development and evolution. Doctor argues that primitive apes evolved into man and oysters are related to squids. If origin of oysters and squids is due to saltus/frontloading/gradual evolution is of course no problem for him.

But transitional forms are many times impossible. Anatomy of soft parts (of snails for instance, speaking about molluscs) corresponds with the form of the shells. Mantle should have evolved only after the appearance of the shell, but the shell can appear only in one saltation, because it only makes sense as a whole. Thus, many molluscs could appear only as a result of saltation.

But such triffles are no problem for the doctor.

Date: 2007/08/09 11:13:04, Link
Author: VMartin
David Stanton polemizes with John Davison:

 
Quote

Speciation continues to occur and there are now more species and families of organisms alive than there have ever been at any time in the past.


I don't know what kind of species and families do you have on your mind, but it is not the case of mammals. No mammalian order has aroused since Eocene - as Broom observed.

http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Mammalian_Adaptive_Radiation.htm

But it's only a chart. One of the best preserved location when the phenomenon can be observed is John Day Fossil Beds National Monument.
These fossil beds contain a rare continuum of 50 million years of plant and animal history, compared with 2 million or 3 million years at better-known fossil beds.

Even if we accept a claim that mammalian Orders are only naming convention we can neverthenless see that greatest diversification of mammalian Families and even Genera(!) occurs:


The periodof 39 to 20 million years ago (John Day Forma-tion) seems to harbor the greatest diversity inknown fossils of families and genera. Current diversity of families and genera of the basin assess-ment area does not match that of this period...



Qutation and other interesting graphs is at:

www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr_410/pg069-79.pdf

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

etc...etc...


So I see Broom's observation that "evolutionary clock has so completely run down" the well supported claim nowadays. Interpretation of the fact that no new mammalian Order aroused for great time period from Eocene and that mammalian diversity  seems to be fading  suggests some "predetermined internal factors" behind evolution.

So the John Davison's claim is well supported by scientific research, even if you think otherwise.

Date: 2007/08/09 13:04:12, Link
Author: VMartin
I adressed only the first part of Broom thoughts quoted in John Davison's Manifesto. Broom continues:

Quote

What is equally remarkable, no new types of birds appear
to have evolved in the last 30,000,000 years. And most
remarkable of all, no new family of plants appears to have evolved since the Eocene. All major evolution has apparently come to an end. No new types of fishes, no groups of molluscs, or worms or starfishes, no new groups even of insects, appear to have been evolved in these latter 30,000,000 years.


Finding the Missing Link
(1951), page 107

Date: 2007/08/09 14:07:22, Link
Author: VMartin
I suppose it is not correct to call quoted Robert Broom opinions as "cherry-picking and taxon juggling". Robert was South Africa's most prestigious paleontologist of the early 20th Century. He is also widely regarded for his discovery of the first robust australopithecine specimen in 1938, and, in 1947, a partial skeleton instrumental in establishing bipedality in Australopithecus africanus.

From 1903 to 1910 he was professor of zoö and geology at Victoria College, Stellenbosch, South Africa, and subsequently he became keeper of vertebrate palaeontology at the South African Museum, Cape Town.



Quote

I'm not seeing anything that leads to Davison's grand conclusions, though.


It is not only Davison's conclusion. He quoted Julian Huxley correspondence with Broom:

Quote

And a few zoologists are beginning to recognize that evolution is slowing down, if not quite stopped. In a letter I had from Professor Julian Huxley only a few months ago he says, “I have often thought about your idea of the fading out of evolutionary potency, and though I cannot pretend to agree with some of the philosophical corollaries which you draw from it, I more and more believe that it is of great importance as
a fact.


“Evolution — Is there intelligence
Behind It?” (1933), page 14


According Julian Huxley slowing down of evolution is a fact.

Date: 2007/08/09 15:05:55, Link
Author: VMartin
Dobzhansky about Pierre Grasse:

 
Quote

Now one can disagree with Grasse but not ignore him. He is the most distinguished of French zoologists, the editor of the 28 volumes of Traite de Zoologie, author of numerous original investigations, and ex-president of the Academie des Sciences. His knowledge of the living world is encyclopedic.


Pierre Grasse, the man of the encyclopedic knowledge came to the same conclusion 30 years ago:

 
Quote

Facts are facts; no new broad organizational plan has appeared for several hundred million years, and for an equally long time numerous species, animal as well as plant, have ceased evolving. … At best, present evolutionary phenomena are simply slight changes of genotypes within populations, or substitution of an allele with a new one.


Evolution of Living Organisms
(1977), page 84


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

Especially instructive is also this observation of Grasse . We discussed  with some people here also "incipient speciation" of dogs in another thread btw.

 
Quote

The genic differences noted between separate populations of the same species that are so often presented as evidence of ongoing evolution are, above all, a case of the adjustment of a population to its habitat and of the effects of genetic drift. The fruitfly (drosophila melanogaster), the favorite pet insect of the geneticists, whose geographical, biotropical, urban, and rural genotypes are now known inside out, seems not to have changed since the remotest times.{2}

Date: 2007/08/10 10:32:35, Link
Author: VMartin
Like father and son, what do you mean?


Date: 2007/08/10 12:15:56, Link
Author: VMartin

Darwin's discovery is the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter.





Hurrah, Comrades!





Charles Darwin's evolution is right.

Date: 2007/08/10 13:13:54, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

One word. Lysenkoism.


Lysenko was kind of a lamarckian:

Quote

The most glaring manifestation of such debasement of Darwinism is to be found in the teachings of Weismann, Mendel, and Morgan, the founders of modern reactionary genetics.

Date: 2007/08/10 14:01:36, Link
Author: VMartin
Henry on my claim that snail shells probably evolved (and vanished) via saltation:

             
Quote

Re "but the shell can appear only in one saltation, because it only makes sense as a whole."

It doesn't have to make sense to you, it only has to reduce the amount of predation on the species. A partial shell would most likely do that.


So the shell developed in snails because it reduces the amount of predation. Shell protects the vital organs like heart, stomach, and kidneys.

Slugs can be find often at same places as snails. But obviously they do not need shells anymore. So they get rid of them - having them only as "rudimentary organs". Selective pressure or natural selection  is an  interesting force, isn't it?

The mantle cavity,also called the visceral sac,contains the heart,kidney and the other organs.It is closed in pulmonate snails except for the breathing pore,the pneumostome.

The roof is covered with a network of blood vessels and forms a lung.



Snail -I need to protect myself, you know:




Slug from the same graden - Because there was not selective pressure on me I don't need to protect heart and kidney anymore and I got rid of the shell and  transformed complicated structre of mantle cavity. I have the shell only as a rudimentary organ, you know:
 



Date: 2007/08/10 14:41:30, Link
Author: VMartin
Henry,


discussing mimicry I have often heard darwinian explanation, that even a smallest resemblance of a mimic to a model would give a small advantage for surviving - 0,00001% should have be enough to lead to perfect mimicry (Fisher used similar math  btw. to refute Punnett claim that mimicry must evolved via saltus).

Don't you think that having shell would give a small survival advantage (0,00001%) as not having shell? Eh? Or is this case somehow different?  

Obviously "natural selection" is very flexible explanation, there is nothing that could escape it's omnipotence (but only in heads of hard-core believers I suppose).

Date: 2007/08/11 02:03:00, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 10 2007,14:43)
 
Quote (VMartin @ Aug. 10 2007,14:41)
Don't you think that having shell would give a small survival advantage (0,00001%) as not having shell? Eh? Or is this case somehow different?

Why can't it be different?

why is it so hard to believe the slug had some other form of survival trait?

Even if they don't, if they survive perfectly well, having a shell would make no difference.

So you somehow concede that shells don't have protective function. But it is common darwinistic explanation, that shells serve as protective shield and that is the reason they evolved.

Snails need protect themselves and slugs do not. One would think that they live in different geographical areas or that they have different predators. Which is obviously not the case.

Date: 2007/08/11 02:31:04, Link
Author: VMartin
John Davison and me are now something like "lysenkoists".

Lysenko:
   
Quote

We must realize that the formation of a species is a transition -- in the course of a historical process -- from quantitative to qualitative variations.


Another lysenkoist was the late Stephen J. Gould. In Panda's Thumb he wrote:

   
Quote

"In the Soviet Union, for example, scientists are trained with a very different philosophy of change - the so-called dialectical laws, reformulated by Engels from Hegel's philosophy. The dialectical laws are explicitly punctuational. They speak, for example, of the 'transformation of quantity into quality.' This may sound like mumbo jumbo, but it suggests that change occurs in large leaps following a slow accumulation of stresses that a system resists until it reaches the breaking point. Heat water and it eventually boils. Oppress the workers more and more and bring on the revolution. Eldredge and I were fascinated to learn that many Russian palaeontologists support a model similar to our punctuated equilibria."


Beware of "lysenkoists". They are like "trockists" everywhere.

Date: 2007/08/11 06:54:30, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

Wow V, you're a fucking mind reader, even I didn't know I was thinking that.


So you don't think that snail shell has protective function. But you also don't think that it hasn't.
Your head is empty.  That's why you became a darwinist.

Date: 2007/08/14 15:18:41, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 11 2007,03:19)
One thing Gould has going for him is that he's written a humongous book that goes on at length about his views on evolutionary science. The content that Gould wrote there is at significant variance with Lysenko's Michurinism.

VMartin and Davison, on the other hand, have not distinguished their position from that taken by Lysenko, and have a history of supporting argument by quotation of dead authority rather than how scientists usually approach things. VMartin and Davison seem to believe that guilt by association works.  (And apparently VMartin is stunned by the idea that someone else could not only return the favor, but do so with evidence of shared conceptual viewpoint between himself and the figure of historical villainy rather than flailing away, as VMartin does, at non-existent connections.) They don't have much room to talk concerning the obvious consilience of their position, so far as it is stated, with that of Comrade Lysenko. The obvious way to show that they don't share Lysenko's views is to repudiate the view, not to claim that others share their taste in conceptual company. Especially when that last bit of theirs, the supposed identity between Gould's views and those of Lysenko, is an obvious lie. Pretty desperate move, VMartin, but no amount of incompetence from VMartin is likely to surprise me.

Gould's The Structure of Evolutionary Theory vs. Lysenko's The Science of Biology Today

I don't see a point why John Davison and I should distinguish our positions from those of Lysenko. Perhaps Gould did it in his Opus maximum (having bad conscience or what) as you have written. I don't have time to read another his book. Panda's thumb and boring Dinosaur in a haystack are enough I would say.

You can call also B.C.Goodwin "lysenkoist", because his opinions are sometimes strikingly similar to those of Lysenko. Does it mean that not only John Davisom but the whole school of  biological structuralism are lysenkoists?

I am afraid Richard Dawkins also could be called "lysenkoist" using this way of thinking.

Lysenko 1958 (in my translation):

     
Quote

Various organs, different characteristics and physiological processess, all that endless diveristy of forms and functions of animals or plants are aimed towards direct or indirect collaboration for enlargement of number of individuals of given species . Even if in some cases it would lead to shortening of life-span of an individual or to his death.


If we change "number of individuals"  in it for "number of genes" one might have impression that the sentence has been written by R.Dawkins.

Maybe Goodwin and Dawkins should distinguish their positions from those of Lysenko as well.

Date: 2007/08/16 14:57:14, Link
Author: VMartin
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank

?
Quote


God made snail shells. ?Then he died.

(snicker) ?(giggle)


Let us consider another possibility - it was Natural selection which created snails and slugs. Now we may try to use darwinian dialectic to explain why slugs do not have their shells anymore and snails still posseses them. We are going to use darwinian dialectic from darwinian explanation of hoverfly mimicry:


Species with relatively slow unaccomplished flight may be placed under strong selection for high-quality mimicry bla bla bla...

? ?
Because slugs do not have shells they are a little bit faster than snails (they are more aerodynamic you know). ?They make 1500 mm an hour but snails make only 1498 mm an hour. This difference give slugs a little advantage when hunting by predators . Even though scientifically undetectable, such small advantage over millions and millions of years surely have led to preservation of snail's shells and diminishing of slugs' shells.

Date: 2007/08/17 00:17:00, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 16 2007,15:49)
Slugs also rely on tasting nasty. ?Very few predators will touch them.

Oh, really? I would say it is only a darwinian bullshit for children in school how to explain reality not fitting into ?"natural selection" armchair preconcptions. ?

 
Quote

These results represent the only known case of a European slug proving to be toxic to potential predators, and is one of a very small number of reported instances of possible toxicity amongst terrestrial gastropods.

.
.
.

Slugs are known to be killed and consumed by a range of invertebrate and vertebrate predators in the field.


The quotation above is from Journal of Molluscan studies, Oxfordjournals. ?

http://mollus.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/63/4/541

Date: 2007/08/23 12:47:45, Link
Author: VMartin
John Davison has written in his Manifesto:

Quote

The actual facts are as follows. In birds the cells destined to become the germ cells first appear in the extra-embryonic endoderm (germinal crescent) anterior to the head of the developing embryo.
Incidentally, this region has no homologue in the hatched bird as the extra-embryonic endoderm is, by definition, resorbed as nutrient for the developing chick. From there the presumptive germ cells enter the circulatory system and, after a period of time in the bloodstream, penetrate the walls of the venous circulation and invade the gonad where they differentiate into the definitive gametes. In mammals the presumptive germ cells first appear in the endoderm of the allantois, a structure destined to become the urinary bladder of the adult. From here they migrate in amoeboid fashion anteriorly and laterally to reach the gonad where they complete their differentiation. Thus, there is no way that the reproductive cells of mammals can be homologized with those of birds as they originate from opposite ends of the embryonic axis and reach the gonads by completely different means.


Adolf Portmann adressed almost the same problem from another point of view. Because all of you are excellent linguists I suppose you have no problem reading German. I quoted from Adolf Portmann's "Biologie und Geist - Die Biologie und das Phanomen des Geistigen", Zurich 1956, page 22:

Quote

Verfolgt man nun in dieser naturlichen Serien von Tiertypen die Lage der mannlichen Keimdrusen, dann stellen wir fest, dass diese Hoden in der aufsteigenden Reihe vom Fisch zum Sauger aus der vorderen Rumpfzone oder der Rumpfmitte mehr becken-, ja leistenstandig werden, um schliesslich in einem Hodensack ausserhalb der Leibsholle in geradezu paradoxer ?Situation am analen Korperpol eingelagert zu werden.


Whats more important Adolf Portmann didn't see any plausible "selection" explanation of it:

Quote

...dass es keine Theorie gibt, welche das Phanomen des <<Descensus>>, des Hodenabstiegs, erklart. Die Erscheinung ist ist um so beachtenswerter, als keine Moglichket gibt, die Entstehung dieses Gebildes durch Selektion zu erklaren.



Perhaps the prominent Swiss professor didn't hear about "niche"?

Date: 2007/08/24 06:57:53, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 23 2007,21:21)
? ?
Quote

Perhaps the prominent Swiss professor didn't hear about "niche"?


VMartin actually gets something right. Stopped clocks and all that. The quote was from 1956. The classic paper introducing the biological niche concept was published by G.E. Hutchinson in... 1957.


Portmann published the article first in 1949 in fact.

Probably the problem has nothing to do with "niche". (As probably also the explanation of disappearance/retaining of snail's shells are only unproved "niche" explanation as well).

Doctor Myers addressed the same problem mentioned by Portmann here (in reality he quotes only some scientific source where he added some unsuitable, would- be "funny" remarks. What a difference to cultivated Portmann.):

http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/descent_of_the_testicle/

Doctor Myers and authors of the research didn't mention "niche" there. Reading the article we see, that no new explanation of descent of testicles appeared that Portmann was not aware of in his time. Some of the most weird neodarwinian explanations dismissed doctor Myers himself. Yet he has written:

 
Quote

The temperature hypothesis. The most likely explanation is that there is something in the function of the testis that is optimized for a lower temperature, and that the clumsy kludge that evolved to reduce that temperature was to let the organ hang out in the breeze.


Oddly enough birds having temperature 4 grad Celsius higher than mammals haven't solved the same problem this way.

Elephants living in very hot areas of the world keep their
testicles in their body cavity. But many mammals living in the same area - (or niche?) - have testicles descended and scrotal.

Obviously neodarwinism is groping in the case and all the "temperature" explanation is more a product of imagination as a real underestanding of the evolutionary processes leading to the observed reality -descent and moving of mammalian's males organs of reproduction to the back parts and outside of the body.

----
Animals like sharks solved problem of keeping great temperature differences inside their bodies:

Quote

This way, these sharks have temperatures of 14?C above the water, while the heart and gills remain at sea-temperature, enabling them to hunt such rapid and agile prey like marine mammals.

Date: 2007/08/24 12:05:05, Link
Author: VMartin
My opinion is that niche play almost no role in evolution. Evolution on my opinion is governed by processes different from those proposed by darwinism. Such directed evolution is called Orthogenesis.

I supposed that dispute about snails vs slugs was over.
Alan Fox mentioned snails resting on grapevein and another man saw snails and slugs in German forests. I saw both snails and slugs in the garden.

In many sources inquiring snails and slugs they are mentioned together as regard their habitats. But because in the same habitat live so different animals like wolfs and deers I think that habitat (or niche in the case) discussion would be endless.

I wanted only to emphasize that becoming slugs from snails is process that involve not only disappearance of shells. It requires the rearrangements of internal organs that matched perfectly mantel cavity of snails. It requires also detorsion.

I have mentioned that (in fact I quoted a German morphogist) shell should arose at once, by saltus because partial shell has no meaning.

Now I quoted A.Portmann in regard of another problem where niche obviously play no role. At least modern research do not mention it. I suppose it is more open for discussion.

I would say that blithering is more on the part of "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank and the others, who do not contribute to discussion anything except nonsenses.

Date: 2007/08/24 12:34:06, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

Put up or shut up.


Why do you think you can command me what to do?
Do you think you are admin here? The most probable is that you only suffer from delusion of grandeur. Don't read Selfish gene so often.

Remember: it is darwinism here on trial not me.

Date: 2007/08/24 13:19:51, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

About what I expected. Coward.


Strong words. I suppose that you account yourself to be a fearless knight. Especially when you are repeating darwinian mantras like a parrot. You feel like a Rambo.



(Btw. is it not interesting that parrot can reproduce human speech very good but our relatives - primates are unanble to do so? Obviously voice is another deep puzzle of evolution of humans).

Quote

Do you HAVE an alternative to 'Darwinism', or is it just that you're afraid to say what it is?


Farnkly speaking I am still seeking. John Davison's Manifesto is very good and incentive source (btw John Davison makes some interesting comments about discussion here at ISCID).
He is not only critic but proposed his own mechanism of semi-meiosis which is very original. The most scientists I know about propose nothing. ?


Another my sources are scientists challenging darwinian explanation of mimicry like Heikertinger, Punnet, Goldschmidt etc... German morphologists, biological structuralism and Adolf Portmann's conception of self-representation and "Innerlichkeit".

Read it yourself instead of asking me. Life and forces behind it's development are much more complicated to be reduced to neodarwinian explanation.

I have tried to put some of puzzles mentioned by prominent scientists here.

Date: 2007/08/24 13:43:08, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

Do you agree with John that evolution has stopped? If so, why did it stop? Who stopped it?


Yes, I agree with him. But again - why are you interrogating me? I am here not at police station, don't you think so?

Quote

Do you also agree with John that God is dead?


Do you disagree with him?

Quote

Your point being? Or is that another one of your nonsequitors?


And your point here? Any darwinian explanation?

Quote

You aren't even capable of explaining what you yourself believe?


And you? Are you able of explaining what you ?believe?

Quote

1) do you believe in common descent?


And you? Do you believe in common descent? Is it your credo, your belief? Do you know that common decent is a fact or you just belive it?


Quote

2) how old do you think the earth is?


And you? How old do you think the earth is? Do you think it or do you believe it? Is it your credo?

Another cross examination?

Date: 2007/09/02 02:57:59, Link
Author: VMartin
There was no response for one week on this thread. No one adressed either slugs or shift of reproductive organs of mammalian males. So I would like to adress mimicry now. Maybe someone wants to discuss it? Of course my point view of evolution of mimicry is non-darwinian one. So the frontloading thread is maybe fit for it (considering all nonsensse you wrote here I am not waiting any intelligent response btw.).


Franz Heikertinger wrote in 1954 an interesting book where he dismissed neodarwinian explanation of mimicry either: "Das Ratsel der Mimikry und seine Losung". I am afraid the work has never been translated into English.


I would like to put here some thoughts from the chapter "Wespen als Mimikrymodelle". First I would like to emphasize Heikertinger no way dismissed evolution - something John Davison and me have common - but saw another forces behind it and not natural selection. He dismissed natural selection as source of any wasp-mimicry.

The example considered is Trochilium apiforme in which darwinists see wasp-mimics.

http://www.sumfak.hr/~forbug/fotke/trochiliumapiforme.htm


Anyway we should be aware that family Sessidae is ?characterised as clearwing moths and involves more than 600 different species. Some of them is to be found at wikipedia:

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

See especially Bambecia chrysidiformis. I would say even having transparent wings and yellow band there is no way resemblance to wasps.

So the point is this: How is it possible that 600 different Sessidaes species are often more common and outnumber would-be wasp mimic Trochilium? Are we to accept an implausible idea that all of them are imperfect mimic of wasps? Or was there only strong selective pressure on Trochylium to look like wasp, but the other species of the family have other protection? What?

So the outcome should be this one - the range, extent of different colors and forms of Sessidae is so distributed that Trochylium apiforme would exists in the same coloration and shape even if there were no wasps on the Earth.

The resemblance is due chance or by convergence. There is no mimicry in the case.

Date: 2007/09/02 13:31:10, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 02 2007,04:49)
 
Quote
There was no response for one week on this thread. No one adressed either slugs or shift of reproductive organs of mammalian males.


You need to make your points more clearly. We all understand that you have an innate aversion to Darwinian ideas, but you really need to be a little more objective. Your personal preferences cut no ice here.

Saying ?  
Quote
I would say even having transparent wings and yellow band there is no way resemblance to wasps.
is not adequate as an argument.

Do you think I have innate aversion to darwinism? I would say darwinism is wrong, that's all. Btw. it is not my personnal preference. I quoted many prominent scientists of the past. No one of them saw darwinism as plausible explanation of evolution.

I don't see your point in saying "is not adequate as an argument". Do you consider all 600 species of Sessidaes as wasp-mimics or what? ?I quoted Heikertinger who dismissed mimicry in the case. I am afraid there is no such an expert on insect mimicry nowadays. Heikertinger spent 40 years studying insects and so-called mimicry, his correspodence with Wassmann was once closely followed by entomologists in Europe. ?You and yours alike see often mimicry everywhere. One should be more cautios reading about darwinian unfounded assertions about mimicry.

It was you who gave me notice that eye spots on butterfly wings do not deter predators. Oddly enough Heiketinger devoted almost 4 pages to experiments that disprove wasp mimicry as protective device. Why such experiments was not reproduced anymore? Because it doesnot fit into preconceived darwinian schema of protection? Dlussky made some experiments in 80ties that proves birds can tell apart model and mimics very well.

All the theory of mimicry was preconceived in heads of Bateson, Wallace and Darwin agreed with it. They made no experiments. It is no science you know, it is only preconceived ideas into which all facts should fit. Heikertinger had gone into depths of many cases and had shown that natural selection is implausible explanation of the phenomenon.

Date: 2007/09/02 15:44:45, Link
Author: VMartin
Stephen Elliot.

I am afraid you cannot refute my positions easily. All you can do is - like in mushroom's coloration - open a new thread and probaly only agree with my sources at last.
That's why I first checked internet if there is anything new about topic I put here. In the case of shift of reproductive organs of mammals no new plausible hypothesis has arisen last 50 years when Portmann adressed it. There is only a neodarwinian mess in it as the article from doctor Myers clearly showed.

The same mess is in wasp-mimicry explanation and observation as clearly shows this modern summary:

http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/archive....cry.pdf

Heikertinger claimed that butterlies that mimic wasps ?
are due to hereditary "frontloading" - "durch die Auswirkungen eines alten gemeinsamen Erbguts" and not due natural selection.

I dont know if the meaning of Erbgut is to be translated as genotype or inheritance. Anyway some of his critics agreed with him at last - F.Steiniger for instance.

I would say Heikertinger made from Darwin, Wallace and Bates perfect fools.

Especially nice is the case when Darwin asked Bates in 1867 how to explain bright coloration of larvae. Bateson (who invented explanation of butterfly mimicry 6 years before) went to ask Wallace who hypothesized it is due warning predators that they are unpalatable. So the great men reinvented the theory Bates proposed in 1861 as source of mimicry.

Heikertinger openly attacked Mullerian explanation of mimicry that even Darwin considered as "too speculative to be introduced into my book".

Heikertinger gave an example of polymorphic mimicry where females of butterfly species mimic more than one unpalatable species. The loss and disatvantage is greater than mimiking only one unpalatable species - the predator hav to taste and learn all of them. Details that neodarwinists selectively miss to hold their theory of natural selection supposedly perfect.

Date: 2007/09/04 14:16:42, Link
Author: VMartin
Obviously here is nobobody to discuss issues I have addressed. Stephen excuses himself not to be a scientist (as though natural selection has something common with real science) but neverthenless he is pretty sure darwinism is right.

Arden continues to ask his monomanical questions. Probably Arden supposes Natural selection to be a valid scientific concept - his teacher in primary school might has teach him so - ? and those who challenge it he considers for medieval obscurantists (as his teacher told him). Anyway he has innovated darwinian questionary from primary school - he don't ask if the Earth is flat or spheric but how old it is.

Date: 2007/09/06 11:49:31, Link
Author: VMartin
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.

Date: 2007/09/06 12:18:12, Link
Author: VMartin
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.

Date: 2007/09/06 12:40:11, Link
Author: VMartin
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?

Date: 2007/09/06 12:46:14, Link
Author: VMartin
Thank you Arden. Waiting for your ideas about coloration of ladybirds.

Date: 2007/09/06 12:56:07, Link
Author: VMartin
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.

Date: 2007/09/06 15:03:09, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 06 2007,14:30)
Quote (slpage @ Sep. 06 2007,13:53)
So, is VMartin really an eastern european, or is he someone else pretending to be?

I refer to his on-again-off-again typed broken english. ?I understand that such things happen in spoken language, but I have a hard time accepting that you can exhibit 'broken english' when you type... sometimes...

I had my suspicions at first, too, but there seems to be solid evidence that he's Slovakian. He wrote a passage of Czech (I don't think it was Slovak) that convinced David Marjanovic of his authenticity.

I suspect that VM first started studying English rather recently, so sometimes his English kind of goes in and out. I gather that in that part of Europe people haven't been studying English for very long.

Yah. Marjanovic is a pharyngulist who doesn't know how to tell apart Russian and Czech. I don't know how you came to the idea that he was able to determine my nationality.

Marjanovic is also a "knowledgeable evolutionist" as doctor Myers calls all his sycophants. Neverthenless he knows nothing about color perception. He has never heard about red-green perception canals and so he ?invented ad hoc brand new theory after 5 minutes of thinking: green = white - red. Everybody can check his "arguments" at One blog a day where we (John Davison predominanly) made fools of pharyngulists.

As to your stupid question I wrote that no new mammalian Order has aroused since Eocene.

If you were more clever you might have deduce that I at least presume the Earth is older than the time of beginning of Eocene. Go to Wikipedia for time scaling of Eocene.

Date: 2007/09/06 15:24:23, Link
Author: VMartin
Henry,

maybe you were in the same school that Marjanovic attended.
As far as I remember he was at school only 12 years. It means the guy finished his education at secondary school. No wonder he became darwinian scientist at Pharyngula.

Check the basic rules about adding and subtraction of colors. These rules are very important in printing plants. Or ask some artist.

Date: 2007/09/07 00:13:05, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Kristine @ Sep. 06 2007,16:18)
 
Quote (slpage @ Sep. 06 2007,12:53)
So, is VMartin really an eastern european, or is he someone else pretending to be?

I refer to his on-again-off-again typed broken english. ?I understand that such things happen in spoken language, but I have a hard time accepting that you can exhibit 'broken english' when you type... sometimes...

His IP, when he graced my blog with his presence, originated in Slovakia.

Hi Kristine.

There is some good habit here makinkg psychonalysis for gratis. I have passed out here two psycholalysis - the one ?from Arden and the second from Alan Fox. Btw. both guys pursue me with their monomaniacal questions whatever I wrote. Arden even created this thread to give vent his urge.

Alan even logged at ISCID where his annoying question disturbs our discussions there.

But both of them are perfect  psychoanalysts.


And now me:

I think your surrealism compensate your liking in darwinism. You as an poet feel more clearly than many folks here that this teaching is not correct answer to problems of evolution. Your psyche revolt. Thats why your psyche seek compensation in surrealism.

More cultivated thoughts about the problem of surrealism and biology can be find in the book of professor ?Adolf Portmann "Biologie und Geist".

Date: 2007/09/07 10:47:19, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (k.e @ Sep. 06 2007,23:05)
? ? ?
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 07 2007,06:14)
V,
Re "Check the basic rules about adding and subtraction of colors. These rules are very important in printing plants. Or ask some artist."

Ah. You're talking about mixing pigments. I was thinking about mixing frequencies of light.

Henry

Autodidacts hate being corrected.


Pigments? Autodidacts?

Do you mean that removing red frequency from the light spectrum will cause that the light entering the eye should be perceived as green?

Do you think that spectum colors violet, blue, yellow, orange and green (without red) should be perceived in their totality as green?

Have you ever heard about Hering's red-green channel
or you are again explaing the complicated problem of color perception ad hoc using only your phantasy?
(But no wonder, because you often use your phantasy as the only scientific method for explaining of evolutionary processes too.)

Date: 2007/09/10 11:42:38, Link
Author: VMartin
Before adressing nonsenses about the color perception (Why "knowledgeable evolutionists" do not read more about the complicated problem of the perception of colors and always try to defend completely nonsense green = white - red?) some words on topic.

According Buffon <<Histoire de la Terre>> from the midst 18 century the Earth was 75.000 years old. Charles Lyell in 1830 estimated the time of rocks to 230 millions years. Helmholtz and Kelvin estimated 100 millions years of the Earth as exaggerated.

I don't know if the nowadays estimation 5,4 mrd years is the final one and no other changes are possible.

But preliminary scientific dating of Cambrian explosion or mammalian "radiation" in Eocene is something I take for granted.

Because Darwin himself didn't suppose the Earth to be 5,4 mrd years old the question of the exact age of the Earth has no relation to mechanisms that govern evolution of life.

What I disagree is the neodarwinian explanation of evolution of organisms. On my view natural selection play no role in it.

Date: 2007/09/10 12:21:47, Link
Author: VMartin
Common descent is a complicated problem considering saltationism as a process of evolution. If a reptile hatched a bird there is no ancestor in common view, you know.

Btw. John Davison considered possibility that there were as many independent ancestors in Mammalia as there are mammalian Orders. There might have been many creation.

Date: 2007/09/10 13:42:50, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Nerull @ Sep. 10 2007,12:22)
 
Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 10 2007,11:42)
Before adressing nonsenses about the color perception (Why "knowledgeable evolutionists" do not read more about the complicated problem of the perception of colors and always try to defend completely nonsense green = white - red?) some words on topic.

According Buffon <<Histoire de la Terre>> from the midst 18 century the Earth was 75.000 years old. Charles Lyell in 1830 estimated the time of rocks to 230 millions years. Helmholtz and Kelvin estimated 100 millions years of the Earth as exaggerated.

I don't know if the nowadays estimation 5,4 mrd years is the final one and no other changes are possible.

But preliminary scientific dating of Cambrian explosion or mammalian "radiation" in Eocene is something I take for granted.

Because Darwin himself didn't suppose the Earth to be 5,4 mrd years old the question of the exact age of the Earth has no relation to mechanisms that govern evolution of life.

What I disagree is the neodarwinian explanation of evolution of organisms. On my view natural selection play no role in it.

Actually, white - red is a light blueish color.

Hey VMartin, that monitor your using, do you know how it creates those "complex colors"? By combining red, green, and blue.

Ever used a digital camera? Know how it perceives those "complex colors"? By using pixels sensitive to red, green, and blue and combining them.

Know how all color images on a PC store that complex color data? As red, green, and blue channels. They are combined when the image is displayed.

If you place grey piece of paper to red backgound you will see the margin of the paper as green or bluegreen (Woodworth, Schlosberg 1959). You will see the opponent color. Obviously you see a color the spectrum frequency of which is not entering your eye.

Do you ever heard about Hering red-green channel? Do you ever heard about Opponent Process Colour Theory?

I am speaking about color perception which is much more complicated process as your mixing of simple colors in camera or printed journal.

Date: 2007/09/10 14:43:14, Link
Author: VMartin
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.

Date: 2007/09/10 23:52:09, Link
Author: VMartin
Maybe those birds beeing instructed by darwinists about poisonous qualities of ladybirds do not eat them anymore.

Date: 2007/09/13 00:07:17, Link
Author: VMartin
There was a selectionist here who pursued me here and at Pharyngula. The  selectionist claimed that I am Davison. The poor selectionist made his weird conclusion analyzing of dating my and John posts at Brainstorm.

No wonder that studying of dating of evolutionary processes the poor selectionist came to the conclusion that there must have been a common descent.

Wasn't he Steviepinhead?

Date: 2007/09/13 12:20:17, Link
Author: VMartin
I thought that the age of the Earth is 5,4 billion years. But somebody corrected me it is only 4,5 billion years.

Anyway if you have some kind of darwininian credo about the age of the Earth and about about Natural selection , let me know. I see it is very important for you to know how old exactly the Earth is.

Quote

HOW OLD IS THE BLEEPING, GOD#%&*@!, F(@#^$* EARTH,YOU RETARD?



The mental got seizure.
It is recommended  to avoid reading books like "Selfish gene" and "Extended phenotype". Hot tea, walk in counryside without darwinian friends. Avoid thinking to "Natural selection" seeing various colors of insects.

Date: 2007/09/14 14:52:11, Link
Author: VMartin
There was a time when we had a colourless common ancestor. But "natural selection" gave us different coloration. Those who had not such coloration didn't survive. "Struggle for life" you know. We are "aposematics". We are now perfectly adapted to our "niches".


1

2

3
4

5


Enjoy the power of "natural selection"!

Date: 2007/09/14 23:11:32, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

Answer the question, Marty:

Do you believe that common descent between apes and humans is true?


I have answered many of your questions. It's your turn now. Some simple questions:


1) Are ladybirds aposematic?

2) What was the coloration of the ladybirds ancestor? Was it dull, cryptic or bright, aposematic?

If you think it is off topic here answer it at "coloration of fungi". Reading all nonsensses from "knowledgeable evolutionists" at this thread I am afraid nothing is off topic anymore.

 
Quote

Marty, no one cares about your damn ladybugs.


Yo are wrong as usually. Darwinists continue in research of poisonous qualities of ladybirds (1994):


The defensive mechanisms which protect ladybird beetles (Coccinellidae) against predators are reviewed. Besides behavioural mechanisms, such as thanatosis and reflex bleeding, chemical defence mechanisms are playing a prevalent role.


http://www.springerlink.com/content/q466422173wh8457/

But birds did not read the darwinian article and knew nothing of "chemical defence" of ladybirds. Birds still eat ladybirds like other beetles. They are not even scared by "reflex bleeding".

Date: 2007/09/15 00:20:31, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 14 2007,23:26)
No, seriously, Marty, no one here gives a fuck about your ladybugs. Quit changing the subject, you sillyass coward.

I will repeat:

Do you believe that common descent between apes and humans is true?

C'mon, Marty, you can do it! Davison won't punish you!

PS: It would also be nice to get your reply to this message.

First you. No one cares of your f... apes you stupidos singleton.

1) Are ladybirds aposematic?

2) What was the coloration of the ladybirds ancestor? Was it dull, cryptic or bright, aposematic?


Mentioning  John Davison - he made a perfect fool of you at Brainstorm:

http://www.iscid.org/ubb....70;p=62

Date: 2007/09/15 09:23:11, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 15 2007,02:37)
Martin

Why not repost on the appropriate thread?

Others

Before engaging this topic with Martin, you may wish to review this EvC thread and judge whether it is worth the effort.

Alan, it is ridiculous. I quoted Heikertinger who disputed with E. Wasmann many years ago about supposedly mimicry coloration. The first was anti-selectionist, the second one selectionist. They were brilliant scientists and their dispute was followed by many European scientists. I quoted some Heikertinger opinions about the issue.

No one here have those knowledges of the mentioned men (including me).  It is utterly ridiculous to suppose that "knowledgeable evolutionists" here are able to follow the discussion or make judgment "it is worth the effort". You are funny, really.

You are also unable discuss anything about mimicry and  you only instruct me to go to another thread. Which thread?
With this stupid advice you make your useless and annoying entries at Brainstorm.

Date: 2007/09/15 14:25:45, Link
Author: VMartin
Alan Fox:

Quote

So far, all we have had are variations on the theme of "This (insert appropriate example of mushrooms, slugs, ladybirds etc) is a problem for Darwinism.


It's not my fault that above mentioned facts are problem for darwinism. Many scientists considered it same way. I quoted them.

But I can adress it elsewhere, you suggested me a thread about mimicry. Is there a thread on mimicry here at AtBC?

As to common ancestor of man and ape: I am surprised that people here are unable to address evolution of coloration of ladybirds, mushrooms etc... but they are obviously able to address such complicated problems as evolution of human speech, etc...

Why do you want to discuss the most compliacted phenomenon of the evolution (the evolution of man), when you cannot address simple evolutionary problems like coloration of insects or fungi? Unbelievable.

Date: 2007/09/20 11:59:56, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Sep. 17 2007,06:31)
     
Quote
Why do you want to discuss the most compliacted phenomenon of the evolution (the evolution of man), when you cannot address simple evolutionary problems like coloration of insects or fungi? Unbelievable.

What is your evidence that the evolution of man is "the most complicated phenomenon of the evolution"?  In what units do you measure the complicatedness of evolutionary phenomena?

And what is your theory, anyway?  Am I oversimplifying your/JAD's piddlings when I summarize them as "god made species evolve, then he/she/it died"?

I wouldn't be surprised if the evolution of man would be very simple in your eyes. Natural selection is so powerful (you have only to believe in it, that's all.)

Anyway if you are unable coherently discuss the coloration of animals you are probably an expert on coloration of human races. It is much more easier for you I suppose.

So:

What was the coloration of a common ancestor of human races?

What is the advantage and meaning of yellow, reddish and black skin? Should we apply darwinian mantras and consider black skin to be "cryptic"? And people with reddish or yellow skin to "aposematics"? Hehe.

But I am pretty sure you have no answer to evolution of coloration of skin of human races. All of you here are lost to explain coloration of insects...  no wonder you are also lost as to coloration of human races.

Date: 2007/09/20 13:20:54, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

Given all of this, I will echo Glen: If you won't adopt the scientific attitude toward these questions but are instead going to stick to your pre-formed conclusion and labor to keep it "evidence proof," then I don't think there will be much of a meaningful exchange here.


What is the "scientific attitude" in your comprehension?  Taking darwinian pressupositions to the evolution of horses or what?  Do you mean that "natural selection" had been involved in the phenomenon? Because all the concept of random mutation and natural selection is nothing more as an unproved hypothesis, not the "scientific attitude" as you would like us to believe. Daniel Smith quoted prominent scientists of past like Berg and Schidewolf. Daniel might has been inspired by John Davison's Manifesto, which is an extraordinary anti-darwinian source of information.

I supported the view held by John and Daniel using the research of entomologist Franz Heikertinger who waged  war against proponents of "natural selection" more than 40 years. F. Heikertinger (himself an evolutionist)  refuted "natural selection" as the source of mimicry giving vast number of facts, observations and by darwinists neglected phenomenons.

Those great men were prominent scientists and you have no right to call anyone using their arguments that they use "pre-formed arguments" and not "scientific attitudes".

Date: 2007/09/20 13:59:07, Link
Author: VMartin
Excellent! Do you have any ideas about coloration of ladybirds too? For instance that black ones live in high latitudes to warm themselves? And red ones live in low latitudes near shores to protect themselves in sun-sets?

Date: 2007/09/21 11:31:36, Link
Author: VMartin
This is the picture of the Issoria lathonia, where  the reverse side of the butterfly wings can be observed:



The color patterns of front wings and hind wings make perfect harmony. But only in these resting position of wings, when the front wings are behind hind wings. We see only small parts of reverse side of front wings. The hided, covered part of them have almost the same coloration as front parts of butterfly wings coloration.



Do you see the white spots on the upper margin at the front wings? There are many black spots on wings which look like copy of spots on the upper part of wings.

So the harmony arise only in special position of wings. It seems like an artist painted the pattern in this exactly position. The phenomenon - neglected nowadays - is called after entomologist Oudemanse (or die Totalzeichnung, the term coined by Suffert) .

We often see animal coloration making the whole nice picture. This picture "is painted" over many parts of animal body which developes independently during ontogenesis.

Heikertinger considered "natural selection" as totally wrong explanatin of the phenomenon conceived in heads of "Hypothetiker" as he called proponents of natural selection.

I couldn't find a picture  of Papilio dolicaon where he made his issue about the Oudemanse effect. There are semi-circles on its front and hind wings that fit into each other and create circles in the resting position of wings. It is hardly imaginable (if you are not a darwinist of course) that predators left only those individuals where circles were perfect and eliminated all those individuals, which didn't create perfect circles. It would mean that predators have also some aesthetical feeling.

Date: 2007/09/24 12:33:13, Link
Author: VMartin
You have never heard about Oudemanse and after him called phenomenon of the total coloration of animals ("Totalzeichnung"). That's why Alan pursued me - instead of making his own research - to ISCID with his questions.  

Because you didn't find any information using google the phenomenon apparently does not exist for you.  

But you should learn more about how to use google:

Quote

The independence of pattern formation mechanisms means that the coordination of united patterns of fore- and hindwings is accidental. This is remarkable, because from Oudemans’s principle [10] , patterns appearing on the exposed surface of fore- and hindwing at the natural resting position are often integrated to form a composite and united adaptive pattern with their surrounding environment.



http://www.springerlink.com/content/nu62h0580t697hn6/


Quote

VMartin can't understand how a particular butterfly evolved to look the way it does, therefore goddidit.


But we are pretty sure naturalselectiondidnotdoit.

Date: 2007/09/24 13:10:43, Link
Author: VMartin
Uf, it seems you are having hard time here. Your arguments refuting Adam Smith's opinions are very weak I would say.

1) If you think that Schindewolf was wrong, do you think the same about Gould and Eldredge? You know their conception of Punctuated Equilibria. Do you really think that Schindewolf was as wrong as was Gould?

Gould 1987:

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils ….



2) If Dawkins thinks that dogs somehow support evolution in darwinian way, he should show us some speciation. Dogs are only dogs whatever you do with them. You only work with pre-existing variability which are showed up by breeding.

Btw. the great Dawkins seeing the picture from 19 century painted by 17 years old yougster came to this ridiculous conclusion:

   
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?


Bernard has never carried a cask of brandy. It is only in Dawkins imagination that he "is strong enough" to carry it. Maybe he would be surprised if he checked it in reality.

Another Dawkins fantasy - I can discuss it in detail at another thread if you like - is his explanation of origin of mimicry. He often offers only his imagination instead of facts .

Date: 2007/09/24 15:14:24, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 24 2007,15:06)
Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 24 2007,13:10)
2) If Dawkins thinks that dogs somehow support evolution in darwinian way, he should show us some speciation. Dogs are only dogs whatever you do with them. You only work with pre-existing variability which are showed up by breeding.

Martin,
You apparently have access to a broad array of scientific journals. You haven't missed the hundreds of speciation cases that have been studied, then published during the last years, have you?

I have somehow missed any speciation from dogs. Or which ones do you have on mind?

Date: 2007/09/25 00:03:14, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

Daniel admits abject ignorance of contemporary evolutionary science, yet nevertheless feels qualified to reject a priori the hard won findings of a community of thousands of scientists laboring over decades in an attempt to better understand the history of life on earth. Moreover, he prefers a priori a handful of crackpots and outliers who "work" outside the scientific community and whose ideas have been ridiculed, shunned, and forgotten by that community. In short, although he claims interest in the work of scientists who themselves operate "free of preconceptions," he freely admits being motivated by the biased assumptions and foregone conclusions of science denial. A position that emerged from his admitted ignorance.


These words remind me how Giordano Bruno was wellcommed in Oxford. Pundits there ridiculed him considering themselves to be brilliant scientists. Giordano Bruno was only a layman who knew nothing about movement of planets in their eyes.

I can see the same is now happening to ideas of Schindewolf, Berg and Davison. Their supporters are ridiculed as well. (But you are too ignorant to adress also entomologist Punnett or Heikertinger, who called your alike "Hypothetiker" and who showed that natural selection play no role in evolution of insect forms and coloration).
   

But do not be so sure in your convictions. It doesn't mean if you dismiss their ideas that you are right.

You are operating with very funny arguments:
we are so many, so we are right.

Date: 2007/09/25 15:03:50, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

It could be that you just prefer the German mystical archetype position, but this was refuted in the 20s 30s and 40s (although VMartin may not have access to those journals in the caves he lives in).  Phenotypes may very quickly surpass the range exhibited by parentals, and there is a ton of evidence to show this.


It was refuted only in darwinian heads of course. The tactic is the same - first darwinists pretend that unpleasant facts do not exists. After 50 years they declare their victory over "outdated" facts.
 

This has happend many times. The great research done
by Theodor Eimer (the main proponent of here discussed orthogenesis) and his opus magnum has never been translated into English. Of course observed rules governing the change of color patterns on skin of lizards or evolution of color patterns on butterfly wings has nothing to do with "natural selection".

The same for Franz Heikertinger whose work on mimicry has never been translated into English. His own research and comparisions refuted the darwinian pressupositions about aposematism very clearly.

The research of McAtee from US Department of agriculture where many thousands of birds stomachs was put under scrutiny and shows that all preconceptions of "aposematism" and "mimicry" are often only armchairs theories of "selectionists" that has nothing to do with facts. The research made Poulton very unhappy - but behold, it is forgotten and selectionists continue to spread nowadays their theories of aposematism of ladybirds, wasps etc.. as the research never exist.

I am afraid that in caves live those who do not recognize antiselectionists scientific materials that is older than 1 year.

Date: 2007/09/25 23:58:46, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 25 2007,15:43)
steviepinhead

I kind of wonder about caddisflies (trichoptera)  Hydroptilids are 3-7 mm.  the limnephilid Hydatophylax argus is > 250 mm.

surely that is proof of design.

Trichoptera caddisfly? What a perfect mimicry! Or are they poisonous? Surely they were not designed.



And all of these guys survived "natural selection" because they are perfectly "adapted". Predators have no chance to eradicate them as species.

Date: 2007/09/26 12:21:21, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 26 2007,06:42)
     
Quote

Fossils are unnecessary? Wow. You do realize that fossils are empirical, observable evidence don't you?


<cop drama>

Lt. DS: The lab boys failed to retrieve any fingerprints in this case. We'll have to file it as unsolved.

Lt. JAM: Why would we do that? The lab boys did find the perp's hair at the scene. We got an excellent DNA match to a guy with a motive and no alibi. The fingerprints are unnecessary.

Lt. DS: Fingerprints are unnecessary? Wow. You do realize that fingerprints are empirical, observable evidence don't you?

[Rest of people in room look at Lt. DS, jaws dropping  in amazement.]

</cop drama>



The another drama about fossils proving evolution of man:

Somewhere in England. Medieval castle. JAM is making lecture to an audience standing in front of a big human skull.


JAM: And here we see the skull of the nobleman George Brave.

The audience adjourns to the next room. There is a small skull.  

JAM: And here we see the skull of the nobleman George Brave.

DS: But we have seen it in the previous room!

JAM: Yes, but this the skull when George Brave was a child.

Date: 2007/09/26 13:49:24, Link
Author: VMartin
I hit on the neodarwinian article "The evolution of imperfect mimicry in hoverflies". That's a good reading! There is  much more confusion than there was 50 years before. But no wonder,  selectionists insist on aposematism whatever the facts are.


In 2002 are selectionists as lost as they were in 1954. It is so ridiculous that I must share some ideas from the above mentioned "up-to-date" material.  

First selectionists have to admit sting play no role in aposematism:

       
Quote

The evidence that birds are also deterred by the sting is very weak and unconvincing. Mostler (1935) recorded no stings suffered by experienced adult birds, and of 70 prolonged contacts between bumblebees and young naive birds trying to eat them, there were only three stings.


Uf! And what nowadays, those research must be outdated!

       
Quote

Likewise Evans & Waldbauer (1982) thought that the sting of Bombus pennsylvanicus americanorum was not the main protection against birds. Only two of their birds were stung; the others avoided eating bumblebees only after having eaten the “middle segments of the abdomen”, presumably with the venom sac. In this case unpalatability may be due to distasteful venom.


Uf.

       
Quote

but birds appear to be rarely if ever stung (Mostler, 1935; Liepelt, 1963), and probably the sting is not a significant deterrent (Liepelt, 1963).


So darwinists are obviously lost, because stings are inneficient (they are only "secondary source of noxiousness" in their newspeak). But darwinian fantasy is still efficient:


       
Quote

Mostler considered the unpalatability of the abdomen to be the major source of noxiousness for wasps, and the sting was only secondary: subsequently Liepelt (1963) found that venom-free abdominal tissue evoked none of the typical unpalatability reactions. It is the terrible taste that the venom imparts to the abdomen that is the main deterrent for birds.


You would think: no problem. If no sting, that venom is the reason of unpalatability. But behold, not even this:

       
Quote

The basis of the ‘noxiousness’ of a model need not be unpalatability or stings, despite the fact that most discussions about mimicry have focused upon these elements.


Unbelievable! Not stings? Not even unpalatability? What then? Hold your breath now! :

       
Quote

In Brower & Brower’s (1965) experiments with toads feeding on honeybees and their Palpada mimics, for example, producing a buzz with the wings caused a 38% drop in predation, whereas the use of the sting caused only a 21% decrease in the mortality of the mimic. Thus sound seems to be a very important component of the signal that toads associate with noxiousness


Bingo! It is a buzz! Something that scientists of past weren't aware of and therefore their research is nowadays outdated!

(But frankly speaking -  would you believe such nonsense except you are a darwinist?)

Date: 2007/09/27 11:37:36, Link
Author: VMartin
Excellent Daniel! Folks here have no coherent answers anymore.   

Now - accepting the fact that there are gaps in fossil records, they are trying to turn discussion into DNA.

This is nothing more as an evasion. They wanted by studying macromelecules prove their unfouned hypothesis about natural selection and random mutation as efficient evolutionary forces. They think they know  secrets, what is behind the scene. But they remind more those technicians who studying trasmission of waves or describing details about TV screen think they know more about a broadcasted play. They think they    underestand better a  Shakespeare play, because they know in which frequency it is trasmitted or what is the sequence of bites representing it on CD.    

It was Adolf Portman who in his inauguration speech "Von der Idee des humanen" as rector of Basel University showed that such study is only part of biological work and such study itself is unable to explain evolution.

But I am afraid that his interesting works - especially Biologie und Geist and Neue wege der Biologie -  are also outdated and don't have place in the darwinian Golden library. Or better as folks here call it - it is not "primary literature".

Date: 2007/09/27 12:31:02, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 26 2007,17:08)
cause it is easier to play jester that way.

i don't think he will find his panselectionist boogey man here, but it is fun to yank his chain.

Erasmus, do you agree that natural selection play no role in aposematism and mimicry? That's great!

Date: 2007/09/27 13:17:52, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (guthrie @ Sep. 27 2007,12:43)
Troll.

Do you have any opinion on aposematism or mimicry? Are they caused by natural selection on your view?

Do you think that wasps are protected by their "warning coloration"?

Or do you just present your superioir manner having no idea about the problem?

Date: 2007/09/27 15:14:06, Link
Author: VMartin
Erasmus, what the hell are you talking about? I haven't claimed that behind mimicry there are "orthogenetic channels".


Why don't you answer a simple question and why do you put your off-topic questions instead like poor Arden?

Are so you afraid accepting "natural selection" as the source of mimicry? I have supposed that you are a selectionist...

But to be clear: "warning coloration" of wasps and ladybugs do not exists actually. It exists only as armchair darwinian preconception in heads and in "primary literature" of darwinists. They need  to explain bright coloration of insects. So they see aposematism and mimicry everywhere. They consider their fantasies about coloration to be real. They suppose "warning coloration" to be outcome of "natural selection" that gives their bearer "survival advantage".

Of course such fantasies about ladybugs, wasps, bees, bumple-bees etc. contradicts reality. But oddly enough such fantasies still penetrate into peer-reviewed journals, publications etc...

Date: 2007/09/27 23:59:49, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

The question 'how does mimicry become fixed in populations' is clearly answered by selection.  While I could be convinced otherwise and sometimes have, I find it hard to believe you could be so thick as to deny this.


You should have had some basic idea about mimicry to discuss it before calling me names. So let us start a small lecture:

To consider something to be mimicry:

1) there is a resemblance to other species.
2) This resemblance give some advantage to species.
3) This resemblance aroused due Natural selection.

Because there is no advatage having warning coloration for wasps and ladybirds all of their "mimics" are not protected. Consequently natural selection couldn't caused their resemblance.

Date: 2007/09/28 14:17:54, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

since you seem to be driven by mystical considerations of phenotypes, we can safely dispense with 2 and 3 here.  i'm interested in why things look like other things when they are not those things, and i'm calling that mimicry.


Do not make fool of yourself. Do you consider resemblance of marsupial and placental wolf as mimicry? Which one is a model and which one is a mimic?

Do you consider butterflies living in Asia and those with similar wing color patterns living in Africa for mimicry?    

Think before you write something. Point 2 and 3 are as important as point 1 is.


 
Quote

otherwise you are playing stupid semantical games where something is impossible by definition.  i'm not interested in that type of trolling so don't bother


You have to accept definition of mimicry from scientists who devoted to the problem. Your own conception of mimicry is childish.

 
Quote

some beetles and spiders mimic ants (read:  look just damn like them and live in ant nests).  how did this happen, according to VMartin.


They didn't look just damn like them. They look just "damn" only in darwinian heads. It is utterly ridiculous to suppose that ants could be mislead by "mimics" from spider species.

Seeing Sphecotypus niger, Salticus contractus or Formicina mutinensis from above remind us on an ant only if no ant is present for comparision. Looking closely to "mimic" even you would be sure it is spider, no ant.

Ants use their antennae, not vision and above view as darwinists.

Date: 2007/10/01 07:27:10, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 28 2007,15:55)
 
Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 27 2007,23:59)
Because there is no advatage having warning coloration for wasps and ladybirds all of their "mimics" are not protected. Consequently natural selection couldn't caused their resemblance.

This study shows the contrary.      
Quote
Title: Why are wasps so intimidating: field experiments on hunting dragonflies (Odonata : Aeshna grandis)
Author(s): Kauppinen J, Mappes J
Source: ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR 66: 505-511 Part 3, SEP 2003
     
Abstract: The mechanisms of aposematism (unprofitability of prey combined with a conspicuous signal) have mainly been studied with reference to vertebrate predators, especially birds. We investigated whether dragonflies, Aeshna grandis, avoid attacking wasps, Vespula norwegica, which are an unprofitable group of prey for most predators. As a control we used flies that were painted either black or with yellow and black stripes. The dragonflies showed greater aversion to wasps than to flies. Black-and-yellow-striped flies were avoided more than black ones, suggesting that aposematic coloration on a harmless fly provides a selective advantage against invertebrate predators. There was no significant difference in reactions to black-painted and black-and-yellow wasps, indicating that, in addition to coloration, some other feature in wasps might deter predators. In further experiments we offered dragonflies artificial prey items in which the candidate warning signals (coloration, odour and shape) were tested separately while other confounding factors were kept constant. The dragonflies avoided more black-and-yellow prey items than solid black or solid yellow ones. However, we found no influence of wasp odour on dragonfly hunting. Dragonflies were slightly, but not significantly, more reluctant to attack wasp-shaped prey items than fly-shaped ones. Our results suggest that the typical black-and-yellow stripes of wasps, possibly combined with their unique shape, make dragonflies avoid wasps. Since black-and-yellow stripes alone significantly decreased attack rate, we conclude that even profitable prey species (i.e. Batesian mimics) are able to exploit the dragonflies' avoidance of wasps. © 2003 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour.

What's your take on that, Martin?


Hehe. Alan Fox himself seems to be enthusiastic about the results of the "experiment". Darwinists are making these childish experiments more than 150 years to prove their nonsense about their concept of "mimicry". Heikertinger was right when he made the same experiments himself and prove exactly the opposite from them.

Here you have another one, which proves exact the opposite!

Quote

However, dragonflies showed no differences between attacks on prey with wasp-like colours and patterns and those on the same-sized prey that were nonmimetic. Moreover, dragonflies avoided attacking both mock-painted and black-painted wasps entirely. Overall, we found no evidence to support the hypothesis that wasp-like warning signals protect small insect prey from attack by dragonflies, although size seems to be an important cue in dragonfly prey choice.


The most important thing is hidden in the last sentence.
The prey are almost always picked up by size. It is same in all Nature. "Warning coloration" plays no nole. It plays role only in darwinian text-books.


http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17244503

Date: 2007/10/01 07:32:38, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (improvius @ Sep. 28 2007,16:18)
Since predator/prey evolution can be viewed as something of a long-term escalation race, it's entirely possible that the wasp striping provided a much stronger survival advantage in the past.  But since the predators are also evolving, they may be more discerning now.  It may be that they have evolved to react more to the sound or shape than to the color, whereas the past predators may have reacted more to the coloration.

May, may, may... This is the last darwinian resort. Nobody can check it. Because "warning coloration" play no role and give no protection - it could be checked - it is presumed that there was once a time... Of course to hold such fantasies for science you have to be convinced about omnipotence of hypothesis of "natural selection".

Date: 2007/10/01 07:58:03, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 28 2007,15:40)
It's not just to other ants.  An ant expert in my lab has been fooled for over an hour by ant mimic beetles, trying to figure just what subfamily the thing is in only to realize sheepishly the source of the problem.

     
Quote
It is utterly ridiculous to suppose that ants could be mislead by "mimics" from spider species.


But that is what happens, stupid troll.  Most ants attack everything in the nest that is not a member of their colony.  The beetle slips through because THEY THINK HE IS AN ANT.

I watched monomorium ants from two colonies fighting it out on the sidewalk for ten minutes this morning.  Pretty cool.  

VMartin trolleth:      
Quote
Do not make fool of yourself. Do you consider resemblance of marsupial and placental wolf as mimicry? Which one is a model and which one is a mimic?

Do you consider butterflies living in Asia and those with similar wing color patterns living in Africa for mimicry?    

Think before you write something. Point 2 and 3 are as important as point 1 is.


These things don't have anything to do with your points 2 and 3.  

Now, answer.  Where the hell do phenotypes come from if they are not heritable?  

I swear to god this is alan sokal getting kicks.

Any problems with your nerves? Alan Sokal? Am I really "stupid troll"? Look what nonsense you have written:

   
Quote

But that is what happens, stupid troll.  Most ants attack everything in the nest that is not a member of their colony.  The beetle slips through because THEY THINK HE IS AN ANT.


They even "THINK"? Really? Did't you make some naive antropomorphism to support your ridiculous concept of mimicry and it's protective value?

Your stupidity and ignorance are amazing.  There are more than 2.000 guests species which lives in ant's nests. According your darwinian flawed logic all of them should be mimics.   So have a look at the beetle Atemeles first. Ants are even feeding them... Or lomechusa strumosa or many others...  Do you see any resemblance, any mimicry?

Because you have no basic idea about mimicry and so-called "zoomimese" and because you do not care about facts you do not know that in nests is dark and that ants use their antennae to check each other. You would  continue to spread nonsense about ant mimics which visionaly look like ants. It should give them protection by your flawed logic - but no one know protection against what.

Date: 2007/10/01 12:34:00, Link
Author: VMartin
Bug eating a honeybee


Robber fly eating a wasp

Wasp attacked by Robber fly



Dragonfly eating wasp for Jeannot:



Northern shrike eating a wasp:



Cantharidae eating a wasp:




I suppse these pictures weren't done by scientists. Otherwise they would know that modern armchair research proved that wasps' "warning coloration" deter predators...

But who knows, there was once a time wasps have no predators due to their "waring stripes" hehe...

Date: 2007/10/01 12:50:21, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (BWE @ Oct. 01 2007,12:01)
I'm sorry. I can't take it any more. VMartin, this isn't a challenge to evolution by natural selection.

This is a micro example. Since evolution by natural selection is the force driving speciation, we can know for certain that these things evolved the way they did through natural selection. How is an academic matter with potentially no useful information flowing from the answer. Of course there could be something useful but maybe not. Anyway, raising your objection at all is a weird straw-grasping gesture that even makes the moonies at the airport avoid you.

Yeesh.

Uf. Another "expert". Micro example, would you believe to such an "argument"?

BWE, do you know something about mimicry or not? Then go away and have a talk at "bathroom wall" with poor Arden. You have written stupid gibberish yet like him. You are not at school to deceive small children how "natural selection" created "warning coloration" you know. But I am aftraid even a small child wouldn't be persuaded by your "airport natural selection" gibberish.

Date: 2007/10/01 13:13:49, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 01 2007,12:58)
Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 01 2007,12:34)
But who knows, there was once a time wasps have no predators due to their "waring stripes" hehe...

Martin, what about the paper I linked to? I clearly shows that a painted stripped pattern lowers the risk of death by predation. Why is that?
So far, you failed to comment on its results.

PS: your photos are totally irrelevant.

Oh, really? Because the research I gave you the link  contardicts to such fantasies clearly:


Quote

Overall, we found no evidence to support the hypothesis that wasp-like warning signals protect small insect prey from attack by dragonflies, although size seems to be an important cue in dragonfly prey choice.


Another point is why do you stick at dragonflies. Do you mean  they play any significant role in selecting of color patterns of wasps or what? Because Poulton was of another meaning. The protection of wasps against birds (quoting Poulton:) "would be largely compensated by a relatively increased exposure to predaceous Invertebrata".

Date: 2007/10/01 14:39:27, Link
Author: VMartin
BWE having no idea about insect mimicry is trying to discuss it using off topic example. But even his example is spreading this nonsense:

   
Quote

Although mimicry is a common survival strategy in nature, certain flies assume the black and yellow stripes of bees as a warning to potential predators...


I don't know at what darwinian party the article was written, but on my opinion black and yellow stripes are more visible on wasps than on bees. Bees even look  more inconspicuous, even cryptic.  But because authors do not discern between wasps and bees no wonder they see "multiple" mimicry now everywhere.

   
Quote

But V, don't stop. You've no idea how much fun you are at parties.


I don't doubt about it. If at those  parties are  darwinian adolescents and experts on mimicry like you and others here...

Date: 2007/10/01 15:26:08, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 01 2007,15:03)
Martin, you're getting more boring and arrogant than ever. ???
There are hundreds of studies testing and confirming aposematism in many animals. Do I need past all their abstracts here?
Your fancy pictures of wasps being eaten by predators (big news), and this old study whose negative result fail to demonstrate aposematism doesn't prove your point, whatever that is.

Oh, there are "hundreds of studies"? You have presented only one of them yet - which was mildly speaking utterly childish. Feel free to put here second one of them. As you can see I have no problem tu put here "studies" or experiments or facts that refute your "studies" very clearly. There is unbelievable mess in those studies.  
We can go through each one of those "hundreds of studies" one by one.


All this mess is caused by the fact that there is no such thing as "warning coloration" of wasps, bees, ladybirds, butterfiles. This is the reason why such studies contradicts each other. But selectionists insist on "warning coloration", or aposematism to explain colourful patterns of many insect species.

Now you are using the argument - we are so many, we have so many studies, we must be right!
But you are not.
Let's start with another "study" of insect "warning coloration". Choice the one you like best.

Date: 2007/10/01 23:47:17, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 01 2007,17:44)
Those little works lead me to things like:

C. Barnett, M Bateson, and C Rowe. State-dependent decision making: educated predators strategically trade off the costs and benefits of consuming aposematic prey
Behav. Ecol., July 1, 2007; 18(4): 645 - 651. http://beheco.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/18/4/645

and:

M. V. Trotter and H. G. Spencer. Frequency-Dependent Selection and the Maintenance of Genetic Variation: Exploring the Parameter Space of the Multiallelic Pairwise Interaction Model. Genetics, July 1, 2007; 176(3): 1729 - 1740.

commentary on early models of "Speedian" or "quasi-Batesian" mimicry:

Joron, M. ; Mallet, JLB.(1998) Diversity in mimicry: paradox or paradigm? Trends in Ecology & Evolution. Vol. 13, no. 11, 461 p. Nov 1998. http://zeldia.cap.ed.ac.uk/joron/joron98.pdf

A proposed mathematical model and a good overview of various theoretical models of aposematism:

Evol Puurtinen M,Kaitala V (2006) CONDITIONS FOR THE SPREAD OF CONSPICUOUS WARNING SIGNALS: A NUMERICAL MODEL WITH NOVEL INSIGHTS. Evolution 60(11): 2246 http://users.jyu.fi/~hemipu/2227_Puurtinen.pdf

As I have already told to Jeannot - please pick up only one of those materials and put it here for discussion.  It doesn't mean that giving links to ten materials in two  consecutive posts  you prove story of  aposematism. You see I have also other interests as study all selectionists links you put here.

The last link is of no avail - armchair mathematical models are proving nothing. It is ridiculous to make armchair computation and charts how are wasps protected where there are bird predators specialised on wasps.

In the other link you have given is written these sentence:

   
Quote

This result challenges classic theoretical models of the evolution of aposematism based purely on predator learning and forgetting rates and demonstrates the need to consider energy-toxin trade-offs in foraging decisions on defended prey.


In other words it told us what we know more than 70 years. This "trade-off" is nothing more and nothing less than the fact if the foraging bird is hungry or not.  
If it is hungry it will eat aposematics regardless of their poison.

The most important are experiments outdoors and from those are the most important studies of the content of stomachs of real birds.

These experiments was done by Biological Survey Division of United States Department of Agriculture. They wanted to estimate harmfulness of birds. These results are neglected by selectionists, because they show something selectionists do not like - wasp, bees are readily eaten by birds.

McAtee made statistics from these results and argue with Poulton about efecteveness of "warning coloration" of wasps, etc...

The same study was done in Hungary 1905-1910 by Csiki, who studied contents of stomachs of almost 2.800 birds. The result corresponds with those done in USA. Heikertinger quoted results in his book refuting selectionists explanation of mimicry.

Such studies are not done anymore, but instead we are facing the great number of indoor experiments and "mathematical models" proving aposematism.

 
Quote

Professor Beal on the Food of our More Important Flycatchers...
Of this hymenoptera-- bees, wasps, etc. constitute more than a
third and as these insects are for the most part beneficial, this element must be weighed against the destruction of noxious species, which Prof. Beal considers more than balances it....


Quote

Food.--The 186 stomachs of the tufted titmouse examined by Professor Beal (Beal, McAtee, and Kalmbach, 1916) were irregularly distributed throughout the year and were considered by him too few "to afford more than an approximation of the bird's economic worth." ...
The food consisted of 66.57 percent animal matter and 33.43 percent vegetable. He says that the food "includes one item, caterpillars, which form more than half the animal food, and two items, caterpillars and wasps, which are more than half of the whole food."



This is reality, not armchair mathematical models.

Date: 2007/10/02 14:06:04, Link
Author: VMartin
Erasmus
 
Quote

You fool, you believe that only humans think?


I have supposed that insects are driven by instincts. But if you are sure that insects and especially ants "think" I have nothing to say.
Anyway your opinion about a "thinking ant" is a brand new theory I dare say.

 
Quote

Do you think visual display is the only sort of mimicry?


But it was you who claimed the same in the next sentence:

 
Quote

I have seen spiders beetles and hemiptera that look just like ants and that live in ant colonies.


I have asked you it first btw. How are you sure that such a "visual" mimicry is perceived as a mimicry by ants' antennae in the dark of an anthill? They use touch, not look.

 
Quote

Speaking of anthropomorphic projection, what is dark to you is dark to all?  Someone should tell the burrowing salamanders.  


We are discussing ants' mimics now. Do you suggest that ants use vision in anthill and are decepted by their vision there?


But as far as I underestand your point of view you don't care about point 2 and 3. Any similarity is a mimicry for you. Even if we accept a fact that some spiders looks like ants to us (I am speaking about humans and our vision, not about ants and their way of perception)
the question remains: what was the driving force of such similarity?

Obviously you do agree that it was not natural selection -or am I wrong? Because you have written:

 
Quote

With a few exceptions most working biologists have realized that many things are invisible to selection and not every feature of the natural world has been forged in the fire of selection.


I fully agree. In the case of ants and their "mimics" (as well as wasps and their mimics and ladybirds and their mimics) natural selection play no role whatsever.

Because: to look like an ant, wasp or ladybird brings no "survival advantage".

 
Quote

What is your point anyway, other than making an ass out of yourself?


My point is as you wrote it  -  natural selection play no role in evolution of "warning coloration" - aposematism and NS play no role in mimicry. I think that you agree with me. It's fine even though you are such an ignorant in the interesting cases of coloration of insects.

Date: 2007/10/03 14:45:06, Link
Author: VMartin
Erasmus:
 
Quote

If by whatever reason, a mimicry arises that does confer selective advantage, then selection will fix that mimicry.


First I wrote that something to be consider mimicry it should fulfil all the following conditions:

1) there is a resemblance to other species.
2) This resemblance give some advantage to species.
3) This resemblance aroused via Natural selection.

You answered Sep 28:

   
Quote

we can safely dispense with 2 and 3 here.  i'm interested in why things look like other things when they are not those things, and i'm calling that mimicry.


But now you added "survival advantage" and "natural selection" to it. Probably you eventualy see that the above mentioned definition is a good definition of mimicry.

My point is that if in some given case under discussion:

1) there is no resemlance to other species
2) there is a resemblance but such resemblance give no "survival advantage"
3) there is a resemblance that give "survival advantage" bur this resemblance is not an outcome of natural selection,

then considering all these cases we are not facing mimicry.

   
Quote

You can play semantic games from the position of the german school all day long, but the mechanisms of heredity are against you when you claim that selection can't fix it in a population.


I am trying to define mimicry.  I defined it some times ago, but you disagreed, because for you every similarity represented "mimicry" at that time.

In the case of insects that resemble ants we are encountering cavernous shapes of insects. For such cavernous animals are characteristic:
- small or no eyes.
- often, but not always, striking extention of antennae and legs.            
- very often narrowing of the front part of the body
- swelling of the hind part of the body (bubble shape).

Neverthenless they can be tell apart from similarly looking ants because their shape is like of "stock" (of rifle) and ants shape is that of "dumbbell".

These cavernous shape we encounter very often outside anthills, in (micro)cavernous environment where no ants live.

If we encounter such shaped animal living amongst ants it doesn't mean that it "mimic" them.

Date: 2007/10/03 15:02:12, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 02 2007,17:11)
 
Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 01 2007,23:47)
As I have already told to Jeannot - please pick up only one of those materials and put it here for discussion.

Why are flies painted with striped color more avoided that flies painted in black?  

Scientists say: that's because they look like wasps, which happen to be less predated.

VMartin says: ...

Science 1
VMartin 0

Do you mean Dipteria? From these most wasps-like are Syrphidae, hoverflies.

But I am not sure you mean these. As for Syrphidae
the black segments with some yellow margin stripes are their common coloration.

There are about 6,000 species in 200 genera in this family of Syrphidae. Do you mean these 6.000 species are mimics of wasps? If not, which of them?

Date: 2007/10/05 11:16:32, Link
Author: VMartin
Erasmus.

We are here not at school where you can deceive children with ants' mimics and stories how natural selection caused their existence using your weird pictures.

First you should put name of the species of the beetle (you have sent also beetles, not spiders you know) next to the every picture you have sent. As you might noticed I have done it every time I sent a picture.

Second you should sent also a picture and species name of an ant you suppose the beetle is mimicking. Otherwise we can send photos ad nausea.
Your example is valid only until a real picture of an ant is present for comparision.

(I am afraid ants do not sit on a ladder observing their mimics from above as darwinists do. I would say more appropriate view would be a side view. Just a hint.)


You sent:    



and this is a real ant:




You sent


and this is a real ant



I doubt that real ants using their antennae could be mislead. I doubt that their touch would give them impression of the own species. In the second example your beetle is missing entirely the narrow connection between thorax and abdomen.

Date: 2007/10/05 11:29:43, Link
Author: VMartin
Jeannot,

the same for you. Be more precise as "flies painted with striped color". There are much more striking similarities between some species of Syrphidae and wasps than there are  between ants and their "mimics". But of course let me know which yellow-black striped hoverflies do you consider to be wasps mimics and which not. There are 6.000 species of Syrphidae.

Date: 2007/10/05 13:48:17, Link
Author: VMartin
Jeannot.

On my knowledge birds eat wasps readily. But even if we accept preliminary the unplatability of wasps (I doubt about it very) there was done a research (Dlussky 1984 - is it "outdated"? ) that shows that:

 
Quote

On the other hand, all the syrphids were considered to be palatable, and even the superb wasp mimic Temnostoma vespiforme was eaten by Spotted Flycatchers despite the fact that its model was rejected. Dlusski concluded that these experienced birds usually distinguished between models and mimics, even the good ones, and thus mimicry was ineffective here.


Temnostoma vespiforme :


------------
The evolution of imperfect mimicry in hoverflies by
Francis Gilbert
eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/archive/00000096/01/ImperfectMimicry.pdf

Date: 2007/10/05 15:10:41, Link
Author: VMartin
BWE
 
Quote

But, as far as I can tell, they were quibbling over details; there was no big point.


Details are important. You cannot conceive a theory when all details contradict it - unless you are a darwinist.

 
Quote

I mean seriously, there are mimics. For some godamm reason there are mimics.


I am afraid those "mimics" exists only in your head. Predators do not care about your "mimics". Discuss real facts, not armchair presupposition about "mimicry". I am ready to discuss "mimicry" of ants, ladybirds, wasps, butteflies. Use facts, not darwinian "theories". Go on.

Date: 2007/10/05 21:31:08, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 05 2007,17:03)
Whether a wasp is palatable or not might depend on the kind of bird trying to eat it. Just a thought.

Palatability or unpalatability of an insect should not be generalised by our human perception. It is very often pure antropomorphism.

Birds, or better insectivores in common have different criteria.

Field-based research that put under scrutiny contents of stomachs of many different bird species:

-Csiki Hungary 1905-1910  investigated contents of 2.800 birds.

- In Biological Survey Division of United States Department of Agriculture had been investigated according Heikertinger almost 80.000(!) contents of birds stomachs before 2WW.

Such researches are of course brutal, but represent reality much more better than any research done with birds in cages.

Both researches showed up that wasps are readily eaten by birds. McAtee from the mentioned department of Agriculture - who was a prominent ornitologist - came to the conclusion, that warning coloration of wasps are ineffective.  He disputed many years with famous selectionist Poulton about it.

But nowadays are results of these researches forgotten because they do not fit into selectionist agenda.

Date: 2007/10/06 01:01:20, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 05 2007,23:37)
 
Quote

 
Quote
(Henry J @ Oct. 05 2007,17:03)
Whether a wasp is palatable or not might depend on the kind of bird trying to eat it. Just a thought.


Palatability or unpalatability of an insect should not be generalised by our human perception. It is very often pure antropomorphism.


How the heck do you get "human perception" out of "depend on kind of bird"?

Henry

I have given you information about scientific research that solve the problem of the so called unpalatability of wasps.

But if you prefer only philosophizing that some birds eat wasps and some don't then feel free to continue in this best tradition of armchair darwininism.

Date: 2007/10/07 02:25:07, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 05 2007,15:19)
Still deaf, Marty? Surely Bratislava must have ear doctors, even tho their level of science education seems iffy.
...

Your way of discussion is very mean and stupid. You are a troll and provocateur.


----
"PERCENTAGE OF YOUNG PEOPLE AGED 22 WHO HAVE SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED
AT LEAST UPPER SECONDARY EDUCATION, 1997"


Slovakia, Sweden and Czech republic are at the top.

http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/educ/indic/rapinen.pdf

Date: 2007/10/09 13:49:56, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 07 2007,10:03)
Martin

go here for someone who has reviewed the cases of spiders that are ant mimics.  If you are at the public library computer you may be able to download it, but if you are sitting under the bushes in your neighbors backyard pirating bandwith from their wireless you may not get JSTOR.  

but simply put there is a shitpile of evidence for morphological and behavioral mimicry adaptations.  

and you still never said WHAT YOUR OPINION IS about how mimicry arises.  Dishonest asshole.

There are people who believe in extraterrestrials and there are people who believe there are ants' mimics.

You can send your funny pictures and your funny articles whenever you like - the same do believers in extraterrestrials. They have also their articles and their pictures.

What is interesting is the fact that another ignorant here adolescentdidnotknowanything mentioned in the thread about evolution of horse that there are amazing numbers of beetles' species. I don't know if the poor guy has ever realised this fact more deeply. It could have occured him that some of them could look like ants by pure chance. And this is the solution of the problem of ant's mimicry. There are so many forms of beetles that some of them looks like ants. It is no way "mimicry".

Many beetle species which look like ants live in caverns. But because there live no ants darwinists cannot claim that these beetles are ants' mimics. They simply ignore them.

On the other hand there live many thousands insect species inside anthills. Only very few of them look like ants.
Did "natural selection" forget to shape them or what? Obviously natural selection moulded only few of them. It is very weird, isn't it?

I am glad that selectionists realised the fact at last  after so many years Heikertinger adressed it. Heikertinger called proponents of ants and wasps mimicry only as "Hypothetiker".

In your article there is written that  "...since even myrmecophiles which lack morphological resemblance to ants may mimic chemical or textural characters of their hosts".

Of course one should have asked what was the reason of "morphological resemblance" when you can live in anthills without such "morphological resemblance" and thrive there well - as vast number of ants' guests prove.

Date: 2007/10/10 13:20:02, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (improvius @ Oct. 09 2007,14:52)
Hypothetically, Marty, what do you think would constitute evidence of mimicry?

First of all we should define mimicry. This is the definition I have already proposed:

To consider something to be mimicry:

1) there is a resemblance to other species.
2) This resemblance give some survival advantage to the species.
3) This resemblance aroused due Natural selection.

Some guys here are unable to comprehend this definition and their posts are full of gibberish. It is enough for them when some pets look like another pets and the guys here think they are observing "mimicry".

Of course in such naive notion also placental and marsupial wolfs represents mimicry, but experts
here haven't instructed us yet which is the model and which is the mimic, hehe.

On the other hand survival advantage for species that looks like wasps is still an unproved and very dubious idea and even if true it was sure not natural selection from predators that led to such resemblance.

The same for the so called mimics of ants. There live many thousands species in anthills and only few of them look like ants - and also these resemblances are very superficial.

There is no need to suppose that ants in anthills carried out selection for resemblance of some species but they did'n care for all of the forms and shapes of the species  that create majority of their guests.

Summa: there is no such thing as mimicry of ants or wasps, even if darwinists like to present it.

Of course presenting some nice pictures of "mimicry" in "scientifical" darwinian text-books may look convincingly. Untill you compare other forms and shapes of related species.

Date: 2007/10/10 23:52:50, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 10 2007,14:41)

martin when you have something interesting to say about mimicry i'll be listening.  until then i will remain convinced that you are either 1) an idiot, 2) deep cover troll or 3) both.


Your judgment of my person is as valid as your  idiotic opinion of beetles "mimicking" ants. Either you are a cretine or neodarwinian stupido. Or both.

Date: 2007/10/11 23:47:36, Link
Author: VMartin
Maybe darwinists think that lies and hypocrisy is something common and normal also in the nature. They think they can see such hypocrisy also in insect realm and they call it mimicry. You know all the messy stuff about wasps or ants and their so-called "mimics".
But such "mimicry" is nothing else as a convergent evolution or a pure coincidence of similarity of animals.  
"Mimicry" no way supports their fantasies. It reveals more darwinian way of thinking.

Date: 2007/10/12 11:05:31, Link
Author: VMartin
Anignorantfromdarwinianparty

             
Quote

Oh, thanks for explaining it. I was wondering. Some quite unlikely co-incidences don't you think? Oh, of course you don't think, sorry.


What coindidences are you babbling about? Stop scribbling nonsense and  answer these questions first:

1) Do you believe that all 6.000 species of Syrphidae (hoverflies) are mimicking wasps? If no, where do you see a division line between mimics and non-mimics?

2) Do you believe all 600 species of Sessidae (clearwing moths) are mimicking wasps? If no, where do you see a division line between mimics and non-mimics?
 
             
Quote

Only a true professional like yourself can have a fantasy with no supporing evidence. Who needs actual evidence to support their craziness? Certainly not VMartin!


I am not a professional - just like you. But it's not my fault that modern darwinists are not as clairvoyant systematics and systematic's experts as were their adversaries like Franz Heikertinger. Scientists of the past didn't just pick up two species and presented them as mimicry. They were aware that we should take into consideration all species from "model" group and all species from the "mimic" group and compare them. By comparing color patterns of whole  insect families we can often immediately dismiss many cases of mimicry as it is presented by darwinists. We are often facing convergent evolution or pure coincidence and not "mimicry".

Let say we have models having these color patterns in their group (family):

E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9 E10

and so-called mimic having these color patterns in it's group (family):

A3 B3 C3 D3 E3 F3 G3 H3 I3 J3

A darwinist picks up  E3 from both group and he shows it to children: "Look children, what a nice mimicry! There is natural selection behind it, science, you know.".

The poor darwinist is either an ignorant or a hypocrite. He is only comparing some similarities from transformation sequences.

Date: 2007/10/12 12:09:33, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (improvius @ Oct. 12 2007,11:15)
   
Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 12 2007,12:05)
The poor darwinist is either an ignorant or a hypocrite. He is only comparing some similarities from transformation sequences.

You're completely disregarding location (among other things).  Meditate on that for a while.

Am I? One of the prominent founding fathers of selectionist's explanation of "mimicry" Poulton was of different opinion. He considered Limenitis albomaculata which lives in West China and their models - males Hypolimnas misippus - which lives in southeast Asia to be model and mimic.

http://main2.amu.edu.pl/~skoracka/china/tn_49.html

http://www.inra.fr/papillon/papilion/nymphali/texteng/h_misipp.htm

And his explanation of the "mimicry"? Unspecified migratory birds!
Would you believe it?

Date: 2007/10/12 12:37:15, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 08 2007,21:59)
The ISCID was going to be an international organization for design scholars, with conferences, seminars, and a journal for ID papers.

It is now a wasteland. No conferences, seminars, or papers in the journal. Nothing left but a message board where an old nut named Davison babbles.

Why wouldn't you shut it down. It's a museum of failure.

Neverthenless it's you who is a nut.

Date: 2007/10/12 14:53:31, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 07 2007,10:03)
Martin

go here for someone who has reviewed the cases of spiders that are ant mimics.  If you are at the public library computer you may be able to download it, but if you are sitting under the bushes in your neighbors backyard pirating bandwith from their wireless you may not get JSTOR.  

but simply put there is a shitpile of evidence for morphological and behavioral mimicry adaptations.  

and you still never said WHAT YOUR OPINION IS about how mimicry arises.  Dishonest asshole.

Erasmus, are you sleeping or what? You have called me "an idiot" and "asshole", do you remember cretine?  I have read your article. Let's discuss it. It is not necessary to have access to JSTOR cretine, everybody could read it here:

http://www.fcla.edu/FlaEnt/fe80p165.pdf  

So according the article spiders are mimicking ants only when there are no predators present. It is very weird, isn't it?

     
Quote

Ants, when disturbed, tend to respond aggressively to the threat, whereas spiders tend to dodge the threat, hiding beneath a leaf or in a crevice, or dropping on a drag line. It has been noted that spider myrmecomorphs, which are also behavioral mimics, abandon their ant-like gait when disturbed (Emerton 1911, Marson 1947, Fowler 1984, Brignoli 1984). This sudden, unexpected change in the behavior of the spider would most likely facilitate its escape from an ant predator.


I would say if they didn't use an ant-like gait at all it would give them even more protection, he?

This sentence is also very interesting:

     
Quote

However, myrmecophiles may not mimic their hosts in any way and may simply be tolerated by their otherwise aggressive hosts because they are either neutral in odor or are below some critical size to be recognized by the hosts as intruders (Cushing 1995a).


So, there is no reason to mimic ants to be tolerated by ants in their colonies? Why the "mimicry"?

The fig.1 is also interesting. What species of ants are those spiders mimicking?

     
Quote

In many cases, the extent to which the mimics resemble a particular model is extraordinary (see Fig. 1).


Maybe. But what models has the author on her mind? You know, I would like to see them.

Date: 2007/10/12 15:26:55, Link
Author: VMartin
I am unable to post at ISCID for several days.  Only John has access there. I don't know what's going on.
I only hope  John will be able to continue. His critic of neodarwinian fancies about natural selection is unique. I I have great pleasure in reading his posts.

Date: 2007/10/13 00:55:23, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (improvius @ Oct. 12 2007,16:05)
 
Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 12 2007,15:53)
So according the article spiders are mimicking ants only when there are no predators present. It is very weird, isn't it?

         
Quote

Ants, when disturbed, tend to respond aggressively to the threat, whereas spiders tend to dodge the threat, hiding beneath a leaf or in a crevice, or dropping on a drag line. It has been noted that spider myrmecomorphs, which are also behavioral mimics, abandon their ant-like gait when disturbed (Emerton 1911, Marson 1947, Fowler 1984, Brignoli 1984). This sudden, unexpected change in the behavior of the spider would most likely facilitate its escape from an ant predator.


I would say if they didn't use an ant-like gait at all it would give them even more protection, he?

You are misunderstanding the article.  The spiders mimic ants when there are no ant predators present.  When a predator is present that specifically feeds on ants, the spiders change their signals to indicate that they are not ants.

I pointed this out days ago, but apparently you never bothered to read my post.

I have read your post. The point is this one: spiders are according the article mimicking ants because:

1) they want to eat ants (selectionists speciality: wolf in sheep's clothing among insects hehe)

2) they want deceive predators pretending to be ants.
In this case it is ridiculous to assume that spiders are mimicking ants only when their predators do not observe them.  

Anyway the mess by telling apart myrmecomorphs and myrmecophiles is great. But English division is more simple than German - Wassmann defined three groups.

I was also wrong that author didn't present models in figure 1. The models are listed in tables. Anyway she prudently used terms "putative models".

Some reason of mimcry is very curious - see the column
"Notes on the Natural History of the Mimics".
We can often read this explanation:"mimic running with model". Are they having some running competitions or what?

Date: 2007/10/15 00:07:53, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

I see only two hints that this ISN'T Marty: (1) I have a hard time seeing Marty having a daughter (heaven forfend), and (2) he never mentions Davison. Other than that, it sounds EXACTLY like him.


It's sounds like me, but it's not me. Something like similarity, mimicry, you know. Darwinian simpletons to deceive is so easy. Hu: natural selection, darwinism: it must be Martin! The same the last time I was banned here: an moron comparing time postings at ISCIS and here came to conclusion me to be John. Do you remember?



Btw. Im am glad that only darwinists are allowed by natural selection to gave children, especially daughters.

Date: 2007/10/15 15:14:13, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

The spiders mimic ants, which keeps most insectivore predators away.


This is only an unproved pressuposition. It is not as clear as it is presented, it is no way  "eternal truth". Do you have any links, any evidence? The same authors you quoted have written also about Myrmarachne another article:

"Out of the Frying Pan and into the Fire: a Novel Trade-Off for Batesian Mimics".

So you can see the problem is more complicated and I would say unresolved yet. There should have been very strong selective pressure driving some spiders towards ants and to look like them.

As to the article itself: some displaying Myrmarachne were eaten neverthenless. Some of them didn't display at all. One should ask - why some individuals didn't display? Individuals that don't display should have been
already eradicated by natural selection. Why they survived, having no reflex when dangerous Salticidae is stalking? Btw. as far as I can judge this experiment has researched something never observed outside, it only wants to prove a hypothesis. Quoting: "...but there are, besides several hundred records of ant-eating salticids eating ants, 14 records of ant-eating salticids eating ant-like salticids". I suppose no displaying Myrmarachne was observed in coutryside.  

The validity of these indoors experiments can be better showed in another reserach done by the same authors:

"Living with the enemy: jumping spiders that mimic weaver ants".

There they put together for 10 hours weaver ants with Myramachne assimilis and different individuals representing Myrmecophagic, Myrmecomorphic, Myrmecophilic and ordinary species . Oddly enough when 40 ants were present  "few salticids survived when confined with groups of 40 ants, regardless of category".

The problem is that all those species in countryside survive very well, even in anthills. So I do not see a point of these researches, except to prove "mimicry"  
in artificial conditions. Results of these experiments sometimes contradicts reality outdoors - but proved "mimicry" as conceived in armchairs of Universities.
All tested species couldn't have acquired any host-specific cuticular hydrocarbons, because individuals used never encountered ants before being tested. The scientists researched if "M. assimilis might have evolved adaptations that make it especially proficient at surviving in the presence of it model even in the absence of opportunity to acquire nest-mates cues."



----------
Another problem is probably division on Myrmecophagic, Myrmecomorphic and Myrmecophilic species. The pre-war German school used different categorization of ant "mimics". We should be aware that also myrmecomorphic probably have to be myrmecophilic (and that's why the whole article the poor Erasmus has given link to should be discussed more deeply) because - according the same authors - "Batesian mimics of ants may be forced to "walk a tightrope", living with the "enemy". They need to be close to the model for safety from other predators but at the same time need to avoid becoming the model prey".

--------

And last but not at least : Heikertinger sometimes repeated such experiments and obtained totally different results. See EvC where admin asked me to traslate it from German. He had made the same experiments with ladybirds and their "victims" as selectionists made. But  I don't claim that the mentioned experiments with ants and spiders are are wrong. Just for a record.

Anyway there are pletny of birds' species that eat ants and it is not sure that being ant's "mimic" is some advantage even though darwinists claim: of cource, it is.

Date: 2007/10/16 13:24:27, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (improvius @ Oct. 15 2007,16:54)
   
Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 15 2007,16:14)
   
Quote
The spiders mimic ants, which keeps most insectivore predators away.


This is only an unproved pressuposition. It is not as clear as it is presented, it is no way  "eternal truth". Do you have any links, any evidence?


You mean besides the obvious fact that ants have aggressive defense mechanisms and are full of tasty (read: not tasty at all) formic acid?  Yes: Vision-based innate aversion to ants and ant mimics

     
Quote
As to the article itself: some displaying Myrmarachne were eaten neverthenless. Some of them didn't display at all. One should ask - why some individuals didn't display? Individuals that don't display should have been
already eradicated by natural selection. Why they survived, having no reflex when dangerous Salticidae is stalking?

This is all entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not ant mimicry will deter predators.  Obviously it does.

Do you mean that Salticids having "high acuity eyes" are the main predators of Myrmarachne? And that "selective pressure" from Salticids has lead to the Myrmarachne mimicry?

Yet another Salticids single out ants as preferred prey (the previous article). In this case ants-like Myrmarachne "display" to deter those salticids - even though dishonestly, because they are innocuous.

So Myrmarachne should be aware what kind of Salticids they are dealing with. "Display" in presence of Salticids with "innate aversion" to ants would cost them their lives.

On the other hand when there are present more than 40 ants they will eat Myrmarachne, ant-eating Salticids, Myrmecomorphs, Myrmecophilic and ordinary species as well, almost everything present.

One should have great fantasy  to see behind this mess "natural selection".

 
Quote

This is all entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not ant mimicry will deter predators.  Obviously it does.


Would you like me to send here the names of birds' species feeding on ants (and consequently on their "mimics") or would do you make some research at inet yourself?

Date: 2007/10/16 13:59:09, Link
Author: VMartin
And just for a record. Males of Myrmarachne assimilis have enormously elongated chelicerae. I am afraid that Salticidae having eight eyes and acute vision  would notice this "trifle". Even human see it at first glance.
So even scientists from above mentioned articles  excluded these males from their experiments.
But the question is: did natural selection forget to form the males chelicerae or what?

http://www.miiz.waw.pl/salticid/diagnost/myrmar/assim-ph.htm

Date: 2007/10/17 14:16:15, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

I will restate:

This is all entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not ant mimicry will deter some predators.  Obviously it does.

I thought it would be obvious that I was not referring to "all" predators, but apparently I was wrong.


It would be fine if you gave some researches supporting your belief. Because facts are these:

In Csikis' research of inhalts of stomachs of 2523 birds
ants were found in stomachs of 51 from 60 different birds species from different families.

In stomachs of specialist Picus vividis were found cca 700 pieces of Formica pratensis, Lasius niger 400, 400, 500, 500, 600 and Myrmica laeviondis cca 600.

In perdix perdix were found 250, 250 pieces of Lasius niger.

The almost same results were obtained in Europe,  North America and Tropics.

Groebbels "Der Vogel...Atmungswelt and Nahrughswelt" 234 pages, Berlin 1933.

Ants are readily eaten by birds and there is no reason to suppose that ants' mimics are protected.

Date: 2007/10/17 14:48:58, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

I give up - you're insane.  It's like you're arguing that nobody stops at red lights because there are documented examples of people running red lights.  Any time someone actually does stop at a red light is merely coincidence, and has nothing at all to do with the color of the light.


So again my little stupido. In 51 of 60 birds' species were found ants (in 85%). If there are 85% of people running red lights or 85% cars don't give way having red lights then only stupido (and a darwinist of course) could insist red lights are perceived as warning coloration.

Date: 2007/10/18 13:31:59, Link
Author: VMartin
Aphaenops vandeli


Aphaenops pluto



These "ants" are in fact cavernous beetles, I suppose they are blind. They probably have never met ants in their life. But neverthenless if a darwinist saw similar looking species in proximity of ants he would persuade small children about how predators or natural selection created "extraordinary ants' mimics".

Date: 2007/10/22 13:44:14, Link
Author: VMartin
Darwinian fanatic Steviepinhead:

As I supposed "cavern" comes from Latin caverna.
So as majority of English words it comes from Latin. It's not my fault you cannot underestand words from any other language as English. Even French use the word "cavernicoles":

http://speleoclpa.free.fr/biospeleo/pages/biospeologie5.htm

Maybe Alan Fox could translate those sentences.

Heikertinger used in German "Kavernikolenhabitus".
It means beetles which live in caverns, you know. Unfortunatelly there are no pictures of beetles from Bosnia-Hertzegovina  - Parantrophilon spelaebatoides etc. which look like ants. That's the reason I put in my previous post pictures of some ant-like "cavernicoles" beetles species from France.

You can see that the darwinian conception of ant's mimicry is a very dubious idea. There are many beetle species that do not live with ants and neverthenless look like ants. Because they do not have  the same enemies as ants have obviously natural selection do not shaped them. We are facing some transformational sequences of beetles. Obviously ant's mimicry often haunted only in darwinian heads and pinheads.

Date: 2007/10/22 13:57:18, Link
Author: VMartin
Jeannot,


you wouldn't believe me but I would like to read the whole article how "natural selection" created local differences in flower color of Linanthus parryae! Is it somewhere available for download? It sounds  unbelievable! Took the authors into consideration all evolution and change of flora and fauna or they just focused their attention only to the present fauna on the both side of a ravine?
 
 
Quote

We studied an area in which flower color changed abruptly from all-blue to all-white across a shallow ravine.


This shallow ravine is inpassable or what? Give me the whole article!

Date: 2007/10/24 13:49:06, Link
Author: VMartin
Selectionhead:

Quote

Or, uh, when you've probed around in your cavern long enough to actually locate a scientific objection that you can actually explain, using Latin roots or not.


Do you have any explanation of the fact that majority of English words have Latin roots? Are there any "constraints" in English that didn't allow to accept also Latin grammar?  You know Celtic rules of grammar together with Latin words...

Date: 2007/10/24 13:59:59, Link
Author: VMartin
Improvious.

Quote

Just stop for a minute and think about what you wrote there.


I will try again. There are beetles living in caverns that look like ants. Sometimes their similarity with ants even surpass darwinian so-called "mimics" of ants. But those ants living in caverns do not have the same predators as ants. Consequently it weren't ants predators that selected such ant-like forms. We are facing some kind of transformational sequences of beetles.

The idea that "ants-like" beetles which live near ants are mimicking them is often only unproved darwinian fantasy.

Date: 2007/10/24 14:13:29, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 22 2007,16:21)
   
Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 22 2007,13:57)
This shallow ravine is inpassable or what? Give me the whole article!

Easy Martin. I can't do that. Access requires registration, but you can ask the authors to send you a copy if you like.
The ravine is passable, as you would see by reading the abstract. If it had been impassable, they couldn't have demonstrated anything from field observation and population genetics. They did some fitness measures, though. And they confirm the results they got from allozymes data.

And what is the opinion of the neutral-driftists to such an surprising outcome? We should wait for their research now, what do you think? Sometimes these guys using the same methods in the same areas come to the opposite conclusions.

The dispute between selectionists and neutral-driftists is interesting. Both gropus consider themselves to be the scientists who are able to explain secrets of life and evolution. But they remind me of those groups of reformists and oportunists (or stalinists and trockists) who disputed about materialistic backgrounds in social processes in the frame of marxism.

Date: 2007/10/30 12:00:58, Link
Author: VMartin
Erasmus
     
Quote

what can happen is constrained by what has happened.  what can happen is constrained by what could happen.  read gould and the river analogy.  and stop being redundantly ignorant.


Yes, if you like to be bored and sleepy read Gould. If you want something intelligent read Franz Heikertinger and especially Adolf Portmann and Zdenek Neubauer. These prominent scientists published in peer-reviewed journals - the last one in Nature - and were/are no way darwinists.

Evolution is a process little bit more complicated as your weird idea how  natural selection created human or mimicry of ants. Your sentence above: "what can happen is constrained by what has happened " is an extraordinary vague darwinian nonsense.

Date: 2007/10/30 12:36:32, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 25 2007,03:14)
   
Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 24 2007,14:13)
     
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 22 2007,16:21)
         
Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 22 2007,13:57)
This shallow ravine is inpassable or what? Give me the whole article!

Easy Martin. I can't do that. Access requires registration, but you can ask the authors to send you a copy if you like.
The ravine is passable, as you would see by reading the abstract. If it had been impassable, they couldn't have demonstrated anything from field observation and population genetics. They did some fitness measures, though. And they confirm the results they got from allozymes data.

And what is the opinion of the neutral-driftists to such an surprising outcome? We should wait for their research now, what do you think? Sometimes these guys using the same methods in the same areas come to the opposite conclusions.

The dispute between selectionists and neutral-driftists is interesting. Both gropus consider themselves to be the scientists who are able to explain secrets of life and evolution. But they remind me of those groups of reformists and oportunists (or stalinists and trockists) who disputed about materialistic backgrounds in social processes in the frame of marxism.

There's no "dispute between selectionists and neutral-driftists" on such topic (and almost anywhere else).
Everyone agrees that most molecular polymorphism is neutral, which can be the case for the allozymes that show no differentiation between both sides of the ravine. However, coloration shows a very sharp cline, and local selection is confirmed by fitness measures of transplanted plants.

What's your explanation, Martin?
The fact that you resort to comparisons between science and politics is speaking. Can't comment on the biological evidence?

What evidence? In the abstract of the article you have given as an scientific example of "natural selection in action" is written:

   
Quote

Sewall Wright first applied his model of "isolation by distance" to investigate spatial patterns of flower color in Linanthus. He concluded that the distribution of flower color morphs was due to random genetic drift, and that Linanthus provided an example of his shifting balance theory of evolution.


Good remark. It shows how plausible all these evolutionary "models" really are. Everyone can create his model - driftists have theirs and selectionists theirs. It is obviously nothing more than childish play all these "models".

   
Quote

...reciprocal transplant experiments revealed natural selection favoring the resident morph, and soils and the dominant members of the plant community differed between regions.



Oddly enough one of the authors of the article Paulette Bierzychudek has on her own page this picture





Obviously this picture is either arranged or the soils differ in 2 cm distance substantially.

 
Quote

These results support the hypothesis that local differences in flower color are due to natural selection, not due to genetic drift.


So natural selection eliminated all red and yellow and blue-white combination of colors of this flower? Do you believe it?

Date: 2007/10/30 12:53:51, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 30 2007,12:29)
I looked up Neubauer.  Wonder why none of his 'Rivista' articles have ever been cited?

Could it be because the magical 'morphogenetic field' is a kooky harebrained idea with no evidence behind this?

Hasn't PZ spanked you enough about this?

I suppose your knowledge of foreign languages other than English is limited. Otherwise you would read some materials before babbling nonsense about professor Zdenek Neubauer.

Date: 2007/10/31 15:30:59, Link
Author: VMartin
Erasmus about professor Zdenek Neubauer at the thread
"Evolution of the horse":

   
Quote

If it was worth a damn, in 2007, it would be translated.  This is not a monk growing peas here.


I don't know.  I suppose that it took more than 40 years
(1926 vs 1969) Leo Berg's Nomogenesis had been available in English. Oddly enough his theory influenced also linguistic.

"The impact of Czech and Russian biology on the linguistic thought of the Prague Linguistic Circle"


Jakobson constantly refers to Berg when he strives to fight the Neo-grammarian principle of strict causality, and puts forward his own anti-darwinism. For instance, in 1927, in his Remarks on the phonological evolution of Russian, he explicitely opposes Darwin's conception of evolution by divergence to Berg's conception of evolution by convergence of non related species on the same territory.
etc...

http://www2.unil.ch/slav/ling/recherche/biblio/99Impact.html

The work of the founder of orthogenesis Theodor Eimer has not been translated into English at all - as far as I know. The same for the work of the anti-selectionist Franz Heikertinger about mimicry - nothing has been translated into English. The same for Adolf Portmann etc...


So your opinion that all important works are available in English is not correct. (Even some very interesting novels and works from Fyodor Dostoevsky has not been translated into English yet.)

Date: 2007/10/31 16:11:39, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 30 2007,14:49)
your 'models' are just based on 'facts' anyway.  

right martin?

Do you disbelieve in heredity, you dishonest coward?

If so, admit it.

But it is you who is a coward. It is you who run away from discussion about "ant's mimicry". You are unable to defend the "ant mimicry" links you have given and which I have tried to discuss.

But no wonder. Darwinists see selection everywhere. Even Zebras have some kind of protective coloration (oddly enough Zebras stripes are used at roads to give way the walkers, hehe.). That lions are hunting predominantly at nights and that antilopes having no stripes are thriving in the same areas very well is only a detail for selectionists.

Date: 2007/10/31 16:38:39, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 31 2007,15:53)
Well, Vicky, you better get cracking on those translations.  You have a conspiracy to overthrow.

Interesting how you neglect my questions about your view of the source of heredity.  the german school had to fight particulate inheritance because it was the empirical finding that destroyed their theory.  in 40 years one may forget that sort of thing.

It's not conspiracy what John Davison (and I) are trying to overthrow. It's ignorance. Heredity is not the issue now. German school wasn't destroyed by "empirical facts". It wasn't destroyed at all (except in darwinian heads). Their arguments were simply "forgotten" and declared as "outdated" afterwards. But only darwinists pretend victory by neglecting all arguments, puzzles and ideas on evolution that "German school" collected and showed up. The period of anti-darwinian "German school" is very long - and it is only you who dismissed all their researches ad hoc.

I am afraid you are not aware that "German school" is not limited to Germany, because it influenced many Univesties across Europe. Because you dont't probably know anything about it, you dismiss it as a whole.

Date: 2007/10/31 16:59:20, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Steviepinhead @ Oct. 31 2007,16:33)
Oh, the excitement as I open the AtBC main page, only to see that Vmaroon has again deigned to grace the discussion of coloration and mimicry he started, and on which his only point seems to be that evolution, natural selection, and the other natural mechanisms accepted by the world's scientists can't possibly be responsible for the colors and similarities we see in nature.

Once again, my anticipation rises!  Arouses...!  Er, whatever!

Once again, I turn to Vmaroon's latest post to see what it is instead of selection and other natural mechanisms he posits to explain the mysterious phenomena of the natural world...

When to my surprise what do I see, but yet another empty post, devoid of any semblance of an alternative mechanism--no hypothesis, no model, no theory, no arousal...

Just more blithering evasiveness.

Crestfallen, I creep away to my cavern, where I live with my aunt, er, ant, er, beetle, er, spider--

Once again my ravine, er, ravenous, er, raffish curiosity is destined to be rebuffed, soiled, and rejected.

When, O when, will Vmaroon stop putzing and futzing and swishing around, and gratify us with some actual instance of his brilliance and glory?   When, O when, will my arousal find surcease?

Not today, I reckon.

Newtonian period:

Having two magnets that attract each other you would insist that it is gravity as the force behind the phenomena - because the magnetism and electricity was unknown in those times. When I had told you it is impossible, you would have believe it is gravity neverthenless - because I have no alternative explanation.

The same today. I tell you it is no way selection behind coloration of animals. I don't know what it is. But because I don't know you would insist it is natural selection.

Sometimes we might know it - it is transformational sequences. As in the case of beetles that look like ants but do not live with ants, or with Syrphidae  that look like wasps but are not their mimics etc...

Date: 2007/10/31 17:04:43, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Oct. 31 2007,16:41)
Should this thread be called VMartin's mental illness?

If there is anyone ill here it is you and your "darwinian" friends who believe in "natural selection". I am trying to help you, open your sleepy ignorant eyes.

It's free of charge.

Date: 2007/11/01 01:49:35, Link
Author: VMartin
Christopher

Quote

No, what you're doing is advertising your mental illness.  That's why I seldom venture into your threads, it's sad to see people suffer, no matter how stupid they are.

Fuck off.


So why are you responding? Any problems at your work?  
Have your boss reproved you not to annoy your collegaues with endless lectures about "natural selection" and "evolution in action"? So you are relaxing here (fuck off etc...), yes?

Date: 2007/11/01 02:11:55, Link
Author: VMartin
In his latest article "Darwinism: The Imperialism of Biology?" Ben Stein is criticised by Glen Davidson who wrote there seven successive long posts! I've put there
my answer listing antidarwian scientists.

I am not sure there is so strong relation between darwinism and capitalism as Ben Stein claim, but the idea of "natural selection" is something really extraordinary and new. Ancient people living in connection with nature never observed it. But it is strongly supported from armchair intellectulas sitting at Universities in industrialised countries, scientists who wouldn't survive a day in countryard.


http://www.expelledthemovie.com/blog/


John Davison comments there sometimes and his posts are very briskly and good.

Date: 2007/11/01 02:59:53, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 31 2007,22:08)
I'd think having a specific goal would probably produce less diversity than what we see on this planet. As it is, the effective goal of the members of a population is to out produce their relatives in their current environment - and the environment is different for every species, since every species is part of the environment of all their neighbors.

I'd also think that much of the complexity is a result of dealing with the neighbors (i.e., predators, prey, competitors, or pests that arne't in those other categories), and needing lots of different strategies to do that.

Henry

I suppose it was Gould who noticed that higher intelligence must have had liking in beetles because there are so many beetles species. Anyway the same argument can be used for "natural selection" -  Natural selection must have had liking in forming beetles because there are so many species.

Obviously even greatest darwinian  fantasy could not explain some weird creatures like Bocydium, Sphongorus - species, Cyphonia . No wonder that "natural selection" make wrong conclusions as to the nature of many cases of mimicry as discussed elsewhere.

Date: 2007/11/01 03:45:49, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (hereoisreal @ Oct. 31 2007,19:05)
Erasmus, don't forget mounteverists.

To me, after studying a little about the human eye, perceiving
color is more fascinating than color's creation.  Without distinguishing
color, one could not see a rainbow, even with 20/20.

That's another point. We don't know how exactly are colors perceived by animals. Consequently colors we see are many times different as those perceived by let say birds. The very good example was given by Majerus about peppered moths resting on some kind of lichens. "Cryptic" for human eye they were very conspicuous in UV light, which is visible for birds. You see than all darwinian explanation about mimicry coloration are wrong in such cases.

The problem is complicated bz the fact that we can see a color frequency not entering into our eye - Hering red-green channel is localized into deeper layers of retina.

The most intriguing Edwin Lands effect support the Goethian theory of color perception  at most. Color perception is often the effect of the brain and is independent from the spectrum entering the eye.

Consequently all cryptic, warning coloratin etc are probably only darwinian antropomorphistic fantasies where much work has to be done instead.

Date: 2007/11/04 12:23:46, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 01 2007,03:54)
 
Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 01 2007,02:11)
In his latest article "Darwinism: The Imperialism of Biology?" Ben Stein is criticised by Glen Davidson who wrote there seven successive long posts! I've put there
my answer listing antidarwian scientists.

I am not sure there is so strong relation between darwinism and capitalism as Ben Stein claim, but the idea of "natural selection" is something really extraordinary and new. Ancient people living in connection with nature never observed it. But it is strongly supported from armchair intellectulas sitting at Universities in industrialised countries, scientists who wouldn't survive a day in countryard.


http://www.expelledthemovie.com/blog/


John Davison comments there sometimes and his posts are very briskly and good.

Amazing insight, as usual VMartin.

We hang upon your every word.

Even when you say things like "I am not so sure" I still believe you are 100% correct.

So, if ancient people living in nature never understood selection, how did the wolf get domesticated?

So you obviously do not see difference between artificial and natural selection and you suppose it was natural selection that is responsible for domesticating wolfs.

Date: 2007/11/04 12:35:06, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 01 2007,08:14)
Much work, huh?

Listen asshole, the world is your oyster.  Get out there and 'do all this much work' your god damn self.  You know wny you won't?  Because your are full of it.

You don't even have an alternative hypothesis.  You don't even understand the nature of selection pressure, for you have an a priori commitment to arguing that it doesn't exist. You don't even grasp the mendelian nature of most character inheritance.  

You are a joke.  The fact that some birds eat some wasps sometimes doesn't mean a single thing that you say that it does.  

<shrug> <shrug> <shrug>

fuck off.

Why do you believe that only "some birds eat some wasps"?   Do you think that other birds are as afraid of wasps as you are? Because you shit into your neodarwinian pants seeing wasps it doesn't mean the birds do the same, what do you think stupido?

Date: 2007/11/05 00:18:59, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 04 2007,13:20)
martin did you not pay any attention to the experimental results up thread where bids ate wasps, then avoided them thereafter?  i don't think you were.  perhaps someone will translate it into german for you.

Any links to those "experimental results"? Were stressed birds held in small cages where they were feed regularly by dead fatty worms and sometimes living wasps were  offered them instead? Because they did not touch them darwinists came to conclusion birds are avoiding wasps in countryside as well?

Give me some neodarwinian links for amusement. I like those experiments.

Date: 2007/11/05 23:59:11, Link
Author: VMartin
JAM

 
Quote

It's not our responsibility to "present convincing evidence" against anything, you goof. It's DAVISON'S responsibility to TEST his hypothesis, but he won't. That's the main reason why real scientists ridicule Davison and Behe.


Unbelievable. John Davison supported his ideas presented in his Manifesto by thoughts of Berg, Broom, Schindewolf, Punnet, Grasse. All of them were real scientists. Grasse was president of French academy of science!
It is utterly ridiculous when you call "real scientists" only your neodarwinian cronies.

Quote

The fact that they are ridiculed doesn't make them right. If they are being ridiculed, they should get to work testing their hypotheses.


Neodarwinists with their babbling about "evolution in action"  and "natural selection" are ridiculous as well. They should better test their hypothesis. Especially considering the fact that evolution is over - how real scientists as Davison, Broom and Grasse claimed.

(that evolution of mammalian orders is finished is admitted fact also by you. You only claim that there are no "empty niches" anymore.)

Date: 2007/11/06 14:12:52, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 05 2007,10:27)
you could try here

http://www.jstor.org/view/09628452/sp020002/02x0022v/0

here is one where background contrast is important in affecting attack rates

http://beheco.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/12/6/768

here is another one showing decreased attacks and predator learning

http://www.springerlink.com/content/l29xg761k82857r4/

Now, the whole point of this is to demonstrate that there is a selective advantage to being noxious or cryptic, even if there is still a mortality risk.  your totalitarian view of selection, ie that if you occasionally get eaten then there is no benefit to being cryptic or noxious, is a strawman.  the real world (you should get out and see it sometime) is hypervariable in time and space.  

i'm not interested in your juvenile bitching about experimental design.  if you think that there are operational biases in these experiments, redo them yourself.  otherwise you are just handwaving and ejaculating puerile bafflegab.

and you still haven't offered an alternative hypothesis.  troll.

Good neodarwinian stuff as usually stupido. The last sentences of the third link:

     
Quote

This experiment shows that individual prey can benefit from being aposematic and indicates that individual selection can be a sufficient explanation for the evolution of aposematic coloration. It was concluded that, since the survivorship was 6.4 times higher for the aposematic prey, it could have a detection rate that is correspondingly higher than the cryptic in order for the two forms to have equal fitness.


Obviously the author is perplexed by the fact that aposematism do not gave such a "survival advantage" for it's bearer as to win "struggle for life" against cryptic forms. So the more aposematic you are the more you are attacked. One wonder what is the difference of being aposematc, cryptic or normal as to "survival advantage". Btw. my estimation is that 90% of insects are non aposematic and non cryptic species which thrive as well as poisonous aposematics.

The second link is off topic too, but the link it gives deals with wasps!

"Responses of domestic chicks (Gallus gallus domesticus) to multimodal aposematic signals"

Beside the fact what everything are domestic chicks able to eat (we can discuss it if you like) neodarwinists like to use them to support their fantasies about "natural selection".

Now they tried to support their fantasy that wasp's buzz deters poor chicks. But behold!

     
Quote

However, the only effect of sound found in analyses of learning was that buzzing prey was attacked more on an overall basis than silent prey.


One should ask - why do wasp buzz then? Those that buzz less should have had greater "survival advantage", you know.


     
Quote

This suggests that when the chick had been exposed to a yellow-colored prey, attacks on all prey were inhibited, also those not displaying the signals. That is, the fear of yellow became generalized to the brown prey.


So brown and yellow colored prey created something like mullerian mimicry ring, eh? What color of prey did scared chicks eat - if not yellow and brown? I suppose they did't starve to death because of this neodarwinian color experiment?

Date: 2007/11/06 15:01:56, Link
Author: VMartin
If they have survivorship 6.4x greater than cryptic forms after 1000 years there should have been only aposematics. Read your own basic neodarwinian shits about peppered moths where much lesser ratio of survivorship between melanica/carbonaria have led to almost full extinction of one morph.

Author of the article claimed that this advantge is counterbalanced by "detection rate that is correspondingly higher".

If it is beyond your comprehension I am so sorry stupido.

Date: 2007/11/06 15:28:36, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Assassinator @ Nov. 06 2007,15:06)
 
Quote
If they have survivorship 6.4x greater than cryptic forms after 1000 years there should have been only aposematics.

Depends Martin, apperantly you forget that not every part of the planet is the same.

The problem is that the article deals with one species Lygaeus equestris which have two forms - one is normal red, second is mutant grey called "cryptic". I suppose they do not live in much different places.  

But the poor stupido Erasmus is always like this. He put some links which he googles out in two minutes. He don't read them and he never discuss them. He only calls me name - in the best tradition of some "knowledgeable evolutionists" here - and then he buzz off leaving his ignorant stench.

Or sometimes he tried to back his own links. But the results you can see above. It is really sad.

Date: 2007/11/06 16:03:39, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 06 2007,14:05)
Skeptic, FtK and VMartin I have a couple of questions for you.

Do you

1) Deny/doubt the HIV=AIDS relationship

2) Deny/doubt global warming

3) Believe ID ("certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection...") is a scientific theory.

4) Believe ID should be taught in public high school science class.

These are pretty easy questions and each only requires a yes/no answer.  I have no desire to debate/deconstruct your answers or suggest your answers are right or wrong.  I'm just curious about where you stand on these issues.

Thanks in advance for your answers!

Chris

ps.  PLEASE FOLKS DO NOT ATTEMPT TO ANSWER FOR SKEPTIC, FtK OR VMARTIN.  Thank you.

Point 1) and 2) is something I don't know much about. No opinion.

3,4) If a (neo)darwinism is a scientific theory I don't see a reason why telepathy and astrology are not also taught at school.

Anyway some basics of religion should be taught at schools for those childrens whose parents are fanatic atheists or neodarwinists and do not talk with their children about religion which formed thinking of our grand parents and our predecessors more than 1.000 years so intensively

Also children should know some other evolutionary approaches as well - it means ID, orthogenesis etc., and their basic arguments - if they want to study it outside school. They should be taught more facts about "natural selection" and what some great scientists thought of it. They should be taught about living organisms and Nature  from some different point of view, which is much more sensitive and have more sympathy for life as those reductionist concepts of "struggle for survival", "selfish gene" etc...
Such concepts  have harmful effect on youngsters on my opinion. Whats more such concepts are unscientific. Such concepts spoils the perception of beauty of living world, where "struggle for life" and "natural selection" obviously play no main role, but creativeness of life itself.

Date: 2007/11/06 16:21:17, Link
Author: VMartin
Have you any arguments or have you sent the links without any effort to back them? Last time you did it with ants mimicry, you sent a link and then you buzz off without discussing it.

Now when I asked you some links about wasps - you have sent link to Lygaeus equestris instead which is a redbug.  

So do you want actually to discuss anything particular, ants mimicry, wasps mimicry/aposematism or redbugs/ladybirds? Or what?

----------
Do you folks here know that "aposematics" Lygaeus equestris are the "insects of the year 2007"?

Date: 2007/11/06 23:55:56, Link
Author: VMartin
Assasinator.

There is a difference between natural and artificial selection. Of course you can observe extraordinary results achieved by artificial selection. Strangely enough ancient breeders never came to the conclusion that the same principle - selection - is responsible of diversity of living world. The idea occured first in 19 century to Darwin who's major was theology.

In reality the natural selection play no role in evolution. It removes only extremities. Read John Davison's Evolutionary manifesto. It was opinion of many scientists.

The topic is coloration of animals, mimicry etc... Mimicry and aposematism are favored childs of darwinism, because darwinists suppose the natural selection can be very easily proved here as the source of the phenomenons. Obviously the case is much more complicated and all "proofs" or "evidences" supporting this explanation are very weak and they only shows up ignorance of reality. See Erasmus thinking about survivorship of aposematics or read links he has given. There could be found very interesting admissions and facts. Often one research contradicts the other dealing the same case of aposematism  - skim this thread.

Date: 2007/11/07 00:08:41, Link
Author: VMartin
Steverino:

Quote

VMartin,

Do you walk to work or carry your lunch?


And you? Instead of lunch do you carry your copy of "Selfish gene"? Are you affected by memes there so strongly you are beyond any help?

Date: 2007/11/07 13:25:05, Link
Author: VMartin
IanBrown
Quote

You're just an annoyance now, at least FtK answers some questions and is, generally, sort of polite.


Yeah, he is as polite as neodarwinists here. There is no better example of politeness than neodarwinists here.


 
Quote

Skeptic, while he has some...odd ideas, seems like a sane enough, generally responsive, person who isn't obnoxious and doesn't compare anyone he disagrees with to Stalinists (A pretty bizzare term, for even if your delusion of a scientific coverup was true, I don't think that any scientists group ever blew someones head off in a wood somewhere. Nor do they routinely remove all trace of someone from record).


Then you perhaps can present some quotation of me  where I have claimed "all neodarwinists" = "stalinists"?
(Please do not confuse "all neodarwinists" with poor Arden Chatfield).

Date: 2007/11/07 13:47:42, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Assassinator @ Nov. 07 2007,09:37)
   
Quote
There is a difference between natural and artificial selection. Of course you can observe extraordinary results achieved by artificial selection.

The resistance against antibiotics is as natural as it can be, we're not doing anything there. That would be pure bullcrap too, because that would mean we're destroying our own medical systems. Also the guppy experiment is not artificial selection, it's purely natural. I don't think you actually know what artificial selection is.
     
Quote
In reality the natural selection play no role in evolution. It removes only extremities.

Wrong Martin, you're only talking about 1 kind of natural selection. Next to stabilizing selection, you've also got disruptive and directional selection. It would be nice if you would actually know something about the subject.
     
Quote
Obviously the case is much more complicated and all "proofs" or "evidences" supporting this explanation are very weak and they only shows up ignorance of reality.

They're very weak you say, tell us why, explain it yourself.

And like Arden Chatfield asks time and time again, how are you explaining the variaty between living creatures then? Take for example the Dubuatia plants on the Hawaiian islands collectivly known as the "silversword alliance". How do you explain those huge external differences without natural selection?


Because in your opinion I don't know anything about natural selection there is obviously no need to discuss the issue with me. In your opinion I am wrong and I don't know anything about the subject of my own thread.

Obviously your education level must be excellent when you deal with oponents of neodarwinism in such a way. I am sorry but preliminary this is my last response to your posts.

Date: 2007/11/07 14:21:02, Link
Author: VMartin
Erasmus, the problem of statistical population genetics play no role in the issue we are discussing now. Maybe you would like to discuss natural selection more generally and in models. But I would like to discuss natural selection exactly in the cases of aposematism and mimicry in insect realm.

You noticed ant-mimics first and you didn't address my point that there are beetles living in caverns which look like ants but obviously the similarity was not induced by predators who avoid ants (subsequently NS by the same predators is excluded in the similarity ).

Then you noticed wasps and you have given links to red bugs. Neither of them you discussed.
Anyway red bugs are good example. Even though I would prefer the example of so-called  aposematism of ladybirds. You know Heikertinger presented his anti-selectionist view of so-called aposematism of ladybirds in his work having more than 40 pages which is available on inet in German language.

Now you have mentioned mimicry in butterflies. Eimer wrote more than 600 pages about the concept of butterfly mimicry where he explained his theory of orthogenesis. So the mimicry in butterflies led him to different conclusions as those accepted by neodarwinism.

Heikertinger devoted more than half of his book (1952) to the problem of the so-called mimicry in butterflies species. I think he addressed the most spectacular examples of mimicry and his observation are interesting.
He presented very original ideas about the issue.

Heikertinger spent more than 40 years studying the problem of mimicry refuting selectionists point of view. He was also a great systematic pointing out  many cases where there were only coincidental similarities between transformational sequences of species of different taxa. Without those vast knowledge of systematics of insects realm one could come to a wrong conclusion that some species is mimicking another.

Date: 2007/11/07 15:07:52, Link
Author: VMartin
Lou FCD

   
Quote

What will VMartin do when DAJ kicks the bucket?


Maybe it will be you who first kicks the bucket. And then Dawkins at the same day. You could have a common funeral.

Date: 2007/11/07 23:57:51, Link
Author: VMartin
Dancer, surrealist and knowledgeable evolutionist Kristine:

Quote

VMartin, behave yourself, and don't behave like yourself. Remember how frightened silly you got when I unleashed a fake woman's "hysterical" (and it was) tirade after your "come to bad ends" comment.

(I am such a whistling girl and crowing hen, moi.)


Kristine why don't you quote the whole sentence and paragraph where the "come to bad ends" is written? You know very well what was the meaninig of it. But you behave like poor Arden.
Do you know Arden? Probably yes. A touching friendship between older beauty and a darwinian simpleton.

Date: 2007/11/09 12:15:30, Link
Author: VMartin
Eramus.

According Heikertinger U.S. Department of Agriculture
studied 80.000 contents of birds' stomachs. And it was McAtee from this department who came to the conclusion that aposematism is ineffective to deter predators. Neodarwinian school has never made such extensive and brutal research. Darwinists make only indoor research with multicoloured food... But the question is if such  researches have any relevance for studying so called "warning coloration".

McAtee:

Hence the fact that a given animal is indiffurent to, or even rejects, a certain species of insect when in captivity, by no means indicates that it would be indifferent to or reject the same species under natural conditions.
.
.
.
He clearly shows that many species which have been considered to be protected by noxious secretions or other adaptations are not really so protected, a conclusion supported not only by the definite evidence produced by Dr. McAtee, but also by the fact that if such species were not preyed upon by various enemies they would soon people the whole earth.
.
.
.

Hehe, what do you think?


http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora....48.html

Date: 2007/11/09 14:52:57, Link
Author: VMartin
Erasmus.

Lions? Interesting off-topic  question. Now we are discussing here so called insects' "aposematics" and their predators - birds.

One observation is this:

Considering bird predation alone this principle predation in proportion to population leads to a high degree of indiscriminancy in attack upon the whole kingdom of animal life. The combined attack of birds plus all other predators still more closely approaches complete indiscriminancy. In other words there is utilization of animals of practically every kind for food approximately in proportion to their numbers. This means that predation takes place much the same as if there were no such thing as protective adaptations. And this is only another way of saying that the phenomena classed by theorists as protective adaptations have little or no effectiveness. “Natural Selection theories assume discrimination in the choice of prey. The principle of proportional predation so obvious from the data contained in this paper vitiates those theories for it denotes indiscrimination, the very antithesis of selection.
 
If you think the conclusions here are "outdated" (have  birds change their feeding behaviour in last years?) take into consideration the fact that:


In no other institution in the country has such a volume of data been collected on food habits of birds.
It is therefore extremely valuable to students
throughout the country to have this mass of data digested, summarized, and made available for use as Mr. McAtee has done.


http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora....198.pdf

---

btw "theoretists" is a mild description for neodarwinists. Heikertinger calls them "Hypothetiker".

Date: 2007/11/09 14:59:21, Link
Author: VMartin
Add to my previous post:
Quote

The data presented in this report are
based on records of animals identified in
the stomach contents of about 80,000
Nearctic birds.

Date: 2007/11/09 16:39:01, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

The reader should not be misled bv the positive manner in which Mr. McAtee attempts to force his point throughout the paper. He denounces emphatically the theories of protective adaptations and Natural Selection, but offers no alternative explanations in their stead. If we are to discard these theories, as Mr. McAtee would have us do, we should appreciate having him give us substitutes as good or better than the ones discarded.


So whatever the facts and reality is we should hold on
neodarwinian explanation of aposematism. Unless brand new theory is proposed, we will hold on, like brave soldiers, even if the reality clearly contradicts our theory .

Date: 2007/11/09 17:49:15, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 09 2007,17:29)
your 'facts' aren't what you claim them to be.  that's the whole problem.

from what you posted, mcatee collected absolutely no data about the relative abundances of prey items in the bird stomachs.  

you can get nowhere from there.

now, if you have an alternate theory, let's hear it.  you don't have to accept anything, of course.  you are completely free in this world to be as dumb as you can make yourself.  

but you claim things are incorrect for reasons which turn out to be incorrect themselves.  that's a different story from the one you would wish to tell.


***edited 'heikertinger' to 'macatee'

I see. You must be very wise. You must have been stung by a wasp as a child. Because of it ornitologist and entomologist McAtee was wrong and you are right. Sleep well.

Date: 2007/11/10 00:28:29, Link
Author: VMartin
Lou

Quote

I've noted his English has improved dramatically (again) over the few weeks I was unplugged.


Now you are plugged in and you can support Erasmus giving some evidence backing neodarwinian fantasies about protective coloration of aposematic insects. The level of  presented arguments by selectionists here hasn't increased so dramatically as you can see.

Some student would like to know  contra arguments regarding the research done by US department of agriculture than those  vague "birds sometimes eat some aposematics, but McAtee was obviously wrong".

The poor Arden has got even scared. Instead of asking the same off topic questions like automat he is asking now if he have to dismiss darwinism.

Date: 2007/11/10 00:50:21, Link
Author: VMartin
Erasmus arguments why aposematic insects haven't peopled the Earth detering all their predators with their "protective" coloration and "poisonous" qualities:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;st=240

 
Quote

...lions aren't protected by noxious chemicals and have no predators.  why don't they people the whole earth?  blue whales?  brown tree snakes?  grizzly bears?  bahhh.




Maybe lions are too lazy to support neodarwinian idea of proliferation of the strogest. They almost oversleep all day doing nothing. They are not so vivid as rats and mice that are far better example of "struggle for life".

Medieval kings put the lion on their coat of arms. They considered him to be the  king of animals. It's a pity nobody could instruct them at those dark times about population genetic. Neodarwinian would have had a rat on his coat of arms. Rats are best adapted to various niches and win "struggle for life" everywhere. Lion couldn't survive a day in the sewage conduit.

Date: 2007/11/10 11:42:41, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 01 2007,19:54)
Vicky

It was Haldane.  You know even less than you think.

Haldane was as perplexed by the concept of "Natural selection" as you are now.  

Haldane:
   
Quote

"Now this process of 'racial senescence' was not peculiar to the Ammonites . . . It seems to have occurred also in the Graptolites, Foraminifera, and other groups . . . It is not very easy to reconcile with evolution by natural selection."


and

   
Quote

"fallacy that natural selection will always make an organism fitter in its struggle with the environment"
(p. 119) and that variations "which possess survival value for the individual may lead to degeneration and extinction of the species"


But obviouisly the species can be eliminated only if all their individuals are eliminated. But those are not eliminated because they posses "survival value".

Btw McAtee who pointed out (and obviously ridiculed)  conception of Natural selection in darwinian heads also addressed the problem of evolution of horses from his point of view:

 
Quote

Horses, reintroduced, thrive in the wild in both North and South America on ranges where their fossil analogues
abounded. Such cases convincingly indicate that the causes of extinction were internal to the organisms concerned and not external or selective.



https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/1811/3985/1/V52N06_339.pdf

Date: 2007/11/11 03:15:49, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (mitschlag @ Nov. 10 2007,18:47)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 10 2007,15:51)
Dr. Davison suffered extensive repurcusions at the University of Vermont.

Try to put yourself in the position of authority.  You have a tenured faculty member who has become scientifically unproductive (check publications and grants lists) and is making a public spectacle of himself.

You can't fire him.  What do you do?  (Cue Lehigh and Behe.)

Interesting link.

Quote

It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.


I think you would agree 500 years ago also with:

Quote

It is our collective position that hermetism has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.


Surely true and yet it was the faked work of Hermes Trismegistus and his worshipping of the Sun, that led Giordano Bruno to support solar system of Copernikus (who in his drawing of new Solar system used Hermes Trismegistus name as well).  From bad pressupositions good results.

And it is utterly weird to use your "letter" against anti-darwinist Pierre Grasse mentioned in John Davison's Manifesto. Grasse was president of French academy of science, you know.

Date: 2007/11/11 07:49:28, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (mitschlag @ Nov. 11 2007,06:29)
           
Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 11 2007,03:15)
             
Quote

It is our collective position that hermetism has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.


Surely true and yet it was the faked work of Hermes Trismegistus and his worshipping of the Sun, that led Giordano Bruno to support solar system of Copernikus (who in his drawing of new Solar system used Hermes Trismegistus name as well).  From bad pressupositions good results.

The Lord works in mysterious ways, VMartin.


My point was that at the root of the modern science stood men of Rennaisance who had a much more complex view of the reality than reductionism  so common today. Nowadays it is biologist professor Zdenek Neubauer in Czech republic, an extraordinary educated scholar and philosopher with such a stance. He dismissed in his latest books neodarwinism using harsh words. Of course reductionists flocked together in their atheistic Czech circle for science "Sisyphos" became angry. But no one of them has so strong reputation and background in Czech republic and on the radio discussions with him they sounds very naive and plain. So there was no tendency to create any letter of dissociation at the department of Charles University  Prague which he headed some times ago.

No one of his most interesting books have been translated into English yet (maybe he disagree, I don't know. He doesn't publish in English anymore. He writes now only in Czech and Italian, even though he is fluent in German, Latin and English and helped translate some neo-platonic works from Greek). But his friend and colleague Komarek wrote a book on history of mimicry which has been translated and is available in English. Komarek no way take seriously neodarwinian explanation of many cases of so-called mimicry. But it is no reason for his colleagues at Uni Prague to flock together and scribble a letter of dissociation.

You know these letter of dissociation are very funny in the area of Central Europe. Such letters make often only more sympathy for your stance.

Of course I am very well aware of the fact that influnce of Behe is differenet than those scientists I mentioned above. Anyway  Davison's work in my opinion goes more deeply into secrets of evolution than the work of Behe.

Date: 2007/11/11 11:38:38, Link
Author: VMartin
I don't have time to google for mitschlag and Erasmus  all scientific articles regarding microbiology by professor Zden?k Neubauer. Here is the abstract of his article he published as a 24 year old microbiologist in the Nature 1967.

Nature 1967: Brief consideration of the Meaning of the Lysogenic Conversion in Salmonella anatum Phage System

and then as a co-author working at the International Laboratory of Genetics and Biophysics, Naples


Nature 1970: The Antirepressor: a New Element in the Regulation of Protein Synthesis


Did anyone of you published so young in the Nature (if you have ever published there something)  that entitles you to dismiss your antidarwinian adersaries who  published there as "confused"?

Date: 2007/11/12 11:00:20, Link
Author: VMartin
Erasmus
Quote

martin the only point you have made is to be able to say that birds sometimes eat aposematic prey.  and we never claimed otherwise.


Yes. And birds eat also sometimes cryptic prey and they eat sometimes also prey that isn't cryptic nor aposematic. They eat everything.


They eat all of them and they do not distinguish between them (except their size). There is no need to suppose that aposematism arose thanks  "natural selection".

Date: 2007/11/12 17:48:09, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

the only data you have is a bunch of bird guts, and that can't tell you what you need to know in order to make your claim that birds aren't preying selectively.  


If you consider 80.000 birds stomachs carefully examined by US Agriculture survey for "bunch of birds guts" I don't take you your opinion. I understand that in order to hold "natural selection" intact you have to dismiss all arguments that do not fit it. Instead of this great research (done btw. also by Csiki in Hungary 1905-1910 in 2.800 birds)  you would inisist that "many people have shown that they do in fact differentiate".

Why on the Earth you don't pick up one of those fantastic articles about wasp's aposematism  from JSTOR or PubMed and why don't you put it here? Why don't you defend it like JAM defend his articles and VISTA charts against Daniel?

Are you afraid something?  

JeaNot done it but it took no more than 5 minutes to find another article in those scientific peer-reviewed journals that claimed opposite.

You are probably very well aware of it, so you babbling only something like "many people have shown that they do in fact differentiate".

Date: 2007/11/13 00:04:43, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

martin, you can't evaluate prey choice if you don't know the background levels of prey available to each predator.


You don't know it as well. But you are convinced that your a priori armchair hypothesis is correct neverthenless.  Of course I am not surprised by it. The research done by US survey was dismissed using different arguments by the great Poulton himself. There was a heated discussion between McAtee and Poulton about it. Neverthenless Poulton was by this research much more ill-natured as you are now. He know more about mimicry and aposematism as anyone of you here know. His name is quoted almost in all materails "discussed" here. So darwinists did what do they do everytime when facts do not support their hypothesis - they pretend they do no exist. The greatest neodarwinian hypocrisy is then words "every students should know about this vast  research of feeding behaviour of nearctic birds full of facts". There was never done such great outdoor research you know.
 
Quote

many natural processes work in both one and the opposite direction.


Yes. Dragonflies in one experiments were scared seeing wasps coloration and in the second experiment they didn' care. Having work in both one and the opposite direction the experiments prove natural selection as the source of aposematism.

Quote

Daniel has a set of specific positive claims (although it took a while for him to formulate them positively, and not like you are doing, ie 'selection cannot explain X').  we have been trying to get you to make your claims for months now, and you refuse to do so.  bring it, don't sing it.


It is neodarwinian positive claims that aposematism was induced and is maintained by natural selection. I am discussing here this positive neodarwinian hypothesis an well as you are discussing Daniel positive claims there.

Date: 2007/11/13 14:00:05, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

Wrong, stupid troll.


I've received an internal AtBC post warning me not to use abusive words here.
I've been informed that other participants have been warned as well.  But I don't see a purpose of such warnings if some participants like you do not to obey them.



Quote

I am saying that you are not even offering a hypothesis yourself, and the data you are using to try to feebly attack something you don't understand...


I wouldn't say that data about 80.000 contets of birds stomachs "feebly attack" darwinian concept of aposematism. I would say these data attack it so strongly that even Poulton and his colleagues were forced to deal with them.



Quote

... DON'T EVEN SAY WHAT YOU ARE CLAIMING THEY SAY.


McAtee concluded from those data that warning coloration of so called aposemtic insects is ineffective because these insects were surprisingly often found in birds stomachs. I don't know how you came to the weird  conclusion "DON'T EVEN SAY WHAT YOU ARE CLAIMING THEY SAY". Probably you have made this bold conclusion about the McAtee's research after reading that neo-darwinian would-be critic the link to which I have sent you above.

(Btw. I didn't find the whole research on-line. Internet is lousy with 2nd class neodarwinian "researches" and "explanations" but nobody bothered to put this  research on-line).


 
Quote

What you claim is the 'neodarwinian claim' has two parts, as I keep reminding you. the 'origin' of mimicry is very different from the 'maintenance' of mimicry, yet you refuse to do anything but conflate the two.



I would preliminary stick to the fact that wasps "aposematic" coloration is ineffective. If you claim opposite you should support it perhaps using some evidence. Because you are still only repeating  neodarwinian mantras like a broken automat. I suppose you are honest enough to admitt that arguments like your latest "fire promotes diversity of some communities and extinguishes others" don't adress the issue of aposematism of wasps at all.

Date: 2007/11/15 14:44:48, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

3 all birds have the same preferences for palatability (care to argue this one?  perhaps summarize mcatee data for aposematic prey by species of predator?)


As far as I know McAtee created tables according birds families and species. Unfortunatelly his work is not available at internet, only it's darwinian criticism.

But this is the main point neverthenless. We know from many experiments and observations  that stings do not give protection to wasps against birds. To save the theory of aposematism neodarwinists invented this lame explanation instead (see the article about Imperfect mimicry):

                 
Quote

"It is the terrible taste that the venom imparts to the abdomen that is the main deterrent for birds."  



This claim stands on unproved pressuposition that a birds'  taste is somehow sensitive to this "terrible (?) taste" . Obviously other researches which are not focused to prove neodarwinian explanation of aposematism show that birds behave much more relaxed towards "bad taste". No wonder, having only few taste buds:

                 
Quote

Birds have an interesting sense of taste. They have taste receptors like other animals, and their general structure is essentially the same as that in other vertebrates.
The starling and chicken have a few dozen taste buds as compared to 25000 for the cow.


So the results are obvious (but not in experiments proving aposematism where birds always surpass themselves and prove themselves as true gourmands):

                 
Quote

One of the first experiments we did with taste some years ago was with pheasants, at Cornell. We sprayed prospective repellant on the feed in troughs. The birds would come over to the feeders and take one mouthful offered; since birds are not very bright they would shift their heads and take another mouthful. Then they would start wiping their beaks and move away from the feed. But a few birds enjoyed the fact that there was no competition at the feeder troughs and continued eating. It is obvious that the minority experienced a taste sensation different from that of the majority, in this case failing to perceive the offensive chemical.


or

                 
Quote

Generally, if you offer a bird two food choices, and you add a chemical to one that is so offensive to them that they will not take any of it in a choice situation, and then give them no choice but the flavored food, food intake will be normal over a 14-day period. You have to increase the offensiveness 10-fold to reduce food intake by 10%. Taste offensiveness is of little consequence when the test is of reasonable duration.



See : The chemical senses of birds 1970:

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi....control

Anyway feel free to call me again "stupid troll" and support your selectionist stance using vague questions or arguments how your neighbour dislike carrots.

Date: 2007/11/16 02:13:04, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

so Vicky, it appears from what you have posted that some birds don't like bad tasting things, and some do.


Yes Stupo. You missed the point as usually. Birds have only fraction of taste buds comparing to mammals. But because some mammals eat wasps as well there is no reason to believe that the "terrible taste" of wasp's abdomen is so "terrible" as darwinists would like us to believe.

 
Quote

sounds like there is still room for selective pressure to work.


I know. Even if all birds species eat nothing else as wasps there will be still enough room in your head for selective advantage of aposematism.

 
Quote

we know that aposematic caterpillars vary in the amount of toxic compounds sequestered from host plants, and that has a heritable component.


OK Stupo. After trying ants, redbugs and wasps you offer aposematic caterpillars. Are you able to defend this new example of aposematism? I am afraid as soon as I adressed the point you buzz off as usually.

 
Quote

did you find any studies where birds were offered venomous abdomens, or are you just waving your hands again?


And did you find any research where foxes were offered not chickens but only their feathers? Because foxes do not touch them feathers prove to offer some protection against predators?


 
Quote

so, you agree that you cannot possibly conclude from the McAtee work anything other than 'sometimes aposematic forms get eaten'?  do you understand how there is no comparative framework in that dataset?


Birds in free eat wasps as well as they eat flyies, beetles, catterpilars, fruits and grains. There is no reason to believe that wasps are somehow protected, because some armchair selectionist claims so.


 
Quote

call me a selectionist if you want, it's irrelevant.  my entire point is that you are lying about the conclusions from the data you attempt to present, and also that you don't even have an idea about an alternative hypothesis.


I am lying and you are right. Because you believe in selection you will be always right in your eyes.

 
Quote

just handwaving.


Maybe you would like to offer some facts to my "handwaving" eventually. I would like to know what kind of "selective pressure"  led to the rise of wasps' stings from their ovipositors. I would like to know your opinion or explanation of it.

Date: 2007/11/18 11:18:44, Link
Author: VMartin
No one of you have addressed the problem of "protective coloration" or so-called aposematism of wasps yet. Probably you take it for granted without any outdoor researches (which in fact prove opposite). You just suppose it to be right and basta.

And yet:

       
Quote

The colored stripes contain pigment granules underneath the translucent cuticle where light sensila were detected (Ishay et al., 1986). These granules are cylindrical in shape and in Vespa orientalis they comprise of what seems to be spores of a symbiotic fungus (Ishay and Shmuelson, 1994). In the hornet the pigment is of a prominent yellow color but in other hornets or wasps the pigment can appear in various shades of green, beige, black (Vecht, 1957, 1959; Ishay et al., 1967; Kemper and D"hring, 1967; Wilson, 1971; Matsuura and Sakagami, 1973; Spradbery, 1973; Edwards, 1980; Akre et al, 1981; Brian, 1983; Matsuura and Yamane, 1990).


I am not sure if that shades of green, beige, black are also due to the color of spores of fungi. But it would be more convenient explanation of difference of coloration of these Hymenoptera as those neodarwinian babbling about aposematic or "protective coloration".

One should be really blind not to ask why are wasps aposematic and bees almost cryptic when "aposematism" for poisonous bees should have given them the same "survival advantage".  


Fungi and coloration of some hymenoptera:


http://scilib.univ.kiev.ua/article.php?27251

http://www.desc.med.vu.nl/Publica....R_3.htm[U][/U][B][/B]

Date: 2007/11/18 12:47:39, Link
Author: VMartin
JAM

 
Quote

So if one is intelligently designing a spacing mechanism, why in heaven's name (literally) would one use tandem repeats, which expand and contract (via recombination) at ridiculously high frequencies? Wouldn't unique sequence be the far more intelligent choice?


As a layman I dont know what you and Daniel are meaning by "tandem repeats". Are those repeats  "tandem duplication" or pure "repeated sequences"?

In the second case I don't see how how the difference in the structure of repeated sequences between different species proves Daniel theory by saltus as wrong. It may  have been induced by some unknown mechanism during John Davison's chromosome rearrangements, no? As far as I know repeated sequences by two sisters species are sometimes very different. But they are also different from those of the ancestor species.

This phenomenon is very hard to explain without special mechanism that after speciation causes parallel differentiation of repeated sequences in all locuses of genome. There must be obviously also some process of homogenization of repeated sequences. These repeated sequences are often identical in new species and have sometimes hundered thousands copies.  

So there must be process of  differentiation of repeated sequences in daughter species from mother species and at the same time homogenization of all these repeated sequences to new ones.

Wouldn't be it more simple to assume that such  repeated sequences are for each new species created de novo by saltus?

If the phenomenon is to be explained by molecular drive as I have read elsewhere it would mean that by such process (molecular drive) would be affected many individuals of population simultaneously. It would assume some kind of synchronized evolution of repeated sequences.

Generalizing molecular drive to all genome we are dealing with synchronized evolution, something proposed by Leo Berg (with which John Davison disagree btw).

Date: 2007/11/18 23:50:55, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 18 2007,19:33)
           
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 18 2007,20:19)
I'm not sure what you mean by "when I look at transcription of that gene, will it be turned on".  Do you mean "will transcription of that gene be turned on", or will "the gene itself be turned on"?  
Because I think transcription of the gene will always be happening,  but as to when exactly the gene gets turned on, I have no clue.

Dan, we will send you some intro biology textbooks, if you want to learn about biology. You don't understand the basic terminology and concepts. If you're interested in learning, send a PM to Lou FCD or Albatrossity with a mailing address and we will send you some freshman-level textbooks to start with.

Maybe you can describe the mechanism of gradual homologization of repeated sequences in new species which everybody know about from "intro biolology text books" and which is different from the molecular drive? Otherwise I am afraid that you are as great expert in the evolutionary biology as Erasmus is an "expert" in the problem of aposematism at another thread.

Date: 2007/11/22 12:52:06, Link
Author: VMartin
mitschlag

       
Quote

And please explain how the data (specific citations would be helpful) show that  "mutational mechanisms, natural selection and drift [could not have] produced the systems found within our genome."


Natural selection doesn't play any any role in evolution, it removes only extremities. See the thread about "mimicry and aposematism" where I put many arguments refuting it.
("Mimicry" is beloved child of selectionists, you know).

I am afraid that neutral drift plays no role either. Do you know that in two separated population the migration of 1 or 2 individuals per one generation will prevent genetic differentiation caused by genetic drift? No matter if population has 1.000.000 members or 100.000.000 or 100 - gene flow due one migrant per one generation annules differentiation caused by"genetic drift" (This theoretical conclusion done by Sewall Wright and also by Fisher has been proved experimentally by Schamber and Muir 2001) .  Such a small migration ( 1 individual per one generation) easily escapes attention of any terrain biologist. Neverthenless an armchair neodarwinist will insist that genetic drift is a real evolutionary force even in cases where migration amongst populations is obvious (I mean birds, insects etc...)

Date: 2007/11/23 11:18:15, Link
Author: VMartin
One should have to ask why wasps having so many predators are protected by neodarwinian hypothesis of "warning coloration" where there is a whole family of birds specialised on bees, wasps and hornets (google out "Meropidae" if you like) .

One should have to ask why honeybees having their venom more effective than the venom of wasps are not protected by "warning coloration" either. Did "natural selection" forget to give them "protective coloration" or what?

Even some nowadays researches are asking the same question about supposedly poisonous "protection" of bees:

 
Quote

Many researchers seem to assume that predators avoid
bees, the most commonly observed pollinators, due to
their sting. This belief is in disagreement with the long list
of species that prey on bees, most notably, bee eaters
(Meropidae) (Fry 1983), Old and New World ¯ycatchers
(Muscicapidae and Tyrannidae) (Ambrose 1990), beewolves
(Philanthus spp.) (Evans & O'Neill 1988), some
social wasps (Evans & Eberhard 1970; De Jong 1990),
crab spiders (Thomisidae) (Morse 1981; Morse 1986),
predacious bugs (Hemiptera) (Balduf 1939; Greco &
Kevan 1995) and praying mantids (Mantidae) (Caron 1990).
.
.
.
Research in other systems, a long list of bee predators and
formal theory all suggest that bees and other pollinators
should show antipredatory behaviour, which may affect
pollinator±plant interactions (Dukas, in press).



I suppose those biologists are terrains' biologists and
no  armchair neodarwinists.

http://psych.mcmaster.ca/dukas/Dukas%202001.pdf

Date: 2007/11/23 12:16:50, Link
Author: VMartin
Neodarwinists here didn't answer my questions. The problem of homologization of repeated sequences in new species hasn't been addressed yet. The problem of annulation of "genetic drift"  due gene flow (or migration) hasn't been answered either.

But folks here still insist  that John Davison's and Daniel's concept is wrong and they are right.

Even if there is an estimation that 90% - 98% of speciation is connected with the change of karyotype (WHITE 1978). Some biologists think that mutation of chromosomes play the key role in speciation (Jaroslav  Flegr,  Department of Parasitology and Hydrobiology, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic: Evolutionary biology 2006, page 401 -  in Czech.)

Date: 2007/11/24 14:46:12, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 23 2007,13:21)
Re "One should have to ask why honeybees having their venom more effective than the venom of wasps are not protected by "warning coloration" either."

Maybe because traits don't appear just because they'd be useful to that species?

As for that warning coloration, maybe it discourages some of the predators but not all of them?

Henry

What predators do you have in your mind? Eagles, hawks or owls? Maybe eagles do not prey upon wasps but  I doubt it is because "warning coloration" of wasps. Other species have no problem to get rid of "poison" of wasps beating or rubbing them on the branches (but some of birds do not care about neodarwinian "terrible taste of wasps venom" at all):


Four of the flycatchers (three of
Tyrannus and Gubernetes yetapa), the two orioles
(Icteridae) and the oven-bird (Furnarius rufus)
spent 10 to 35s beating each prey on a branch or
on the ground and examining is before swallowing,
while the Great Kiskadee (Pitangus sulphuratus),
Burrowing Owl (Speotyto cunicularia),
Smooth-billed Ani ( Crotophaga ani), Rufoustailed
Jacamar (Galbula ruficauda) and Whiteeared
Puffbird (Nystalus chacuru) spent 2 to 5s
beating the prey on a branch. In contrast, the
kestrel (Falco sparverius), Blue-crowned Motmot
(Momotus momota), two species of woodpeckers
(Picidae), two of the cuckoos (Piaya cayana and
Guira guira) and sometimes the rufous-tailed
jacamar and white-eared puffbird appeared to
have no difficulty in swallowing the wasps immediately
they captured them.




http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/ON/v008n01/p0089-p0092.pdf

Date: 2007/11/24 14:59:24, Link
Author: VMartin
Erasmus

   
Quote

... we know that aposematic caterpillars vary in the amount of toxic compounds sequestered from host plants, and that has a heritable component.




Uff, that must be a very effective poison which deters predators and gives some "survival advantage" to the catterpilars. Btw. what kind of caterpillars do you have in your mind?  Maybe Eupseudosoma involutum?


Eupseudosoma involutum (Sepp ).
The venom of this caterpillar is so strong that if
its hairs touch the skin of an adult person the
pain is severe and often the person suffers from
delirium for several hours.


But oddly enough:


On one occasíon
a squirrel cuckoo hunted systematically
through guava trees from which it gleaned and
ate more than a dozen larvae of the notorious
arctiid moth Eupseudosoma involutum (Sepp ).


Hehe, maybe the poor squirell hasn't read neodarwinian armchair's treatise about aposematism or what?

http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/ON/v008n01/p0089-p0092.pdf

Date: 2007/11/24 21:29:06, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

Insect eaters. Given the subject matter here, I thought that would be obvious.

Henry


Could you be more specific? Swallows perhaps? But I am afraid even swallows have been observed to prey upon wasps. So be rather as general as possible so no one could check your neodarwinian claims.

Date: 2007/11/24 21:30:49, Link
Author: VMartin
Erasmus.

What are you afraid of? Why don't you give me the name of the poisonous caterpillar you were talking about? Are you afraid that everyone could check your nonsenses or what?

I am afraid your mysterious poisonous caterpillar is the same neodarwinian bullshit as poisonous and stinging wasps. If some insect species  had been so poisonous as to get rid of predators there would have been full earth of them (as Darwin predicted). Obviously there are still predators that check every insect populations of "poisonous aposematics". Obviously in other case "aposematism" would give those species "small survival advantage" to other species and they will populate the Earth in few generations.

So don't be angry with me. It's not my fault that every "poisonous aposematic" have dozens predators that do not care about their venoms.

Date: 2007/11/25 03:14:14, Link
Author: VMartin
Erasmus

Obviously you have no arguments. The whole neodarwinian teaching about insects' aposematism is as  unsubstantiated as neodarwinism itself.

You got angry because you see that "small survival advantage" and "natural selection"  gibberish is a nonsense par excellence in the case.

Perhaps you could give us some explanation of the forces hindering non-controlled proliferation of wasps. If  birds and other predators are so afraid of them as you suppose (except a small fraction as you has admitted dialectically - "yes, some birds eat some wasps sometimes".).

Maybe there isn't enough food for them or there are limited amount of insect that wasps oviposit in at meadows and forests? Maybe you have something better.

Never mind if your fantasy isn't good enough to invent some explanation of it. You can preach neodawinian eternal truth at other more friendly threads. Somewhere where nobody doubts about efficency of your beloved "small survival advantages".

Date: 2007/11/25 09:49:12, Link
Author: VMartin
Nice to see you Alan.

Your post is only a generall replay of no value - as is a good custom here. Last time you buzzed off when I attacked Jeanot's link about dragonflies. You were very excited, because you had some feeling that ancient dragonflies should have been the selective agent responsible for aposematisms of wasps.  It shows up to be a nonsense - dragonflies are not deterred by wasps.

Now you claim that I have given no evidence. You are really amusing. I have given here so many links and so many quotations, but nothing is enough for you - and never will be. You will hold to your hypothesis like a dog to a bone.

Last time I sent an outdoor research 2001 where many different bird species (and no bee-eaters) were described eating wasps. Some of them eat wasps immediately, some of them beat and rub them to get rid of their poisonous sacks.
Many bird species have been observed beating and rubbing wasps but it is not evidence for you.


And - Erasmus caught a fit of anger and chceck it yourself what he had sent. He simply don't want to hear such evidence. It is no evidence according his opinion.

I have also examples and links where mammals were observed eating wasps, but it is of no value apparently. Using them you will call me "ignorant", "psycho", "a retired teacher"or whatever...  

You would  insist on your "aposematism gives wasps small survival advantage" and no evidence wil persuade you of opposite.

No one here was able to discuss any example of wasps eaters. The only  answer you were able to give is this : "Yes there are some birds that eat some wasps sometimes. But it is no evidence." Everything I have sent is "sometimes" for you. But there are too many "sometimes" you know.

You are unable to address the problem of proliferation of wasps if it is not scared predators which check their populations.

Date: 2007/11/25 10:47:13, Link
Author: VMartin
If you don't like evidence proving that wasps have many predators I can offer you another one, more philosophical for discussion - so also Henry can add something.

There is abundance of "imperfect" mimic species of wasps. The simplest explanation seems to me that wasps have so many predators that for their imperfect mimics to look more waspish is even dangerous. Or at least individuals of imperfect mimic species that look more waspish do not change their frequency in population of imperfect mimic species during time. There is obviously counter balancing force hindering spread of their wasping-more-similarity alleles in population. Maybe it it selective pressure of wasps predators they hit upon looking more waspish. Consequently more waspish mimics are eliminated from population. What do you mean (except that I am ignorant as usually)?

Date: 2007/11/26 14:58:01, Link
Author: VMartin
First Erasmus

Quote

But, you are an interesting case, probably from many perspectives...
...i'll just have to keep verbally abusing you.  kinda of like mowing the lawn or keeping your rear end clean, it's a chore but someone has to do it.


Erasmus also works as a volunteer bus-driver for the  "Museum of the Natural selection".  He drives children to the Museum of Natural Selection in his free time. He likes to discuss with children what they saw.
"So children how did you like it?"
Small Jane: "I liked department of warning coloration. There were so many colourful animals. But I was surprised to hear that birds are afraid of wasps.
I have seen birds eating and attacking wasps in our garden. "
Erasmus: "Of course. You know some birds eat sometimes wasps. But only sometimes. Sometimes. Remember it."
("What an annoying girl" he thinks for himself).
Small John: "I liked department of mimicry. But why there were so many imperfect mimics of wasps? Spieces looking more waspish would obtain more protection, wouldn´t they uncle bus driver?

Erasmus: "What the hell is going on ? Are you all European creationists or what? Stupid small German mystics!"

Date: 2007/11/29 13:35:29, Link
Author: VMartin
Lou FCD,

I know you would like to ban me. But give me a little more time for my more precise answer. Using words of J.W.Goethe “Theory my friend is gray, but ever green is the tree of life” I would like to continue refuting neodarwinain concept of "warning coloration".

Preliminary - discussing the point of effectiveness of "warning coloration" of wasps, here is the quotation of a terrain scientist who studied wasps in Costa Rica for 25 years ( Jeanne 2002):

       
Quote

Predation on swarm-founding wasp nests by bats (Jeanne, 1970a), birds (Skutch, 1971; Windsor, 1976), and primates (Vecht, 1967) has been documented. Vertebrate predation can be a major source of epiponine colony mortality.


http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=355903

If you think that my sources (Franz Heikertinger or McAtee from US Agriculture survey) are  "outdated" take into consideration please that their concept of ineffectiviness of warning coloration of wasps is backed up by some nowadays researches. It is no "warning coloration" of wasps, but only the size of insects  that counts:

     
Quote

Birds probably don't prey upon bees, wasps, and other stinging insects as frequently as other insects - and not so much because they sting, but because they are fast and often large and therefore inconvenient for many small insectivorous birds to eat. Nonetheless, many songbirds, especially flycatchers and tanagers, do eat bees and wasps without apparent ill effect.


http://www.birdersworld.com/brd/default.aspx?c=a&id=817

Any response to it?

Date: 2007/11/29 18:16:15, Link
Author: VMartin
Lou FCD

                   
Quote

Do you have an alternate hypothesis for how the coloration of these butterflies has come about, and if so, what is it, how does it work, and how do we test it?  What evidence can you present to support your hypothesis?


I suppose you know that there is a small difference between wasps and butterflies. I answered your questions. We have discussed aposematism of wasps. I am surprised that you changed the topic to the butterflies now. Of course I have no problem to address aposematism of ladybirds, poisonous catterpilars or butterflies as well. Do you want me to discuss aposematism of Monarchs butterflies or other "poisonous" butterflies?
 

Just a question: if you see a colorfull butterfly how do you know it is "aposematic" or "non-aposematic"? Do you have any key which butterfly species are "aposematic" and having "warning coloration" and which not- just seeing their wing patterns? I can explain you something about so called aposematism of butterflies. I can address the problem of aposematism on examples or generally. It's on you.

But I suppose that we are discusssing "aposematism" of wasps preliminary. Anyway no problem to discuss "poisonous"  butterflies, ants or whatever - and their mimics.

But if you are lost in the problem of aposematism and mimicry maybe it's you who should "go bother someone else", don't you think so Lou FCD?

Date: 2007/11/29 18:27:01, Link
Author: VMartin
No arguments? Just banning instead or what?

Date: 2007/11/29 18:38:45, Link
Author: VMartin
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote

Your trolling days here are finished.


Maybe. It's on you. But for whom the bell talls? Isn't it for you, selectionists?

Date: 2007/11/30 05:08:59, Link
Author: VMartin
The thread about aposematism has been closed. Anyway according to my "cosmology" coloration of animals presents only some kind of species self-representation. Especially so called "warning coloration" of insects do not give them often any survival advantage. I am discussing the problem of wasps coloration at EvC forum, so if you would like to know more about  my arguments go there. (I dare say there is really discussion at EvC, no one uses denigration there instead arguments (idiot, Croatian old teacher,  etc...) except one person, who's access has been suspended because of it.)  

Of course I am ready to discuss any insect aposematism here ( also butterflies etc...). But because the topic and my person seems to be not wellcome here I would not start it again. Unless somebody ask me and admin would allow it.

Thank you.

Date: 2007/11/30 14:03:06, Link
Author: VMartin
Reading the book "Evolutionary biology" by Jaroslav Flegr Charles Uni Prague, Department of Parasitology,  I hit on the name and quotation of some thoughts of professor John Davison.  Flegr has written that precursors of sexual cells migrate into gonads from different places. It means that sexual cells in different groups of Vertebrata are non-homologous (page 240).

John Davison's Manifesto and his ""Evolution as self limiting process" are listed in the Literature of this 500 hundered pages book published by Academy of Science of Czech republic.

http://www.natur.cuni.cz/~flegr/book_evbiol.php

Date: 2007/12/01 02:58:23, Link
Author: VMartin
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Richard Simons:

 
Quote

They might be answerable although I cannot imagine how.Your hand-waving about a 'genetic switch' says nothing about a means whereby an organism can know what adaptations it will need in the future or how the information can be stored without being corrupted.


But obviously you have no problem to imagine a force maintaining non-functional duplicate of the functional gene in DNA until it gathers enough beneficial mutations for it's new function. After many years doing nothing  the prepared functional gene is somehow switched on.

Neodarwinists of course have no problem to invent "hand-waving" no-testable hypothesis in order to explain the phenomenon.  They for instance came up with some mysterious "side activity" of the original gene modelling evolution on their lap-tops.


http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0707158104v1

How gene duplication and divergence contribute to genetic novelty and adaptation has been of intense interest, but experimental evidence has been limited

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7163/abs/nature06151.html

Date: 2007/12/01 09:12:14, Link
Author: VMartin
My latest post has been deleted, so I 'll try it this way:

Jam
   
Quote

Dead wrong. Mice and humans share 100.0% of their genes. The number present in one and lacking in the other is in the single digits. There goes your hypothesis...


If they share 100,0% genes then it back ups frontloading very well I would say. It would mean that also regulatory genes are the same and it was only due to rearrangements of pre-existing genes in DNA that led to the difference between mice and  human in the distant past.

(In that case the possible explanation could be also different composition of cytosole in gametes and zygotes of both species and consequently the difference between man and  mice could be only epigenetical. But is sounds too "German", neglecting the role of DNA in ontogenesis,  doesn't it?)


--------
Hold on, Daniel.

Date: 2007/12/03 11:58:36, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 01 2007,09:40)
   
Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 01 2007,09:12)
My latest post has been deleted, so I 'll try it this way:

Jam
           
Quote

Dead wrong. Mice and humans share 100.0% of their genes. The number present in one and lacking in the other is in the single digits. There goes your hypothesis...


If they share 100,0% genes then it back ups frontloading very well I would say. It would mean that also regulatory genes are the same and it was only due to rearrangements of pre-existing genes in DNA that led to the difference between mice and  human in the distant past.

(In that case the possible explanation could be also different composition of cytosole in gametes and zygotes of both species and consequently the difference between man and  mice could be only epigenetical. But is sounds too "German", neglecting the role of DNA in ontogenesis,  doesn't it?)


--------
Hold on, Daniel.

It would appear that VMartin is "mistaken".

Anybody wishing to see how similar the house mouse and human genomes are just need to go to

http://www.ensembl.org/Mus_musculus/index.html

and

http://www.ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/index.html

Perhaps VMartin thinks novel genes are those that have fiction books written about them.

I skimmed the links but I am not wise from them. The misunderestanding rests on my opinion on the concept of gene itself. We should perhaps use alleles instead genes (Dawkins "Selfish gene" is a nonsense, the book should have been titled "Selfish allele").

As Henry noticed:

   
Quote

Having corresponding genes doesn't mean having the same alleles for those genes.


So let say we have a gene for coloration of Iris. Let say human have 5 alleles of this gene and mice also 5 alleles. The average difference between human alleles is let say 15 base pairs and for mice the average difference is also 15 base pairs.

I do't know which alleles of humans and mice are compared on those genes comparisions. Because you can hit on "blue alleles"  in mice and human and such comparision could show a small synonymous difference, or no difference at all.

But you can hit on red allele of mice  having no counterpart in human genome. What will you do? Will you compare this red mice allele with brown human allele?

Obviously difference in pair bases would be much more greater in this case. Consequently it could be inferred that both species diverged sooner as they did.

So I am not expert but I suppose there must exist something like average human allele and average mouse allele or what when we are comparing their genes. Or am I wrong?

The second question (closely connected) is if I give you an allele from mice  would you be able to tell it apart from human alleles because it is more different than are different human alleles of the same gene from each other?

Date: 2007/12/05 00:07:35, Link
Author: VMartin
   
Quote

Hi Martin,

I've often wondered the same thing.

How do they settle on a "genome" when there can be much variation within species?

I know of one example in mtDNA where a single species was found to have 8% sequence divergence.


Hi Daniel,

I have tried to find out on internet something about human heterozygosity or polymorphism. There are surprisingly few articles about the topic. The most articles deal with polymorphism of specific genes.

Yet some articles claim that heterozygosity is about 6%. So I still don't know which genes (having only 1 allele?) are used comparing human vs mice genome.

The whole thing (using coding genes) seems to me be very confusing. Comparing mice vs human genes scientists came to the conclusion that difference is let say 10% and using molecular clocks it means their human/mice ancestors diverged 70 million years ago.

But comparing genome of two people which difference could be 3% no one claims their respective ancestors diverged 25 millions years ago.

I would say the only correct scientific method would be comparing those genes of mice and human having only one allele. But I am afraid no one knows which they are, so we are comparing everything with everything and the results consequently vary sometimes (don't scientists change the number of the same genes between human and chimps every two years? But there is much more polymorphism in chimps than in humans, so again maybe the result depend which heterozygotes from both species they are comparing or what).

And last but not at least. Comparing differences between genome of brother and the genome of his sister there are changes let say in 100 genes having (different alleles of it). But those differences are not caused by "random mutation" purified by natural selection but only due "frontloading". Otherwise using molecular clocks we could make absurd conclusions that their respective parents diverged 5,2 millions years ago.

Date: 2007/12/05 12:50:56, Link
Author: VMartin
You didn't answer my previuos questions. Or using another point of view:

1) how great is an average difference between coding regions of  two different  human haplotypes choosen by random

2) how great is an average difference between the coding regions of two different mice haplotypes choosen by random
 
3) how great is an average difference between coding regions of a mouse and human haplotypes choosen by random.

I suppose the questions are very simple, aren't they?

Date: 2007/12/05 14:12:13, Link
Author: VMartin
Jam

Quote

No, they aren't. Do you know what the term "haplotype" means? If not, why are you using it?


I mean all alleles in a haploid cell. In human it is sex cell.

Can you answer my questions or no?

Date: 2007/12/05 15:17:42, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (JAM @ Dec. 05 2007,14:50)
 
Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 05 2007,14:12)
Jam

   
Quote

No, they aren't. Do you know what the term "haplotype" means? If not, why are you using it?


I mean all alleles in a haploid cell. In human it is sex cell.

That's not even close to what the term means.

If you want people to answer your questions, you have to speak their language--even if you disagree with their conclusions.

There are more approaches how a haplotype could be defined. Obviously you have never heard yet about this definition:

"Another way to think about it is that a haplotype is half of a genotype."

http://www.everythingbio.com/glos/definition.php?word=haplotype


or wikipedia

"The term haplotype is a portmanteau of "haploid genotype."

In the book "Evolutionary biology" by Flegr there are more definition of haplotype and one of them is "combination of all alleles in a genome of a haploid cell".

Date: 2007/12/05 15:22:30, Link
Author: VMartin
swbarnes2

Quote

Within a strain, there are virtually no genetic differences.


Do you mean their genomes are like those of one-egg twins? It would mean that all individuals of the strain are almost homozygous for every gene in their genome. Am I wrong? It seems to me unbelievable.

Date: 2007/12/06 03:12:48, Link
Author: VMartin
Richard Simons

Quote

That is the intent of doing the inbreeding.


You are right. After 20 or 40 inbred generations mice strains are almost homozygous.  Mice are supposed to be polymorphic in 35% of their genes.

So I suppose that if we compare mice genome between two different mice strains we will obtain difference in 10.500 loci. It is a great difference and using molecular clocks here I would say we would obtain the result of divergence more than several million years which is much more  greater than 20 (or 40) generations.


In how many loci we obtain difference comparing human vs mice genome in average? Is it much more than 35%?
Any link?

(I suppose mice and human have 30.000 loci and heterozygosity of human is 6%).

Date: 2007/12/06 03:34:46, Link
Author: VMartin
JAM

   
Quote

Can't you read? That definition does not even suggest "...all alleles in a haploid cell. In human it is sex cell."


I can read. I can read also this:


In the case of diploid organisms such as humans, a genome-wide haplotype comprises one member of the pair of alleles for each locus (that is, half of a diploid genome).


But I don't want to dispute with you which definition is correct. I have no problem accept yours as better for scientists and formulate my questions without using "haplotype".I would like to know your opinion about average genetic difference between  mice and human.

First you have written that 100% genes are same.  I have found this:


This is what was actually determined: 99% of mouse genes have homologues in man (the actual protein similarity is much less than 99%....

80% of mouse genes that have a match on the same syntenic region in man are also the best match for that human gene.


http://www.evolutionpages.com/Mouse%20genome%20genes.htm


What do they mean using "the best match"? Exactly or synonymous mutation or what?

If scientists speak about genes I am not very wise from it. I would like to know how many different alleles there are between mice and human actually and how great that difference is in let say in  base-pairs.

I suppose mice and human have also same alleles. How many?

(Heterozygosity of mice 35%, humans 6%, 20.000-30.000
genes. Maybe 35% is overesimated number for 10,500  polymorphic loci in mice genome due my incapacity to compute it more exactly).

Date: 2007/12/07 12:42:50, Link
Author: VMartin
Lou, IanBrown

I feel sorry for both of you.
If you are looking for God I think you are doing well.

Anyway I am not a missionary and I would prefer some answers to my questions.

Date: 2007/12/08 08:56:24, Link
Author: VMartin
JAM

Quote

But I didn't use the adjective "genome-wide," so it should be obvious to anyone who can read that I didn't mean that.


But it was not you who started the discussion about comparing "genome-wide" haplotypes. It was me. And I have used this definition. So it doesn't matter what did you mean or didn't mean speaking about another definition of haplotype.

         
Quote

That's not what I wrote.


OK. You didn't write that "100% genes are same". You wrote they "share 100.0% of their genes".


         
Quote

That's not supported by the numbers on that page. 118/30000 = ~100%, not 99%. The author also uses "homologues" when he means "orthologs." There's a big difference, but there's little hope for you being able to understand it.


Alec MacAndrew writes evolutionary articles. Perhaps he don't know what's the difference between "homologues" and "orthologs" and "paralogs", I don't know. But believe me I know what orthologs mean. You are not the only person in the world who knows it.



         
Quote

Your question makes no sense. We only use the term "alleles" WITHIN a species.


So we are comparing genes and no alleles? Perhaps you could briefly explain me how we compare genes without comparing their respective alleles.
Because obviously also Alec MacAndrew is as wrong as me:

         
Quote

The researchers compared human alleles with mouse and found that the mouse gene is identical to the major (most common) human allele in 67% of cases (similar to the 70% amino acids which are identical between mouse and man proteins).


http://www.evolutionpages.com/Mouse%20genome%20proteins.htm


These words nitpicking is interesting but my questions remain unanswered. Comparing alleles of two genomes of different mouse strains after 20 generation of imbreeding what would be the result as to their last common ancestor using molecular clocks? If the polymorphism of mouse genes is 35% wouldn't be the result several million years?

Date: 2007/12/08 13:35:24, Link
Author: VMartin
According John DaveScot purged Uncommon descent from opponents entirely.

http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi....#001068

Date: 2007/12/10 11:42:56, Link
Author: VMartin
JAM
 
Quote

118/30000 = ~100%, not 99%.
.
.
.
Never heard of him. Clearly, he can't do percentages.


Your result 118/30000 = ~100% is not correct either. I  would say it is 0,39%.

Even if you have meant 99.61% the author you criticized is more correct than you. He claims "This is what was actually determined: 99% of mouse genes have homologues in man". It is true. Even if he had claimed "This is what was actually determined: 98% (or 97%) of mouse genes have homologues in man" he would have been right from the logical point of view.  98% (97%) have homologues. Every number less 99,61% is strictly speaking correct. 100% is simply not true.

I know JAM, that the most important thing for you is  that everybody is wrong except you. So you can attack me again that I confused homologues and orthologs or what.

 
 

 
Quote

You omitted the context, VM. That was preceded by this sentence:
"Further evidence for common ancestry comes SNPs (Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms) – differences in genomes that exist in different humans where the variation is a single base pair substitution and the alleles co-exist in the population."

SNPs aren't genes. You're hopeless.

Straw man. I didn´t adress SNPs as genes. I claimed that comparing genes we compare their alleles actually. You keep on talking off-topic. So keep the track:  how do you compare genes without comparing existing alleles of those genes?

(And how would you explain the sentence from wikipedia: "Almost all common SNPs have only two alleles"? Just if you have enough time for nitpicking in wikipedia sentences.

You should also write to cat.inist why they used  "...and single nucleotide polymorphic (SNP) genes..." if SNPs are not genes on your opinion.

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=14418886
)
 
   
Quote

Molecular clocks are based on sequences that are not under selection.


What do you mean by "are based"? Because they are calibrated against material evidence such as fossils. And how do you know which sequences are not under selection? According Ka/Ks ratio? Ayala wrote:


....I review the evolution of two genes, Gpdh and Sod. In fruit flies, the encoded glycerol-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GPDH) protein evolves at a rate of 1.1 x 1010 amino acid replacements per site per year when Drosophila species are compared that diverged within the last 55 million years (My), ...

...If we assume a molecular clock and use the Drosophila rate for estimating the divergence of remote organisms, GPDH yields estimates of 2,500 My for the divergence between the animal phyla


http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/clock.html

Do you mean that GPDH is not under selection? Or - Ayala don´t know how to use molecular clocks? Or - I misunderestood the sentences Ayala wrote?

Maybe you are somehow right. Yet our article compares all genes of human and mice regardless of the fact if they are under selection or not.



 
Quote

No. Inbreeding reduces and eventually eliminates polymorphisms within a strain, so that the only ones one observes are caused by new mutations. Since the lab strains are closely related to each other to begin with, they are not representative of wild populations.

Again, you're hopeless.


But I believe there is some hope for you at least.
I am only a layman but you are an expert on off-topic misleading answers. If polymorphism of wild mice population is 35% and we inbred two strains of them ( 40 generation of inbreeding), how many different alleles there would  be in average between the two strains (in those 30.000 genes)? Or better: how many of those 30.000 loci would be occupied by different alleles comparing that strains? 5.000?  

Why this difference do not serve for you as evidence of divergence from common ancestor but difference on those loci between human vs. mice are used this way? As an evidence of divergence from common ancestor?

Date: 2007/12/12 14:46:09, Link
Author: VMartin
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

youngmanstartedphilosophy:

     
Quote

...Those that do find it necessary to invoke supernatural beings invarably are not contribing to the cutting edge, just writing books for lay people. There is a reason for that, or just prove me wrong and show me some productive scientists using ID (or whatever label you want to use) to generate results that standard reality based science is failing to.


Have you ever heard about Louis Pasteur? He was a strong Catholic you know. But maybe if he had been a strong atheist his research would have been more "cutting edge" in those days, what do you think?

It's a pity that so many physicists believe in God. If they studied more evolutionary biology they would see that they are wrong.


Its only evolutionary biologists who clearly see there is nothing supernatural in the Nature.

Because on your opinion  you can believe in God doing quantum physics.  But if you believe in God studying DNA translation or replication you cannot do any valid observation and discoveries according your interesting opinion.

Date: 2007/12/12 15:49:48, Link
Author: VMartin
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote

So, Pasteur eliminates spontaneous generation of life from organic matter. Eliminates another gap.

At what point did his ardent Catholicism affect how he did his research? At what point did he point to a flask and say "god did that"?

Let me make it clear VMartin. Where is your proof?


Let us take it from another side. Let us assume he was an atheist  "contribing to the cutting edge":

At what point did his ardent atheism affect how he did his research? At what point did he point to a flask and say "Natural selection did that"?

Date: 2007/12/13 12:36:16, Link
Author: VMartin
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Lou FCD

Quote

...Harvard anthropology researcher Katherine Whitcomb found two physical differences in male and female backs that until now had gone unnoticed: One lower lumbar vertebra is wedged-shaped in women and more square in men; and a key hip joint is 14 percent larger in women than men when body size is taken into account.
.
.
.
I concede, Godmustadunit.


I would like to know what's behind this phenomena according your opinion. I would bet women with hip joints similar to man didn't survive natural selection. Natural selection also eradicated all woman whose lumbar vertebra wasn't enough wedged-shaped.

Date: 2007/12/13 13:19:07, Link
Author: VMartin
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote

So atheism = Natural Selection?


That's the question!

But I am waiting for JAM's answers to my post where I disclosed his his evasive - and sometimes even wrong I hope - sentences.

JAM could also explain us how those genes he asked Daniel about survived. I mean hind-legs genes in whales. There are still some hind legs bones inside whales as far as I know. But the evolution of whales finished some 40 millions years ago. I don't see a selective pressure for those genes to make their job so long. They should have acquired deleterios mutations you know. Not being under selective pressure they should have been destroyed by deleterious mutation. It was your argument against frontloading, that genes could not survive if they are not under selective (purifying) pressure. But this hind-legs whales genes seems to me contradict such theorizing.

Date: 2007/12/14 00:23:21, Link
Author: VMartin
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

JAM
 
Quote

Only if they exist, and their function is limited to the hind limbs. Do any such genes exist, Marty? Please give their names.


Do you think such genes do not exist? That's very interesting. So those bones of hind legs are atavism which are no coded in DNA? Your reasoning has been always very inspiring. Or maybe those genes code also for lungs, no? But you have heard something about regulatory genes? Do you think that there are not regulatory genes (or cascades) specific for hind legs?

(But taking into consideration all your peculiar definitions of haplotypes, SNS genes which are not genes or comparing genes without comparing their alleles,  there will be I suppose brand new definition of "gene" of yours. Looking forward for your explanation.)


 
Quote

We're testing an ID hypothesis, Marty! What fun!


I was testing darwinian hypothesis actually. Difference of alleles in polymorphic loci between mice strains and comparing different alleles of human vs mice. In one case the difference serve nothing in the second case the difference should prove evolution and divergence from  something called as common ancestor.

Date: 2007/12/14 10:29:09, Link
Author: VMartin
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

LOU
         
Quote

There was a day when we had nothing to do for some reason (I don't recall the circumstance) and so the old guy who was my mentor took me to this big room where they had a computer much more like a modern one - CRT (green text on black of course), tower, keyboard, blah blah.
.
.
.
Talking to that computer was a lot like talking to Marty.



Maybe you were using  IBM with COmmon Business Oriented Language (At least I have heard it was used in the army, also for the navigation of missiles). But I suppose your knowledge about computers are as limited as your knowledge about secrets of evolution. Have you ever heard that in this language is written the majority programming lines in the world even today? 80% of businness in USA is running under it. I suppose programmers still use those "green text on black" on IBM using TSO, ISPF and so on. You know ISPF is used in 90% of companies in FORBES 500. (check it.)

Maybe my orthogenetic opinions are not so outdated as you would like to believe.

Date: 2007/12/14 11:11:05, Link
Author: VMartin
LOU at the thread "Evolution of the horse"

Quote

Until then, talking to you will sadly remain much like talking to that computer - circles and circles without end or hope of substance but minus the fun.


I suppose it is only neodarwinian theories which we are discussing here.

But I think there is a created world which has it's own rules. Those rules inevitable directed evolution towards man. It is old concept of great men of the Rennaissance (like Giordano Bruno) who used for it the expression anima mundi . The same notion is vivid in Orthodox Russian and Greek church under the name Sophia .
These theories cannot be proved/disproved with limited  
scope of the science.

The theory discussed here is neodarwinism. We can use limited knowledes of science to discuss it if it is true or not. So keep the topic please:  is neodarwinism valid explanation of the secret of evolution?

Date: 2007/12/14 11:15:07, Link
Author: VMartin
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

LOU

My answer to your post is off-topic at this thread. I have put it in "VMartin  cosmology". Let us discuss here Daniels' arguments and my support of them.

Date: 2007/12/14 11:37:51, Link
Author: VMartin
theyoungmanphilosophe

 
Quote

What rules?
Who made them?
How are they directing evolution?
Why are they directing evolution towards "man".


And towards the Highest. Spiritual forces. Beyond scope of the science. Would you like to use science to explain
supernatural?

The evolution is over. We have discussed it already. No new mammalian Order last 30 millions years (except Pinnipedia). Diversification of mammals is decreasing. See research of fossils in John Day fossil Beds done also by neodarwian scientist Gingerich.


The period of 39 to 20 million years ago (John Day Formation) seems to harbor the greatest diversity in
known fossils of families and genera. Current diversity
of families and genera of the basin assessment
area does not match that of this time period,
and would even be far less if only current-day
mid- and large-bodied mammals (to match those
taxa more likely to persist and be discovered in
the fossil record) of sagebrush-steppe communities
were considered.


http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr_410/pg069-79.pdf

It agrees with John Davison's quotation of Robert Broom who also claimed that mammalin evolution is over.

Date: 2007/12/14 11:52:32, Link
Author: VMartin
LOU

Quote

After all, Rennaissance [sic] men also held to the concept of predicting the future by smoking weed and drinking a bowl of cow piss (or whatever).  That also has little to do with how man came to be.


Do you mean Copernikus, Kepler and Bruno? That's a brand new theory. You should introduce it refuting Frances Yates conception of theories of those men. She as a prominent historian studied philosophy of those men all her life.

Date: 2007/12/14 13:56:49, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

It was more of a general statement, V.  The point was that the idea that a given concept is valid just because Rennaissance [sic] men believed it is a rather silly invocation of an appeal to authority.

Now, back to your theory...



Why don't you splash this thread away? You are the master. Go ahead darling.

Date: 2007/12/14 14:32:42, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 14 2007,14:12)
Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,14:56)
Why don't you splash this thread away? You are the master. Go ahead darling.

The theory, V.  Get to the theory.

And then you will splash it away. You are the Lord of atheistic keys here.

Date: 2007/12/14 14:39:03, Link
Author: VMartin
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 14 2007,12:15)
Pardon the VMartin interruption.  I'm taking care of that.


You have splashed also JAM post about hind legs genes of whales. Obviously you don't like such discussions. What kind of discussions are permitted here under your charge? Only atheistic neodarwinian craps?

Date: 2007/12/14 15:05:10, Link
Author: VMartin
Lou FCD
Quote

Anything involving your invisible theory needs to go in your cosmology thread or here on the wall.


I see. Franz Heikertinger, Adolf Portmann, Otto Schindewolf, Leo Berg, Goldschmidt, Pierre Grasse (president of the French academy of science), Punnet (Punnet square), Robert Broom, John Davison are wrong and should be only at  the "Bathroom Wall". They are all "outdated" with no "predictions". And it's only you who veni, vidi, vici as administartor of AtBC, hehe.

Date: 2007/12/14 16:09:52, Link
Author: VMartin
The thread about aposematism has been closed by  new administrator LOU who likes only topic backing up neodarwinian points of view (contrary to the administration rules of more liberal Elsberry).

The problem of bright coloration of catterpilars was a puzzle for Darwin (obviously not for LOU). As far as I know Darwin insisted on natural selection even if in this case it doesn't work. He said somethig like " I will believe in Natural selection even if in this case (bright coloration of caterpillars) it is not valid explanation of the phenomena". (According antidarwinian evolutionist Heikertiner.)
I cannot find out his letters about the topic which Darwin discussed with Wallace and Bates. Why is this one  unavailable - and especially the one with his credo about natural selection as the source of bright coloration of caterpillars?

http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-5415.html

Date: 2007/12/14 16:35:48, Link
Author: VMartin
The point is not my hypothesis. It cannot be proved or disproved. I have already written down about it.

The point is that neodarwinian view is wrong on my opinion. That's my "cosmology". I have introduced many arguments why it is wrong. I would like to discuss it. If my arguments are wrong I would like to know why.

Thank you.

Date: 2007/12/15 02:51:38, Link
Author: VMartin
Mr Christopher

 
Quote

But it can be laughed at and quite frankly that's all you're good for.


Reading your sad posts is not so enjoying experience.

 
Quote

Dude, what kind of a turd hangs out at a science blog and says shit like "darwin is wrong" all day long when darwin is proven right in science labs accross this country every stinking day.


Darwinism and science are two separate things Dude.
They have nothing common Dude.

 
Quote

Have you no life?  Is posting here some kind of weird S&M thing for you?


Did you notice you had sent much more posts than me? You know math, science.

Date: 2007/12/18 11:57:03, Link
Author: VMartin
After Lou closed my thread and after one of my post has  disappeared and after Lou has deleted all my Friday's posts from "Evolution of the horse" there is another inconvinience I experienced. I cannot get at AtBC forum using Slovakian provider - the message is


The page you are looking for is currently unavailable.


So I am using services of a proxyserver to send this message. There are so many inconviniences for a critique of darwinism to participate here last time. Oddly enough no such problems existed when W.R. Elsberry was admin.

Date: 2007/12/18 12:19:22, Link
Author: VMartin
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote

...shitty IP in Slovakia...


I don't underestand why my posts have been deleted but posts like this are wellcome here.

Date: 2007/12/18 13:51:27, Link
Author: VMartin
JAM 14.dec.
Quote

If you believe that there is even a single gene that only does hindlimb development AND NOTHING ELSE, why don't you name one?

Do you see how you've made an implicit prediction that the mechanisms underlying hindlimb development were designed de novo, and not co-opted?


There are only some remnants of bones of hind-legs of whales. I don't see a reason why such complicated structures as joints etc are not preserved, but only part adjacent to femura etc.. If there are not single gene why some of them are expressed for 40 million years but some of them not?

We can go into details which some hind leg bones of whales are found and which not. I would say that if some useless bones must be expressed due evolutionary constraints but some needn't is nothing else as an ad hoc explanation without any evidence.

Date: 2007/12/18 14:04:33, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 15 2007,12:56)
About the issue of hind leg genes in whales, I'm wondering if there might be genes specifically for suppressing the hind legs. Not completely, apparently, but reducing them from what they'd be without a supression mechanism.

As I figure it (and not being a biologist I could have this wrong), there are genes that affect (1) all legs, both fore and aft, (2) genes that add distinct features to forelegs (in the case of whales, this would be flippers), and (3) genes that add distinct features to hindlegs (in the case of whales, this would be to reduce the size of the limbs to get them out of the way). Obviously (1) and (2) are needed, since flippers are used in swimming. So if hind limbs can't be removed without interfering with flipper development, that leaves adding genes to suppress hind limb development if those limbs have a detrimental effect.

Henry

See my previous post. The problem is that front and hind-legs evolves independently during their ontogenetical development. They are created from different parts of germinal tissue (I suppose). Evolution has had 40 millions years to get rid of that bones. We need to compare existing useless bones with those of front limbs and with those of terrestrial mammals to make any assesment if your or JAM arguments have any explanatory value.

Date: 2007/12/18 16:35:50, Link
Author: VMartin
Annyday
Quote

In the same way, whales have big, floating leg bones and it's entirely likely it's just not possible to get rid of them at this point. Poor things are just gonna have to live with them. Yes, this is an ad hoc explanation from whale species to whale species- because evolution is an ad hoc process. It works with whatever's there, in weird and idiosyncratic ways.


As far as I know there are only small pelvis, femur and tibia bones found in whales. The whole bunch of small bones are missing (tarsus, metatarsus, finger bones etc...). Especially all those bones which take effect in front limbs of whales. Because most of bones are missing I don't see a reason why exactly pelvis, femur and tibia survived 40 million years and are still expressed without any obvious function.


And in the Right Whale not only the femur but also the tibia exists. Of course these bones are buried deeply under the skin, causing no protuberance on the body surface." [Ogawa]


Why other bones are not buried as well and have  disappeared? Do you really suppose some evolutionary constraits that take effect on that bones but not on smaller ones?

Does really epistatic interaction or gene pleiotropy account for existence of tibia but not for metatarsus in whales?

Date: 2007/12/18 23:47:27, Link
Author: VMartin
JAM

Quote

That has nothing to do with my challenge to you, Marty. You predicted that "hindlimb genes" would accumulate harmful mutations, but that prediction requires the assumption that there exist "hindlimb genes" that function in no other way.

Why are you afraid to test your assumption against reality, Marty?


Obviously there are genes which are only responsible  for creation of metatarsus. This group of "metatarsus genes" are not expressed anymore in hindlimbs of whales.

There are also genes which are responsible for creation of tarsus and other small bones. This group of "tarsus genes" are not expressed anymore in hindlimb of whales either.

But group of genes responsible for creatrion of tibia and femura are expressed. These bones are protracting from bodies of terrestrial mammals. In whales they are buried inside their bodies.

They are expressed 40 million of years without any obvious function.

The point is not if "hind-limbes" genes have other function or not.

Or do you think that tibia genes have other functions and metatarsus genes do not have?

Date: 2007/12/18 23:58:54, Link
Author: VMartin
Annyday.


I used "really" because your answers were ridiculous. You have written:

Quote

Also, vestigial does not equal functionless. The bones don't do what leg bones are supposed to do, but the rest of the whale's bone and muscular structure could be dependent upon their presence for certain things at this point. Evolution is messy like that, sometimes weird and rather inefficient things happen because of evolutionary quirks. A favorite old-time example is that humans have blind spots due to the way the optic nerve is set up. It would be nice if we could evolve an optic nerve that isn't positioned like machinery put in by a drunk mechanic, but now that the nerve is there it's not evolutionarily feasible to move it.


Blindspots are not vestigal organs Dude. Read also something about how this "vestigal organ" effects vision in birds like eagles etc...

Quote

but the rest of the whale's bone and muscular structure could be dependent upon their presence for certain things at this point.


Could be or could be not. Depends on if you are a darwinist. In that case you should be able to invent a story while whales didn't get rid those funny small remnants of bones for 40 million of years. Your weird generall explanation is but funny. Those bones are not connected together and with the skeleton of whales.    


Maybe you should write something more about "their presence for certain things". I like darwinian stories.

Date: 2007/12/19 13:46:18, Link
Author: VMartin
JAM
Quote

Marty, eye on the ball now. We're discussing your idiotic assumption that genes exist that ONLY function in the development of the hindlimb.


Calm down JAM. You are discussing only your straw man.

You didn't know one of possible definitions of haplotype JAM. You claimed that SNPs are not genes. I didn't call you ignorant and liar (as you always do when your adversaries are not exact or make a mistake). I did't call even your assumption idiotic.    

Quote

Name them, Marty. How can they be obvious if you can't name them?


The term "gene" had been in use long before it was discovered where they rest in DNA. No one was making fool of himself and annoying Fisher or other scientists which used term "gene"  with idiotic arguments "you can't name them" or "name them, Ronald! Just name them!" .

Date: 2007/12/19 14:14:32, Link
Author: VMartin
Annyday

Quote

When we don't give genetic details, we're telling just-so stories.


There are many striking so called mimicry rings amogst butterflies species. They are explained by effect of "supergenes". Do you think that such neodarwinian explanations are also "just-so stories" as long as that genes are not named?

Date: 2007/12/20 14:16:46, Link
Author: VMartin
That's fine John has his own blog. He can explain there his ideas for those who are interested. I hope the blog is not under the control of Alan Fox who established it for John. I think John will also disclose there all nonsense which are spreading from Pharyngula and other similar venues.

The last John's blog has been blocked up by some of his  adversary who sent there the whole "Origin of species".

Date: 2007/12/20 14:48:56, Link
Author: VMartin
What I am surprised is that Alan Fox has the password to John's new blog.

http://john.a.davison.free.fr/?p=4#comment-11

Personally (if possible) I would change the password immediately.

I am curious if there will be some participants of "knowledgeable evolutionists" from Pharyngula. You know their theories about color perception (green = white - red) etc... Also theories about natural selection and empy niches as driving forces of evolution is something I hope John will
respond there with his scathing criticism. We will see. The blog needs some time.

Date: 2007/12/21 10:35:09, Link
Author: VMartin
Hi Daniel,

somebody at EvC gave the link to the article written by Professor Richard C. Strohman, Uni California : "Epigenesis and Complexity: The Coming Revolution in Biology"

http://www.thecomplementarynature.com/TCN%20A....ics.pdf

If you have time check it. It is very interesting. I hope such voices will be more common in the future.


According professor Zdenek Neubauer (Charles Uni Prague) modern biology is under strong influence of "fachidiots". You know, some people don't know how to tell apart tiger and lion  but they study, analyze and compare their DNA making bold predictions of evolution of that species .

You don't have to worry about JAM arguments. His concept of many basic bilological words are wrong.    

Epigenesis, epistatic interactions or pleitropic effects of genes play obviously significant role in development of an organism. According Strohman real, genetic disease acount for less than 2% of total disease load.  

Strohman quoted also Feynman who should have said:
"Mind must be a sort of dynamical pattern,not so much founded in a neurological substrate as floating above it, independent above it". But you know, Feynmann is an expert on quantum mechanics and maybe he should more discuss his opinions with evolutionary biologists (JAM etc...).

Date: 2007/12/21 11:35:23, Link
Author: VMartin
Occam at "Evolution of horse" thread:

 
Quote

Feynman's dead.  Has been for 19 years.

Judging by the age of the biology research VM likes to cite, he's not that up to date on anything else.  So I guess it's understandable he hasn't heard about Feynman's passing.


But Feynman's explanation of interfernce of single electron passing two slots is still valid explanation of the phenomenon as far as I know.

Moder quantum physics use very often "outdated" or "transcedent" ideas of Rennaisance scientists of "symetry" of the world. We observe "symetry" also in structure of living organisms. But biologists do not consider such "symetry" playing any role in evolution. You know darwinism is a naturalistic theory from 19 century which didn't consider such ideas as "symetry" as valid explanation of anything.

Date: 2007/12/21 11:37:44, Link
Author: VMartin
I've adressed your objection about Feynman at Bathroom wall.

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....st=4500

Date: 2007/12/21 12:44:59, Link
Author: VMartin
Off topic for you at Bathroom wall.
Just for a fun.

Darwin was perplexed how to explain conspicuous coloration of some catterpillars.

He wrote:


Bates says the most gaudy caterpillar he ever saw in Amazonia (of a Sphinx) was conspicuous at the distance of yards from its black and red colouring whilst feeding on large green leaves. If anyone objected to male butterflies having been made beautiful by sexual selection, and asked why should they not have been made beautiful as well as their caterpillars, what would you answer? I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.


http://infomotions.com/etexts/gutenberg/dirs/1/5/9/9/15997/15997.htm

The whole story according Heikertinger (who ridiculed natural selection as the driving source of mimicry) was this:

First Darwin visited Bates and he didn't know the answer (1867). Bates reccomended Darwin to ask Wallace. Wallace responded Darwin that he (Darwin) was the man who always know the right answer. But he (Wallace) had thought that conspicuous coloration had some "warning" meaning. So those three famous men came to the conclusion that the problem could be explained by "unpalatability" of catterpillars. Actually Bates himself proposed such theory many years ago (Bates 1861) in his mimicry concept of the conspicuous coloration of butterfly Leptais .

So those great three men reinvented in 1867 again the theory of warning coloration proposed by one of them in 1861.

---

Franz Heikertinger: Das Raetsel der Mimikry und seine Loesung, Jena 1954, page 16-17

Date: 2007/12/21 12:52:34, Link
Author: VMartin
What a traffic. When I was adding link to my funny post about Darwin and his colorful caterpillars 3 new posts appeared here.

Date: 2007/12/21 13:08:05, Link
Author: VMartin
Annyday

   
Quote

As a rule of thumb, if you want to critique a science, you should have an understanding on par with a cursorily interested undergraduate.


You are right. The cartesian and newtonian concept of the Universe is outdated almost 100 years. Quantum mechanics finished it. Oddly enough these outdated concepts still survive only in the curious naturalistic theory from 19 century called darwinism (I suppose marxism is dead) . Updated version of those old theories in new release is available  under the name  "neodarwinism".

Date: 2007/12/21 13:18:47, Link
Author: VMartin
sorry, I answered to wrong person.

Date: 2007/12/21 13:22:35, Link
Author: VMartin
Annyday

Quote

I'm just trying to figure out how Darwinian evolution is either Cartesian or Newtonian in any way, shape or form.


Determinism. The future is determined only by the past events.

Date: 2007/12/21 14:36:52, Link
Author: VMartin
OK. But I would say mathematics is always at the head of physics and physiscs is always at the head of biology. Compare mathematics, physics and biology in the midst of 19 century or now. I suppose Fourier sequences is a hard stuff to comprehend as well as Gauss functions or Lobatchevsky geometry. Physics cannot move forward unless maths is ready.

These sciences takes advantage over biology everytime. Nowadays physics is concerned with theory of strings (another word of harmony I would say) or complementary forces. These concepts are in accord with old concepts of East's wisdom and in accord with concepts of
great scientists of the European Rennaisance - long before the beauty of complex wisdom has been killed by Descartes and Newton.

But that time is over now. Beauty of the Universe is now penetrating into quantum physics which cannot  avoid using words as "symetry" and other mystical concepts (oddly enough physicists are using again mathematical  "cabalistic" models of rennaissance to describe the reality. The true is what is simple and nice in mathematical point of view.)

Biology is waiting for new models of evolution which would be independent of old concepts of determimism wrapped into "selfish gene" etc...

Date: 2007/12/21 14:54:36, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

That's how you define the True? Can you scientifically quantify 'simple and nice'?


I've added there "from mathematical point of view".

Date: 2007/12/21 15:22:11, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 21 2007,15:02)
VMartin doesn't have an issue with Darwin alone; he apparently thinks that the Enlightenment should be repealed.

I agree with you in a peculiar way. I was surprised that professor Zdenek Neubauer appreciates great contribution of  Darwin's concept for underestanding of the problem of evolution - historicity and singularity of evolution of each species. What he criticises is neodarwinism. He considers neodarwinism (especially Dawkin's famous selfish gene concept) as inevitable outcome of the old newtonian thinking in biology which is according his opinion outdated considering the movements in modern physics.

Date: 2007/12/21 16:16:00, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 21 2007,12:05)
Marty, Arden just asked you a great question that I don't think he has asked you before.

What is a the explanation for bilogical symetry, in words of others How do it arouse?

I understand that the great Czek Martina Hingis addressed this in her life work great tome in which she called the darwnismus tardithetiker.  Further her example of how the selectionist can not account for the fact that the color of orange is also exactly the color of the fruit we call an orange, and the fact often surpresed by darwnists that flies actually fly and that selection can not explain why we call them fly.

Hingis most excellent book 'Darwismus der kansfforkansmyssen ischt danksictermugotten en hypothetiker' is not available outside of two coffee stores in Croatia and from Discovery Insitute because of the materialist aufwuchs on der dissenkank.

Your German is enchating:

 
Quote

'Darwismus der kansfforkansmyssen ischt danksictermugotten en hypothetiker'


I think I would read it if it were available. It sounds like "Neue Wissenschaft und Egoistich gene  verantwortliches fuer der Tropf Erasmus Landessprache".

Having cofee in Croatia it would be pleasure to read. Maybe Hingis adressed there how der Schiedsrichter didn't know how to tell apart spiders and ants, what do you think?

Date: 2007/12/21 16:18:53, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Dec. 21 2007,12:49)
Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 21 2007,12:35)
Occam at "Evolution of horse" thread:

       
Quote

Feynman's dead.  Has been for 19 years.

Judging by the age of the biology research VM likes to cite, he's not that up to date on anything else.  So I guess it's understandable he hasn't heard about Feynman's passing.


But Feynman's explanation of interfernce of single electron passing two slots is still valid explanation of the phenomenon as far as I know.

Moder quantum physics use very often "outdated" or "transcedent" ideas of Rennaisance scientists of "symetry" of the world. We observe "symetry" also in structure of living organisms. But biologists do not consider such "symetry" playing any role in evolution. You know darwinism is a naturalistic theory from 19 century which didn't consider such ideas as "symetry" as valid explanation of anything.

I was referring to your notion of Feynman having a discussion with someone:
   
Quote
But you know, Feynmann is an expert on quantum mechanics and maybe he should more discuss his opinions with evolutionary biologists

How's the weather in Czechoslovakia?

Chech republic and Slovakia parted in 1993. But maybe we have still the same weather. I'll check it on CNN. Wait a minute.

Date: 2007/12/21 16:31:49, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (J-Dog @ Dec. 21 2007,12:45)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 21 2007,12:05)
Marty, Arden just asked you a great question that I don't think he has asked you before.

What is a the explanation for bilogical symetry, in words of others How do it arouse?

I understand that the great Czek Martina Hingis addressed this in her life work great tome in which she called the darwnismus tardithetiker.  Further her example of how the selectionist can not account for the fact that the color of orange is also exactly the color of the fruit we call an orange, and the fact often surpresed by darwnists that flies actually fly and that selection can not explain why we call them fly.

Hingis most excellent book 'Darwismus der kansfforkansmyssen ischt danksictermugotten en hypothetiker' is not available outside of two coffee stores in Croatia and from Discovery Insitute because of the materialist aufwuchs on der dissenkank.

Erasamus-

I do not be understanding why you to bring up Martina Hingis, when it is clearly, that Martina Navratalova could be licking her all the time.

Ba-dump Ching!

Channeled from vMartin's Making Sense alter-ego posting for him.

I thought her name is Navratilova. But maybe she uses name Navratalova in USA. Perhaps she needs some mimicry. Or - who knows - you have heard already about random mutation. Her name has changed, new species -first tennis player and now a licking lesbian. Evolution in action. Darwinian concept has been proved  again!

Date: 2007/12/21 17:05:34, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Annyday @ Dec. 21 2007,16:41)
     
Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 21 2007,15:22)
     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 21 2007,15:02)
VMartin doesn't have an issue with Darwin alone; he apparently thinks that the Enlightenment should be repealed.

I agree with you in a peculiar way. I was surprised that professor Zdenek Neubauer appreciates great contribution of  Darwin's concept for underestanding of the problem of evolution - historicity and singularity of evolution of each species. What he criticises is neodarwinism. He considers neodarwinism (especially Dawkin's famous selfish gene concept) as inevitable outcome of the old newtonian thinking in biology which is according his opinion outdated considering the movements in modern physics.

Yeah.

He doesn't know what he's talking about at all. He's comparing apples and passionfruits. Molecular biology is effected somewhat by quantum physics. Gene-centered evolution really isn't effected much at all. If a biologist says something stupid about the strength of genetic determinism*, as does sometimes occur, it's not because they don't know their quantum mechanics. It's because they don't know their biology.

Genetic determinism isn't much related to determinism in quantum physics. The only way I can imagine this making sense is if you're fundamentally ignorant about one or both of them.

*In fairness, I doubt we could get any significant number of biologists to agree upon precisely how much genetic determinism is too much, but this is not the point.

Perhaps you could explain us briefly what do you mean by "determinism in quantum physics."

I have never heard about "determinism in quantum physics". Some brand new concept of determinism in microcosm? Is movement of electrons "determined" and
Planck's constant or Heisenberg uncertainty principle plays no role in atomic world anymore? Maybe Dawkins refuted it on his public lecture yesterday, who knows.


(There are 19 items googling for "determinism in quantum physics".)

 
Quote

He doesn't know what he's talking about at all.


But it is important that you still know what you are talking about. But only you know it, nobody else.

Quote

Genetic determinism isn't much related to determinism in quantum physics. The only way I can imagine this making sense is if you're fundamentally ignorant about one or both of them.


Which is obviously not your case.

Date: 2007/12/22 01:57:16, Link
Author: VMartin
Erasmus:

   
Quote

Yeah I actually tried to talk sense to the troll for a while.


It's your opinion you were talking sense.

Ah - and compare how many posts you have sent here and how many I have sent. Make an average number of posts per month - and make your own conclusion who is a troll. (the same for Arden who has called me troll as well. The poor guy have sent more that 4.000 posts already.)

But you supposed that I am a retired croatian teacher. I admire you guys. You are young scientists and you still have time for an old teacher to elucidate him how natural selection works. That's nice of you. You are real scientists talking "sense".

Date: 2007/12/22 02:43:18, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 21 2007,17:33)
   
Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 20 2007,15:48)
What I am surprised is that Alan Fox has the password to John's new blog.

http://john.a.davison.free.fr/?p=4#comment-11

Personally (if possible) I would change the password immediately.

VMartin, be nice to Alan. He's the reason you're not banned here anymore.

OK. Alan seems to follow the rule of his French famous fellow-countyman Voltaire:
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. "

I don't know if "to the death" is not exaggerated a bit, but who knows Alan.

Date: 2007/12/22 14:02:14, Link
Author: VMartin
Erasmus

 
Quote

Not as bad as some others.  Particularly hard headed and maybe stupid to boot.  Obsessed with undemonstrable nonsense.  Very likely faking the whole damn accent and slovakia thing.  Glimpses of something better underneath the tard, but it is such a deep layer.


Thank you for your kind words.

 
Quote

Just that you are incapable of advancing an argument without some ridiculous appeal to authorities that have managed to convince no one else.  


No one else? You mean like Giordano Bruno who couldn't convince Oxford's pundits about Copernicanians system? Obviously Copernicus and Bruno were wrong untill they managed to convince others.

Any other interesting and convincing arguments supporting your only possible view about evolution?

Date: 2007/12/26 14:08:13, Link
Author: VMartin
Erasmus at Evolution of the horse:

 
Quote

It may be that supernatural intervention is required for, say, my little boy to grow teeth or his balls to drop.  


And what explanation do you have for the last? I will bet you have nothing. Doctor Myers summarized all explanation of evolution of it in one of his articles. The most curious - and most popular - is that sperm need lower temperature. But maybe sperms only adapted to lower temperature in testicles and darwinians misjudged cause and effect as usually.

The phenomenon of descent of testiclesis is characteristic for males of higher mammalian orders and there is no darwinian explanation of it (and never will be I dare say).

All temperature cause babbling is nonsense considering fact that no such cooling device developed in birds, which have temperature 42 Celsius.

Date: 2007/12/26 23:40:39, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Assassinator @ Dec. 26 2007,16:36)
Meeh he just says darwinismus can't explain balls, well here Marty. Too bad you have to purchase the full article, but it's a start.

I don't have to purchase it. It is full of darwinian nonsenses as well as doctor Myers' article is.


In the light of these findings we discuss some current hypotheses regarding the origin and evolution of the scrotum. We find that these are all incomplete in so far as it is not the presence of the scrotum in various mammal groups that requires explaining.


They don't know how to explain it more than 100 years. They use newspeak "incomplete" instead.


We suggest that the scrotum may have evolved before the origin of mammals, in concert with the evolution of endothermy in the mammalian lineage, and that the scrotum has been lost in many groups because descensus in many respects is a costly process that will be lost in mammal lineages as soon as an alternative solution to the problem of the temperature sensitivity of spermatogenesis is available.


This temperature sensitivity is obviously a bullshit considering birds having temperature 42 Celsius and having no such "cooling" problems..

(Btw. I've noticed you are unable to discuss here any issue on your own. You just send a link like Erasmus about ant mimicry. You don't underestand what you are sending. The poor Mr_Christoper doesn't even have the slightest idea that descent of testicles exists.)

All darwinian nonsenses about descending of testicles are summarised here at Pharyngula (also your article and for free):

http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/descent_of_the_testicle/

Date: 2007/12/27 00:14:19, Link
Author: VMartin
Daniel

Quote

Now, you take a subtle twist on that line and point to your son.



Erasmus obviously thinks that neodarwinian explanation of descent of testicles is correct. The opposite is the fact. We are observing a process that has nothing to do
with any neodarwinian "function".

I've addressed the problem of descent of testicles here:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;st=180

Date: 2007/12/27 10:02:35, Link
Author: VMartin
Assasinator, you are such an amusing darwinian troll. The article states:

       
Quote

A plausible, though at present untestable, scenario is that in the course of the evolution of mammalian endothermy, core body temperatures eventually reached levels at which spermatogenesis was disrupted.


You see there word "untestable", don't you? It's a pure neodarwinian story , nothing else. Btw. regarding  birds. Do you really mean that if their "spermatogenesis" had been disrupted they would have evolved also external testicles or what? Eagles with aeorodynamical balls or what? Otherwise they would die out.

I suppose that mammals and birds have common ancestors where endodermy should have led to descent of testicles (at least according the article you have sent but didn't bothered to read it's abstract). I didn't know that for birds there has been different evolution of spermatogenesis as for mammals and no descent of testicles were needed even at 42 grad Celsius. Maybe mammals should have asked birds how to solve the curious problem without external testicles.

I would say that adaptation of sperms to higher temperature would be a right solution (as is the case of birds having much more higher temperature than mammals). But of course to believe current explaination of descent of testicles you have to be a darwinist.

Did you know that retina must be also cooled in order to work properly? Yet I have never heard about external eyes or "descent of retina" from the eye sockets.

Date: 2007/12/27 10:15:50, Link
Author: VMartin
I appreciate your aspiration for bel esprit. Your remarks are almost as witty as Stendhal's ironic remarks in his letters to friends. You are on the right track.

Have you ever heard about Paul Leautaud?

Date: 2007/12/27 10:23:03, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

I never claimed it was a fact, I just responded to you saying "darwinismus" can't come up with an explanation: you were wrong, they're working on it.


Yeaah, they are working on it more than 100 years with the same result - it is "probably" due to cooling of sperms. They will go on working in such "untestable" ideas till the end of the world. But they are wrong, because descending of testicles has meaning beyond any neodarwinian paradigma. They never cannot solve it using neodarwinian way of thinking.

Date: 2007/12/27 10:52:30, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 27 2007,04:53)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 26 2007,19:29)
Oh, the mind of God!

Your god must love misery, deformity , malaria,  and parasites then. Oh, and beetles. He really likes beetles.

Yeaah. And all those colors of beetles in which neodarwinian scientists see "function", "survival advantge", "aposematism" or "mimicry".
You have heard about black wasps or yellow ladybirds, haven't you? I can send pictures if you like. And you will give us explanation to it.

Date: 2007/12/27 14:36:55, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Alan Fox @ Dec. 27 2007,14:08)
   
Quote
But they are wrong, because descending of testicles has meaning beyond any neodarwinian paradigma.


Well, you've got my attention, now. Please do tell, Martin. The meaning of descending testicles is...

You know, some outdated theory no one cares anymore. Something like German mysticism. Polarity of mammalian bodies, two centres. Head and reproduction organs on the opposite side of the body. Centre of individuality and centre of species proliferation as opposing principles which are now displayed. Maybe not worth of mentioning for you.

But this time darwinists have not better stance with the cooling sperms bullshits.

Date: 2007/12/28 00:16:20, Link
Author: VMartin
Annyday

     
Quote

For instance, many evolutionary mechanisms about both testicles and sex organs in general are fairly well demonstrated. If someone were actually trying to present a case for anything about testicles they might explain known cases in detail as a jumping-off point. It's simply not worth doing with you.


Fairly well demonstrated? Really? I am not angry with you that you believe blindly in your neodarwinian fantasies.Perhaps you haven't read what I quoted about the problem from darwinian sources. Because you are obviously discussing issues without following the whole discussion - just for you (important words in bold):


A plausible, though at present untestable, scenario is that in the course of the evolution of mammalian endothermy, core body temperatures eventually reached levels at which spermatogenesis was disrupted.


Do you see there "untestable"?


ancestral proto-mammal had probably evolved a scrotum as a solution to its fertility requirements, and really, probably the best answer to why we have this odd scrotal arrangement is that that is the way great-great-greatn-grandpa did it.


Do you see there "probably" mentioned twice or should I change the font?


The most likely explanation is that there is something in the function of the testis that is optimized...This seems reasonable...


And it seems reasonable also to assume that presenting untestable hypothesis is evidence of "fairly well demonstrated mechanism" for you.

Date: 2007/12/28 06:52:54, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Assassinator @ Dec. 28 2007,05:33)
Did you notice that it's just ONE article (wich I quikly looked up just to give an example to you) from an entire research topic? Just one? How do you know there isn't more hmm? You know how we call that, that's called biased.

In fact I suppose there is no more of them. I had addressed the problem before you joined the party here, you know. And doctor Myers addressed the "research" in June 2004.  

The topic is tricky, no one can say anything meaningful. So neodarwinists rather avoid discussing and exploring it.
The "function" of the phenomenon is missing.  

http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/descent_of_the_testicle/

Date: 2007/12/28 07:00:55, Link
Author: VMartin
youngadolescentbabling
Quote

As opposed to *nothing* which is what you appear to be offering. Don't you get it yet VMartin? A educated guess is always better then "well, god did it", or in your case "                       " did it. Do I need to change the font to make it clearer?


Your posts - as usually - do not bring anything to the ongoing discussion about descent of testicles. You can shake your hands with Arden whose dictionary is reduced to "and what is the explanation of it?".
You are the same medical case: "God did it not that's all I can tell you guys".

Date: 2007/12/28 16:54:50, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Assassinator @ Dec. 28 2007,07:16)
 
Quote
In fact I suppose there is no more of them.

And how, Martin, on EARTH do you know that?


I suppose doctor Myers who runs Pharyngula would have mentioned them in 2004 if they exist and brought up something new. Don't you think so?

Date: 2008/01/01 04:21:01, Link
Author: VMartin
I don't know what you mean by "testable predictions" that you are still talking about. What "testable predictions" did neodarwinism make? Is evolution from fish to human by RM/NS  "testable prediction" or what?

Neodarwinism hasn't made more "testable predicions" about evolution as Schindewolfs has made I would say.

As you can see in "VMartin comsology" scientists admit that explanation of descent of testicles is untestable.

As to human behaviour these neodarwinian predictions changed as often as socks of scientists who conceived them. I reccomend "Sense and nonsense" from Laland and Brown 2002.

http://www.accampbell.uklinux.net/bookreviews/r/laland-brown.html

The history of explanation of concealed ovulation is really enchanting.

There is no need to suppose that modern synthesis has made any "testable prediction" that would not change soon to another "testable prediction" contradicting the former one.

Date: 2008/01/01 11:03:17, Link
Author: VMartin
Alan Fox at Evolution of the thorse:

 
Quote

Your assertion led me to google and I came across this. It seems someone is testing the idea that undescended testicles result in sterility in the Florida panther. There is lots more on sperm viability and temperature control of the testes.

It seems to me differential temperatures and sperm viability are measurable, and a resultant hypothesis, (sperm survives better at a slightly lower temperature than normal internal body temperature in mammals) is quite testable


Your article states:
 
Quote

Semen quality and endocrine and reproductive functions have been shown to be adversely affected in some inbred lines of several species, including mice, cats, 2 lion subspecies and cheetahs (Wildt 1994). Comparative reproductive analyses of seminal traits in five feline species, revealed that Florida panther males display some of the poorest seminal quality traits ever recorded for any felid species or subspecies (Barone et al., 1994). Total motile sperm per ejaculate in the Florida panther is 18-38 times lower than in other puma subspecies, 30-270 times lower than in other felids and 30 times lower than in the cheetah. Although cougars and other large felids tend to produce high proportions of morphologically abnormal sperm, the Florida panther has a significantly greater frequency of malformed spermatozoa (average 93.5% per ejaculate) than any other subspecies; particularly noteworthy was a 42% incidence of acrosomal defects, a trait that renders sperm deficient in fertilization potential (Barone et al., 1994). Seventy-five percent of the sperm exhibit severe deformity and are classified as having primary abnormalities (Roelke 1990). Compared to Felis concolor from Texas, Colorado, Latin America, and North American zoos, the Florida panther has lower testicular and semen volumes, poorer sperm progressive motility, and more morphologically abnormal sperm, including a higher incidence of acrosomal defects and abnormal mitochondrial sheaths (Barone, et al. 1994).


Somehow I couldn't find there anything about descended testicles, could you? Yet 93,5 % of malformed spermatazoa obviously do not affect fitness of Florida panther. Much ado about nothing.

I don't know if you have followed the entire discussion here about the issue. The problem is that birds having temperature 42 grad Celsius do not have descended testicles.

And lower temperature of sperms in descended testicles might be the result of descent, adaptation to lower temperature, not the cause of it. This mistake of reasoning is common amongst neodarwinists
(and behavorial ecologists especially).

Date: 2008/01/01 12:27:36, Link
Author: VMartin
Alan,

this is again the extract from the scientific article which we have already discussed here :

   
Quote

A plausible, though at present untestable , scenario is that in the course of the evolution of mammalian endothermy, core body temperatures eventually reached levels at which spermatogenesis was disrupted.


If you think that you have hit upon the case where it can be tested write Myers and Werdelin, Nilsonne  who have written the sentence in " The Evolution of the Scrotum and Testicular Descent in Mammals: a Phylogenetic View." J. theor. Biol. 196:61-72.

Date: 2008/01/02 12:14:21, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

SCHINDEWOLF PRODUCED NO DATA FROM TESTING THE PREDICTIONS OF HIS HYPOTHESIS. Do the caps help?


Someone seems to be pretty angry that Schindewolf didn't support neodarwinian explanation of the horse evolution. But capital letters and hysteria wouldn't do it.

Date: 2008/01/02 13:15:48, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 01 2008,15:26)
Marty let's hear the German mysticism thing.

That sounds like a payoff.

The first positive argument for anything you have made.  Why polar opposites and opposing forces etc?  Why do you say this is the best model for anything, much less biological things?

Category error.

So let's hear your testable explanation of testicles descent in mammals. If you claim that other explanations are "mystic" you surely have some scientific and testable one. You are wellcome to present it.

Date: 2008/01/03 02:44:36, Link
Author: VMartin
I really said that Erasmus. Do you see there also "something like"? Your sense of humor is weak. What's your IQ?

Date: 2008/01/05 13:51:46, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 03 2008,06:55)
   
Quote (VMartin @ Jan. 03 2008,03:44)
I really said that Erasmus. Do you see there also "something like"? Your sense of humor is weak. What's your IQ?

Rather irrelevant to the discussion, VMartin.

An old wise man once said:

       
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 02 2008,14:19)
So let's hear your testable explanation of testicles descent in mammals. If you claim that other explanations are "mystic" you surely have some scientific and testable one. You are wellcome to present it.

So again:

The descent of testicles is observable in many mammalian species. The problem cannot be solved by "cooling spermatozoa" neodarwinian explanation, because:

1) some mammalin species have testicles inside their bodies and obviously haven't "cooling spermatozoa" problems.

2) birds having often temperatures 42 grad Celsius do not have "cooling spermatozoa" problems either.

3) even darwinists themselves admit that their "cooling" explanation is  "untestable".

We should take into the consideration that having testicles outside body is a very dangerous place.

The whole phenomenon can be observed in females too - descent of ovaries during evolution. But of course it is not so aparent and manifest as in males.

What we observe is increasing structuring of mammalin functions and bodies in the two poles. The head pole - responsible for individual orientation towards the world and the opposite pole responsible for reproduction.

So the evolution of the descent of testicles into dangerous places outside of the body is directed by evolutionary forces that stand above random mutation and natural selection.

This can be observed by anyone whose reasoning is not restricted by neodarwinian preconceptions like "form follows function" and other neodarwinian babbling.

Date: 2008/01/05 16:41:46, Link
Author: VMartin
I am surprised that Richardthughes was unable to register himself at professor John Davison blog and it was Alan who registered him there!

http://john.a.davison.free.fr/?p=13#comments

Is Alan still at the charge of professor Davison's blog? It is very weird.

Anyway it's fine that the blog exists. I've  always appreciate  professor John Davison's concept of evolution.

That behind evolution are orthogenetic forces standing above "random mutation and natural selection" can be found in Manifesto and discussed at the blog. If there is interest and I am able to answer I would help to back John's ideas also there. The blog is very pleasant and fine.

------

I adressed the interesting issue of descent of testicles also at VMartin cosmology (the name of thread should probably ridicule me) but no coherent answer has appeared yet. Except of some babble of Arden Chatfield. But his responses I do not read anymore, so I don't know what the guy is babbling about. In some forums there is possibility to switch off answers from specified participants. But avatars help identified them as well.

Date: 2008/01/05 17:12:46, Link
Author: VMartin
I've never read anything from Otto Schindewolf but as far as I can judge he pointed something very paradoxical. In one side there was darwinian gradualism and on the other side there was a biostratigraphy (which focuses on correlating and assigning relative ages of rock strata by using the fossil assemblages). The basic rule of the biostratigraphy was in direct contradction with gradual evolution. Biostratographic always knew there were some species in given rock strata that didn't change continually - otherwise he couldn't have work.  
Because biostratigraphy do not often see in fossil records (there are sometimes exceptions) what gradualists insisted they should have see there, some   tensions arose - with outcomes like "punctuated equilibria" etc..

Date: 2008/01/08 13:51:32, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 06 2008,14:21)
   
Quote (VMartin @ Jan. 05 2008,17:12)
I've never read anything from Otto Schindewolf but as far as I can judge he pointed something very paradoxical. In one side there was darwinian gradualism and on the other side there was a biostratigraphy (which focuses on correlating and assigning relative ages of rock strata by using the fossil assemblages). The basic rule of the biostratigraphy was in direct contradction with gradual evolution. Biostratographic always knew there were some species in given rock strata that didn't change continually - otherwise he couldn't have work.  
Because biostratigraphy do not often see in fossil records (there are sometimes exceptions) what gradualists insisted they should have see there, some   tensions arose - with outcomes like "punctuated equilibria" etc..

That's correct Martin.
Schindewolf pointed out "striking contrasts" between biostratigraphic ages.  But it wasn't the species that did not change which formed the boundaries - it was the sudden appearances and rapid evolution of new forms that delineated the boundaries between ages.  This evolution would then slow down and usually (but not always) become the gradual evolution Darwin speculated about, (although Schindewolf attributed it to constrained, internal factors), thus indicating the middle of the age.  This gradual evolution would usually follow a pattern that trended towards overspecialization and mass extinctions - thus delineating the end of that age.  Then the process would repeat - either with new forms bursting upon the scene, or with one lineage from the previous age, that had not overspecialized, then becoming the "root" species for another explosion of forms.

Of course this (as I've presented it), is an oversimplified view of this since there were numerous fossil types upon which these ages were marked.  I'm sure this stuff is all common knowledge amongst paleontologists and geologists.

That's very interesting Daniel. It's a pity you have to waste time here with people who do not care a bit what is the crux of Schindewolf's theory. Discussion about it would be more instructive.

I hit on the problem of biostartgraphy in the following text-book which is unfortunately in Czech. But the author is no way darwinist I dare say.

http://www.mprinstitute.org/vaclav/Kapitol2.htm

The autor has written on my opinion extraordinary good essay "British metaphysics as reflected in Robert Broom's evolutionary theory" available in English here:

http://www.mprinstitute.org/vaclav/Broom.htm

I was surprised with all that memory capacity of Robert Broom and the mentioned article about autism, it can be found also inet - unbelievable what all is hidden in human brains. One would say Plato was right.

Date: 2008/01/09 12:27:32, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 07 2008,21:53)
Marty, what reasons do you have for supposing that there are such things as 'poles'?

What is a pole in this context?

How do you see this pole?  

What is the pole made of?

We are now getting somewhere, no?  This is much more than 'darwinismus selectionist hypothetiker'.  Please expound.

Erasmus,

you have functional eyes I suppose (even though you have no functional brain obviously. But you are not alone here).


Take a picture of a lion and look - there is a head. What do you see on head? Eyes, nose, ears, muzzle. It is the head where the brain is placed too. This is the one pole. This is the pole where individuality of species is best expressed. Even you recognise other people mostly by their faces. Faces are very individual. Where they are? They are on the head, right.

Now look on the opposite side of the lion. Put your sight on parts where the lion has his hind legs. There you can see penis and scrotal testicles. These organs are destined for reproduction, for creating next generations. There are haploid sex cells there from which the next generation after mating arise.

As you can see (at least I hope so) these organs are on  opposite side of the lion's body. When sometning is on opposite sides we sometimes call it poles. You have heard about the earth poles yet?

So this is very similar. Behold - I do not force you, if you do not see it , that's OK too.

And now open - if you like - the discussion about evolution of descent of testicles at EvC thread which I started. You can see there all arguments and also why neodarwinian explanation of "cooling spermatozoa" is wrong. Because neodarwinists at EvC are two levels above neodarwinists here there was also discussions and not only stupid questions from their part. And at last neodarwinists there admitted they were wrong. Something that is impossible here. And do you know why? Because this forum is full of pompous ignorants.

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin....805&m=1

Date: 2008/01/10 02:37:10, Link
Author: VMartin
Erasmus
Quote

what about starfish?  where are their poles?  


And starfish are mammals too? What's your education?

Date: 2008/01/10 07:22:55, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 10 2008,03:01)
 
Quote (VMartin @ Jan. 10 2008,02:37)
Erasmus
     
Quote

what about starfish?  where are their poles?  


And starfish are mammals too? What's your education?

Why do only mammals have "poles" VMartin?

Because reptiles and birds somehow do not have scrotal testicles outside their bodies. And that's why mammals are "only" Vertebrata having them. Just don't be afraid to use your logic.

Any other off-topic questions? I underestand that poor Arden is on vacation and someone has to play fool here instead. So go on!

Date: 2008/01/10 08:12:00, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 10 2008,07:32)
Quote (VMartin @ Jan. 10 2008,07:22)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 10 2008,03:01)
   
Quote (VMartin @ Jan. 10 2008,02:37)
Erasmus
       
Quote

what about starfish?  where are their poles?  


And starfish are mammals too? What's your education?

Why do only mammals have "poles" VMartin?

Because reptiles and birds somehow do not have scrotal testicles outside their bodies. And that's why mammals are "only" Vertebrata having them. Just don't be afraid to use your logic.

Any other off-topic questions? I underestand that poor Arden is on vacation and someone has to play fool here instead. So go on!

Very well.

How does this "poles" data point support your hypothesis (whatever it is)?

Take it from another end. How scrotal testicles support neodarwinian hypothesis? Are they predicted to occur in mammals using neodarwinian paradigma?

Date: 2008/01/10 08:27:04, Link
Author: VMartin
Calm down student. This is normal scientific procedure. I specified a  problem. Let us solve the problem using neodarwinian paradigma. If we succeeded there is no reason to ask your questions. I may be wrong. So I am waiting for your answers.

Date: 2008/01/10 12:30:13, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

So, IMHO, scrotal testicles are explained by "neodarwinian hypothesis" but not necessarily predicted from first principles.


Can you be more specific? There are several neodarwinian hypothesis of descent of testicles. Which one of them do you have on your mind?

Date: 2008/01/10 23:35:31, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 10 2008,22:43)
If I were to guess, I'd guess that the travel time of the sperm (during mating, that is) would be a likely suspect as to why the storage location became external in the first place. That the sperm wound up (sometimes) adapted to lower temperaturs may have simply a result of that. (In birds, I'd expect that streamlining would be likely to be more important than it is in mammals.)

Henry

Here again is the article by doctor Myers.

http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/descent_of_the_testicle/

There are enumeration of all neodarwinian explanations of the phenomena. At the beginning there is a picture of a shrew with testicles on the upper side of the body.

Take into consideration the fact that an elephant has penis 1 meter long and I suppose sperma has to travel all the journey, because testicles are not descended in elephant either. These two examples as well as the fact that your explanation is not mentioned there is perhaps sufficient evidence that your explanation is another hypothesis with no backing.

Date: 2008/01/11 12:15:41, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 11 2008,02:47)
 
Quote (VMartin @ Jan. 10 2008,23:35)
sufficient evidence that your explanation is another hypothesis with no backing.

And who would know better then you VMartin about that?

Care to answer my question now?

If you insist on a answer from me, my answer is "none of them".

Now you have no excuse (except you don't really need one anyway)

So you don't have any explanation od descent of testicles? None?

But you still believe it was a natural selection responsible for their descent, right?

Something like Darwin: I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.

Date: 2008/01/12 02:32:30, Link
Author: VMartin
Nomad

 
Quote

Yes, we all know that they need cooler climes, but if they were designed that way why not just start them off down there, why the epic journey?


No. Only ignorants think they need cooler climes. Elephants have their testicles inside their bodies. Birds  have their testicles inside their bodies as well. According Britannica:


Whereas mammalian temperatures normally range between 36° and 39° C (97° and 102° F), avian temperatures range between 37.7° and 43.5° C (99.9° and 110.3° F), with the majority between 40° and 42° C (104° and 108° F).

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-48535/dormancy

Date: 2008/01/12 14:08:44, Link
Author: VMartin
Nomad.

Perhaps you omitted the fact that internal testicles (testicondy) are to be found in many species of mammalian superorder Afrotheria

It is on my opinion utterly implausible explanation that testicondy by elephant shrew (a) has been caused by any aquatic or streamline adaptation (T = testicles, K = kidney)



   
Quote

You have no answers, you have no theories, you have no understanding.  You simply have a desire to throw stones at a theory you fear but don't even understand.


But your answers is only "cooling spermatozoa" neodarwinian nonsense. That mammalian species of Afrotheria or birds (often having temperature 43 Celsius) do not have "cooling" problems is no argument for you. You still consider your explanation as scientific and valid.

Date: 2008/01/14 00:00:49, Link
Author: VMartin
Any other neodarwinian explanation (e.g. abuses) of descent of desticles?

Date: 2008/01/16 13:16:23, Link
Author: VMartin
Natural selection bless American beautiful girls!


Date: 2008/01/25 11:09:14, Link
Author: VMartin
You haven't given coherent neodarwinian account of the descent of testicles yet (unless using abuses of me and Slovakian people).

Your only way of discussion is to "google out" some neodarwinian article, put the result here and pretend that the problem has been already solved by someone. The problem has been solved so the abuses follow freely.

One of you mentioned the paper from Werdelin and Nilsonne (1999) "The evolution of the scrotum and testicular descent in mammals: a phylogenetic view."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9892556

The very same paper has been used by doctor Myers at his blog "Descent of the testicle"

http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/descent_of_the_testicle/

Unfortunatelly the problem has not been solved. Werdelin and Nilsonne used an outdated phylogeny of mammals. Authors using the outdated tree came to the conclusion that the most parsimonious explanation is that descended testicles represent the ancestral condition. The phylogeny tree they used can be found also at the previous link.

It was Conrad Knauer there who noticed doctor Myers that both authors based their "parsimonious explanation" on wrong assumptions. Using modern phylogeny tree their conclusions are invalid.

So we are back where we had been before the paper was published.

But putting the problem under the carpet is not a solution of it. The problem - as many others which are unexplainable by neodarwinian paradigma - is still here.
You may pretend it doesn't exist if you like.

Your lost questions like "and what is your account of it Marty?" aren't any valid neodarwinian explanation of it.

Date: 2008/01/25 12:10:44, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 24 2008,18:36)
Schindewolf:

       
Quote

As we all know, Darwin's theory of evolutionary descent asserts that organisms evolve slowly and very gradually through the smallest of individual steps, through the accumulation of an infinite number of small transformations. Consequently, the fossil organic world would have to consist of an uninterrupted, undivided continuum of forms; as Darwin himself said, geological strata must be filled with the remains of every conceivable transitional form between taxonomic groups, between types of organizations and structural designs of differing magnitudes.


The basic problem here is that Darwin did *not* say that. Or, if you think Schindewolf is right, then do the work Schindewolf did not do, and show us where Darwin said just that thing.

Here, have a link to help you out in your search.

I didn't use the link Wesley R. Elsberry had given. I have tried talkorigins instead where the whole Darwin's "The origin of species" is available on-line. I would say Darwin said it unambiguously:


But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter9.html  

Because the problem is the same even after 150 years after Darwin, paleontolgists like Schindewolf tried to solve it many years ago. According paleontologist Vaclav Petr Charles Uni Prague there was a curious situation  when gradual neodarwinian evolution coexisted with biostratigraphy which worked with unchangeable species. Author has also made an interesting observation why Gould hypothesis of "punctuated equilibria" has been somehow accepted, but Schindewolf theory has been totally neglected by neodarwinists. Yet according his opinion Schindewolf "typostrophic theory" has not been invalidated by fossil record yet and so it is possible to consider about it's ressurection as soon as the neodarwinian paradigma falls.


The link is in Czech:

http://www.mprinstitute.org/vaclav/Slovnik.htm

Date: 2008/01/28 15:21:29, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 27 2008,15:16)
Vmartin:

   
Quote

I would say Darwin said it unambiguously:


It pays to read the answer, as well as the question.

No problem: I might be wrong. Anyway I don't see the point of the discussion. It is of no importance what Darwin exactly said or didn't say. I would say the point is summarized in the last sentences of his chapter IX:  

 
Quote

For my part, following out Lyell's metaphor, I look at the natural geological record, as a history of the world imperfectly kept, and written in a changing dialect; of this history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or three countries. Of this volume, only here and there a short chapter has been preserved; and of each page, only here and there a few lines. Each word of the slowly-changing language, in which the history is supposed to be written, being more or less different in the interrupted succession of chapters, may represent the apparently abruptly changed forms of life, entombed in our consecutive, but widely separated formations. On this view, the difficulties above discussed are greatly diminished, or even disappear.


These words are 150 years old and I don't know they are still correct. Do we really know only short chapters and few lines of the book in 2008?

This is the point I would say Daniel addressed talking about Schindewolf. As far as I can judge Schindewolf was of opinion that some chapters of book we know very well today. And he based his theory on it. This is of interest, not if Schindewolf quoted Darwin correctly or not. Btw I would need to see his exactly words in German.

Date: 2008/03/04 10:32:43, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (jeannot @ Mar. 01 2008,06:56)
Too bad the topic about mimicry is closed. Since our expert is VMartin, I'm posting this here, from the current issue of Nature.


   
Quote
Selection overrides gene flow to break down maladaptive mimicry

George R. Harper Jr, & David W. Pfennig


Top of pageAbstract
Predators typically avoid dangerous species, and batesian mimicry evolves when a palatable species (the 'mimic') co-opts a warning signal from a dangerous species (the 'model') and thereby deceives its potential predators. Because predators would not be under selection to avoid the model and any of its look-alikes in areas where the model is absent (that is, allopatry) batesian mimics should occur only in sympatry with their model. However, contrary to this expectation, batesian mimics often occur in allopatry. Here we focus on one such example—a coral snake mimic. Using indirect DNA-based methods, we provide evidence suggesting that mimics migrate from sympatry, where mimicry is favoured to allopatry, where it is disfavoured. Such gene flow is much stronger in nuclear genes than in maternally inherited mitochondrial genes, indicating that dispersal by males may explain the presence of mimetic phenotypes in allopatry. Despite this gene flow, however, individuals from allopatry resemble the model less than do individuals from sympatry. We show that this breakdown of mimicry probably reflects predator-mediated selection acting against individuals expressing the more conspicuous mimetic phenotype in allopatry. Thus, although gene flow may explain why batesian mimics occur in allopatry, natural selection may often override such gene flow and promote the evolution of non-mimetic phenotypes in such areas.

Do I spy the term "Natural selection" in this abstract? Gasp! :O

Perhaps you could tell us what kind of aposematic "model" authors are dealing with. You know  poisonous coral snakes are nocturnal. What predators   are performing selective pressure  for diurnal harmless snakes to look like poisonous nocturnal ones?

Date: 2008/03/07 10:01:15, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 04 2008,11:06)
   
Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 04 2008,10:32)
Perhaps you could tell us what kind of aposematic "model" authors are dealing with. You know  poisonous coral snakes are nocturnal. What predators   are performing selective pressure  for diurnal harmless snakes to look like poisonous nocturnal ones?

Actually, Martin, if you did your homework before shooting off your mouth, you would know that most species of coral snake are not nocturnal, but merely secretive or fossorial, typically hiding under leaf litter and logs etc.  I don't know much about the Old World species, but among the New World species, strictly nocturnal behavior is rare. Most of these (e.g. the Eastern Coral Snake) do get out in the open regularly. The Western Coral Snake, which lives in the Sonoran Desert, is nocturnal, like most animals that live in the Sonoran Desert. But most of the other members of the dozens of species in this group are not nocturnal; some are even aquatic. Do your damn homework first next time.

I'd point you to the links that would help you understand these facts, but since facts have never made a difference to you in previous conversations, I won't bother.


Really? Are you speaking about Micrurus fulvius or Micruroides euryxanthus?

Both species are slender and tend to be nocturnal.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C007974/2_3cor.htm


or


The coral snake (Micrurus fulvius tenere)  is likely the most gaudy of North American venomous snakes... Typically very small by comparison, averaging only 20 inches or so, this snake is seldom seen and tends to be very nocturnal.


or


Micrurus tener tener is a largely nocturnal species but occasionally may be seen out during the early morning hours


Perhaps you or Jeanot - or some other selectionist - could specify more precisely what species do you have in your mind.

Because it is somehow strange that some diurnal snakes are mimicking some nocturnal ones, don´t you think so?

Date: 2008/03/14 12:15:48, Link
Author: VMartin
I hope you understand now that "mimicry" of coral snakes is more complicated problem than your neodarwinian teachers taught you at secondary schools.

At least you have to invent some plausible stories how  it is possible that:

I. model snakes are nocturnal and their mimics are diurnal.

II. model coral snakes are so poisonous that no species can survive their encounter with them. So how can predators  remember they are dangerous? Consequently -what predators do you propose as selective agents?        

III. "Mimics" often lives in areas where no models are present.

The problem is more complicated than you would like to have it.

Date: 2008/03/14 12:36:33, Link
Author: VMartin
Daniel,

it's a pity you have finished the discussion here. But you are right. There were some interesing links you sent. It's more usefull to read those materials. I was again inspired by the link you sent on German idealistic morphology and borrowed Pflanzenmorphology by professor Wilhelm Troll. It has more than 700 pages and it deals with interesting idea that all seed-plants are just variations of ideal "Urpflanze". Wilhelm Troll crucial works  - as those of A. Portmann - haven't been translated into English.

Date: 2008/03/14 12:46:17, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 14 2008,12:32)
Hey Arden don't fuck with him while he is at work.  We don't come down to your barrel and spray a waterhose into the hole.

Marty your comparative method leaves much much to be desired.  I suggest your try reading this paper for some insight:  Pagel and Harvey 1988

You might need access to JSTOR.  There is a literature out there that you should get familiar with before we start this silly dance all over again.  Not that you would do such a thing.

Are you serious? Last time I wanted to discuss with you some cases of "mimicry" you ran away like a stench. I suppose you know nothing about coral snakes mimicry. You just google some articles and pretend to be an "expert" on the issue. Did you ever heard about names like herpetologist Mertens (1956) or Brattstrom (1956) Grobman (1978), Grehlbach (1972), Garstka (1982) or S.M.Smith (1975, 1977, 1978, 1980) who challenged "mimicry" of coral snakes?

Date: 2008/03/14 13:01:37, Link
Author: VMartin
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

I hope normal people read the discussion here and make their own conclusions about darwinists who discussed with Daniel.

The poor ignorant Arden doesn't realise the simple reality that there is a time shift in Europe and it is 8 pm in Slovakia now. We don't work on Friday evenings like you.

Date: 2008/03/14 13:24:33, Link
Author: VMartin
fyi

Paleontologist Vaclav Petr from Uni Prague has just published his Evolutionary dictionary:

http://www.vydavatel.sk/inshop/evolucni-teorie-triton+id-13115.htm

There are several references to John Davison’s work and his original semi-meiotic hypothesis of evolution. The author is another scientist form Uni Prague who mentioned professor John Davison in his work. The first one was Jaroslav Flegr in his monography Evolutionary biology where he explained professor's John Davison theory of non-homology of germ cells in mammals.

http://www.elegenda.sk/knihy....iologie

Date: 2008/03/14 13:53:41, Link
Author: VMartin
I don't know how - if ever - you use Slovakian "zmiznú? ako smrad". Something like "to disappear like a stench"?

All of you here are  prominent neodarwinian linguists fluent in English, German and other languages. No problem for you I suppose.

Date: 2008/03/14 14:03:39, Link
Author: VMartin
Ask someone to check my IP address for you and than continue reading "Selfish gene" in your sanitarium.

Date: 2008/03/14 14:28:40, Link
Author: VMartin
Blipey at Evolution of the horse commenting Daniel:

 
Quote

Your analogy of computer files is terrible.  If a file is not necessary to the functionality OF the computer, it is not functional in the way that the authors see repeated DNA sequences.


And your analogy is a perfect one. Do you know there are computers running many months or years without  being switched off? So why not to delete their "junk" boot sector? Nothing will happens while they run. Until you reboot them again - I recommend that experts like you should be abroad at that time.

Date: 2008/03/14 14:45:03, Link
Author: VMartin
Take a pill Erasmus. In other case Natural selection will  come for your genes.

Date: 2008/03/14 14:50:31, Link
Author: VMartin
Arden.
Probably I would go to your sanitarium to pay you a visit.
I would like to see your neodarwinian physiognomy. It must be a fascinating experience.

Date: 2008/03/14 14:58:58, Link
Author: VMartin
I have already wrote you something dude. Ask someone to check my IP address. Anyway you are as witty as Alan Fox. Shake your hands.

Date: 2008/03/14 16:08:41, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 14 2008,15:05)
     
Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 14 2008,12:15)
I hope you understand now that "mimicry" of coral snakes is more complicated problem than your neodarwinian teachers taught you at secondary schools.

At least you have to invent some plausible stories how  it is possible that:

I. model snakes are nocturnal and their mimics are diurnal.

II. model coral snakes are so poisonous that no species can survive their encounter with them. So how can predators  remember they are dangerous? Consequently -what predators do you propose as selective agents?        

III. "Mimics" often lives in areas where no models are present.

The problem is more complicated than you would like to have it.

Indeed it is.
             
Quote
Coral Snakes usually spend their maximum time underground, under any surface or inside any rock crevices. They remain active on the ground in the daytime, especially on hot sunny days. During very hot weather, activity is primarily nocturnal. This snake is normally active at temperatures between approximately 55 - 85 degrees.
From here

or              
Quote
Arizona Coral Snakes are carnivorous, feeding mainly on blind snakes (Leptotyphlops), which are about the size of worms, but they also occasionally feed on other small snakes and lizards. They are usually diurnal in the spring, nocturnal in the summer (when they are most commonly seen), and both in the fall (rarely come above ground during winter).
From here.

Did it ever occur to you that "nocturnal" and "tend to be nocturnal" or "secretive" are not the same thing?  Did it ever occur to you that these snakes do venture out in the day, and that they might be most vulnerable to predation when they did that? Did it ever occur to you that predators of these snakes probably are diurnal, and that a diurnal mimic would probably benefit from the mimicry? Of course it didn't, since you know as little about coral snakes as you do about any other aspect of reality...

Speaking of reality, maybe you'd like to reconsider this sentence as well "model coral snakes are so poisonous that no species can survive their encounter with them." See here for some data on avian predators, including laughing falcons and puffbirds. And please factor into your tiny brain the reality that the king snakes (various species) are predators of other snakes, immune to the venom of other snakes, and thus could "survive their encounter" with a coral snake.

While you're back here, maybe you can tell us your explanation for the fact that there are diurnal mimics of coral snakes.  I'm sure it is a well-supported and incredibly convincing story, but so far we haven't had the pleasure of hearing it from you.

[chirp chirp]

Perhaps you should be more specific - as I asked you before - what kind of predators do you have on your mind. The link you have given doesn´t work. The other site is some ".com" speculation with no scientific value. I can reccomend you  as well these sentences from jstor dismissing "natural selection" as the source of coral snakes mimicry calling it "pseudomimicry":


Pseudomimicry is the term applied to the condition under which similar color patterns have arisen independently of natural selection in unrelated sympatric species occupying similar habitats. It is further suggested that the resemblances among Micrurus fulvius, Cemophora coccinea, and Lampropeltis triangulum are an example of pseudomimicry.


 pseudomimicry

On the other hand there are predators that have no problems with poisonous coral snakes and consequently it is utterly ridiculous  to consider them as selective agent of aposematism:


As in earlier studies coatis appeared to avoid coral snake models, our findings show that results from studies with abstract snake models cannot unconditionally serve as evidence for an aposematic function of coral snake coloration.



http://www.springerlink.com/content/l60j183265852v30/

The problem is so complicated that I would reccomend that we should first focus only on some part of it. What would you prefer - are really coral snake models nocturnal/diurnal or - what kind of predators they have? Give the exact name of snakes and their predators you would like to support your view of mimicry.

Date: 2008/03/14 16:51:38, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 14 2008,16:36)
Hey Martin, I'm really getting sick and fucking tired of my milkshake being runny when you finally get off the internetismus long enough to bring to the window.  It's getting old.

Albie, I think you an legitimately substitute 'nocturnal' for 'gossipy' and not lose any empirical content in Martin's latest tardation.


Have you ever heard about  Erasmus  who was making fool of himself in discussion with Martin in 16 century?

You are the same case. But nowadays you are a living example of a Darwin's disciple. The great Darwin was so perplexed by aposematism of worms that he claimed:    

I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.

So go on in the best tradition of darwininian exact "science" founded by your teacher.

Date: 2008/03/14 17:07:49, Link
Author: VMartin
Congratulation Arden. 4.800 posts. You are a prolific on-topic neodarwinian AtBC author. 200 more babbling and you are the winner. Do you contribute to other forums as well? You are more prolific than doctor Myers who writes his neodarwinian posts every 2 hours unless he sleeps.
But you are better.

Date: 2008/03/15 01:43:27, Link
Author: VMartin
Albatrossity2

 
Quote

2) I don't give a damn if other snakes are mimics, pseudomimics, trans-mimics, or slovakian belly dancers.



Why are you so angry? Only because a researcher at jstor called the whole coral-snake issue as pseudomimicry?

And why do you want to discuss the issue? You'd better go to MacDonald instead where Erasmus and bipolar Arden are mailing their orders to AtBC.


As to your link. The author observed TWO falcon preying on coral snakes. I don't know if you consider number TWO to be sufficently supportive for an idea, that coral snakes are strictly diurnal or what. Obviously both falcons were successful. In this case as well:


Laughing falcon (Herpetotheres cachinnans) predation on coral snakes (Micrurus nigrocinctus) was recorded in two incidents that illustrate previously unreported variation in predatory behavior. In the first, the falcon held a live coral snake by the posterior end for an extended period of time, rather than decapitating it immediately. In the second, the falcon left a decapitated coral snake in a tree for more than 2 h before returning to recover its prey. A variety of behavioral adaptations may protect laughing falcons from coral snake venom.




here

I would say those falcons aren't selective agents. You should probably find some example where a predator has been bitten by the snake and survived. Such an example would support your neodarwinian fairy-tale about coral snake mimicry.

Date: 2008/03/15 02:54:58, Link
Author: VMartin
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote
Quote
 
Wilhelm Troll crucial works  - as those of A. Portmann - haven't been translated into English.


as shitty as it actually works in practice, the law of supply and demand provides an explanation for this phenomenon.


No wonder if it is you and Arden you who represent "demand".

Date: 2008/03/15 14:07:21, Link
Author: VMartin
I am surprised you don't even know basics of aposematism. The aposematism to be functional have to deter predators. Predators have to learn first that aposematics are dangerous/poisonous/unpalatable. Obviously falcons are not afraid of coral snakes and prey upon them. Consequently they do not avoid them but probably seek them actively my friends.

You have to present other predators which learn that  coral snakes are  poisonous. They should be bitten and survive it and learn from it. Consequently they would avoid coral snakes' mimics.

Do you know them or there will be another flood of babbling?

Date: 2008/03/15 16:29:31, Link
Author: VMartin
Your points 1) and 2) could be summarized under one point. There were many voices claiming that coral snakes are nocturnal, or predominantly nocturnal. Interesting point is also that both cases described in previous links occured in the morning.
   
Quote

3) not all predators attempting to take a coral snake are killed by the snake.


I agree. There are only two cases I 've read about yet.
Digital zero/one: predators who kill and eat coral snakes and species that are killed and eaten by coral snakes. I've never heard about predators trying to kill a coral snake and being bitten by this venomus snake recovered!
And then learned to avoid them!

But such encounters are the only explanation of supposed origin of coral snake's mimics. There is no other.

Quote

What is your favored explanation of the origin of snakes that seem to mimic coral snakes?


Correct: they seems.

Who knows. You know life. Would you like to explain life? -Unless you are a darwinist of course.

Date: 2008/03/17 13:48:07, Link
Author: VMartin
From the history criticising professor Portmann's concept of descent of testicles.

As far as I know professor Adolf Portmann's book Spirit and biology (Geist und Biologie) has never been translated into English. Yet professor Portmann's concept of descent of testicles was criticized heavily in neodarwinian journal Evolution published by Society for the Study of Evolution (can be find at jstor) in 1958.

In the "THE EVOLUTIONARY SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SCROTUM" by Raymond Cowles we can read about cooling of birds spermatozoa:

         
Quote

In summary it seems probable that in the
aves we have a case of vertebrates, having high
normal body temperatures and no external thermal
regulatory scrotum, substituting for this
device a system that requires nocturnal spermatogenesis
when temperatures are regularly 2-3" C. below the daytime norm and that in addition there is direct ventilation and a 2-3" C. cooling in the air sac that partly or wholly insulates the testes from the viscera and the
kidney with its massive blood flow, while permatogenesis
is in progress, and that in addition sperms may be stored in an external protuberance carrying a convoluted portion of the vas deferens. Surely there is evidence here that does not agree with Portmann's dismissal of
the importance of temperature in reproduction.
Portmann's unwillingness to accept the extensive
experimental work that has been done in
this field since at least as early as 1898 and
continuing to the present, and his substitution
of an "all or none" speculation based solely on
the gaudy posteriors of apes and the ornamented
posteriors of some Artiodactyles is less
than convincing.


Whether or not Cowles' hypothetical involvement
of heat sterility and associated phenomena
will prove to be correct in all respects is a
matter for others to say but because of the possible
importance of heat susceptibility in the
spermatogenic process, it is indeed unfortunate
that in order to support his concept, Portmann
is not even willing to concede the correctness
of the conclusions of literally scores of workers.




and Rodolfo Ruibal Uni California in the same journal:

THE EVOLUTION OF THE SCROTUM

         
Quote

Direct evidence has been provided
by Riley (1937) to show that avian spermatogenesis
is sensitive to high temperatures....However,
when the birds become active and raise the body
tetnperautre to 110' F. there is a complete cessation
of spermatogenesis. It is clear that instead of contradicting the thermoregulatory theory, the avian condition does provide corroboration, since there is evidence of some analogous adaptation.

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

Pretty convincing and self-confident neodarwinian stuff, isn't it? Yet the reality seems to be different than neodarwinists would like to have it:

Determination of Testis Temperature Rhythms and Effects of Constant Light on Testicular Function in the Domestic Fowl (Gallus domesticus)

Christine E. Beaupre, 3 ,5 Corinna J. Tressler,4 ,5 Steven J. Beaupr6,6 James L.M. Morgan,5 Walter G. Bottje,5
and John D. Kirby2,5

Center of Excellence for Poultry Science, Departments of Poultry Sciences and Biological Sciences



         
Quote

It is apparent from the data
that the testis is not cooled by association with an air sac and, indeed, is not cooled by any mechanism. Therefore, spermatogenesis occurs in the domestic fowl at the core body temperature of 40-41 C. Our results provide evidence for the uniqueness of spermatogenesis in the avian testis as compared to that of the mammals examined thus far, in which spermatogenesis occurs at 33-350 C.

and authors ask:

         
Quote

Our data raise interesting questions relative to reproductive fitness and evolution. For example, why have most mammals evolved external (and cooler) testes, which makes the testes (and most importantly, the genetic potential they contain) much more vulnerable, while the other predominant homeothermic group, Aves, have evolved testes that function efficiently at elevated core body temperatures?  
 

http://www.biolreprod.org/cgi/reprint/56/6/1570.pdf

Date: 2008/03/18 01:23:04, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 17 2008,16:02)
Quote
Yet the reality seems to be different than neodarwinists would like to have it:


What's the evidence that "neodarwinists" (whoever they are) want things to be the way described in that writeup?

Henry

Did you notice these words: "Portmann's unwillingness to accept the extensive experimental work"?

Date: 2008/03/18 14:21:26, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 18 2008,11:27)
Quote
Did you notice these words: "Portmann's unwillingness to accept the extensive experimental work"?


Ah. But that's just one person. One person having an attitude doesn't imply that that attitude is common in the group that he's in.

Henry

You may have noticed that I quoted in fact two articles from "Evolution". Both of them claimed that professor A.Portmann was wrong, because spermatozoa in birds are cooled  - the claim which turned out to be wrong.

Date: 2008/03/18 14:43:56, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Shirakawasuna @ Mar. 17 2008,08:53)
Has anyone else noticed that he doesn't seem to get the blogging format?  His latest post (Feb 6) is full of his own comments, and I mean *full*.  I'd comment there, but I'm not interested in registering.  Maybe you should give him a nudge, Alan, so his points actually get read, in theory.


But obviously you are interested in registering here - only to make a complaint that you are not inetersted in registering at professor John Davison's  blog. Eh, you must be a darwinist, aren't you?

And what do you mean by "blogging format"? Is there any standard released by some www3 consortium or what? Be more specific.

Maybe professor Davison prefers commenting some issues at discussions' areas and maybe he don't want to introduce new threads every 2 hours like doctor Myers who writes his biological feuilletons from 6 AM till 24 PM 7 days a week like an automata.

I read professor Davison's posts and they are fine.

Date: 2008/03/19 14:02:03, Link
Author: VMartin
Arnold B. Grobman in his article

An Alternative Solution to the Coral Snake Mimic Problem (Reptilia, Serpentes, Elapidae)


JSTOR:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?si.....CO;2-R

calls the whole issue of coral snakes mimicry as pseudomimicry. Next to maps and areas of distribution of "mimics" he presented in the article many other facts that are unexplainable by selectionist's fancies. The author dismissed selection as the source of resemblance between coral snakes and their mimics. Interestig is his examples of snakes that are "aposematic" only on their ventral side and so no predator can be warned/scared by it.

For instance ring-neck snake:    



The author of the article (1978) was inspired by ideas  of Reighard (1908) who dismissed selection as source of some colorfull fish.

A. Grobman concludes:

 
Quote

With little or no selection pressure through predation, bright colors and bizarre patterns have arisen among a variety of unrelated species of secretive snakes. Among a substantial number of those species, several independently have developed color patterns of gross similarity although differing in detail. Snakes of similar size with grossly similar patterns bear a superficial
resemblance to each other. When such resembling species occupy approximately the same geographic area, the phenomenon might be called pseudomimicry. It is proposed that the superficial morphological resemblances among the coral snake, scarlet snake, and scarlet kingsnake in the southeastern United States comprise an example of pseudomimicry.

Date: 2008/03/19 16:52:57, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 19 2008,16:27)
 
Quote

With little or no selection pressure through predation, bright colors and bizarre patterns have arisen among a variety of unrelated species of secretive snakes. Among a substantial number of those species, several independently have developed color patterns of gross similarity although differing in detail. Snakes of similar size with grossly similar patterns bear a superficial
resemblance to each other. When such resembling species occupy approximately the same geographic area, the phenomenon might be called pseudomimicry. It is proposed that the superficial morphological resemblances among the coral snake, scarlet snake, and scarlet kingsnake in the southeastern United States comprise an example of pseudomimicry.


What is the explanation of 'pseudomimicry', Marty? I can't help but notice there isn't any actual explanation in here.

Naming something is not an explanation.

Oh really? You didn't notice? Did you read the whole article I have given link to? You would probably see that there is actually proposed an explanation of pseudomimicry (unless you suffers from dyslexia of course).  

Arnold B. Grobman offered an explanation there.

Or do you have problem with conneting to JSTOR from your McDarwin fastfood University?

Date: 2008/03/20 11:43:41, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 19 2008,17:58)
Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 19 2008,17:52)
Oh really? You didn't notice? Did you read the whole article I have given link to? You would probably see that there is actually proposed an explanation of pseudomimicry (unless you suffers from dyslexia of course).  

Arnold B. Grobman offered an explanation there.

Or do you have problem with conneting to JSTOR from your McDarwin fastfood University?

V,

It would be interesting if you actually presented some sort of case, some alternative to the theory of evolution.

As it is, simply repeating "Darwin sucks" in various and sundry forms is becoming tiresome.  Quoting long dead scientists helps you not one whit, especially when you quote ones whose ideas have turned out to be incorrect, which you do with alarming frequency.

Find an alternative.

Actually you haven't presented any evidence that herpetologist and professor of biology Arnold B. Grobman was wrong regarding his research and conclusions about "mimicry" of coral snakes. And it was Jeanot and not me who started the discussion about this case of "mimicry".

Professor Grobman also presented in his paper non-selectionist explanation of the case. But maybe you  think that all cases of so-called mimicry could be apriori reduced to natural selection whatever the reality and facts are.

And I would like to ask you something. Do you think that contents of Erasmus' posts agree with AtBC rules of  discussion?

Date: 2008/03/21 11:21:07, Link
Author: VMartin
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

I was an object of several interesting psychoanalysis here so allow me kindly to make a psychoanalysis of the interesting article written by doctor Myers about his eviction from the movie Expelled, that is here under heat discussion .

Doctor Myers depicting in his blog the story used some poetical embellishment. He writes:

       
Quote

You see … well, have you ever heard of a sabot? It's a kind of sleeve or lightweight carrier used to surround a piece of munition fired from a gun. It isn't the actually load intended to strike the target, but may even be discarded as it leaves the barrel.



http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php#comments

Obviously in doctor Myers' metaphor he acts not only as a sabot but at the same time  professor Dawkins and his teaching acts as a munition or load fired from a gun!

I guess professor's Dawkins well-known meme of selfish gene influenced doctor Myers' unconcious thinking unusually strong.

Clue:
Sabot = vehicle,  munition = genes and selfish gene teaching as well.

I guess doctor Myers sees himself as a vehicle for selfish gene teaching.  

On the other hand maybe other reason influenced his metaphora as well. What was his real intention to visit the movie Expelled? Was his intention really only the pure curiosity? Or maybe - a little sabotage? In that case he made the slip of the tongue:

Sabotage: Etymology: French,... from sabot  

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sabotage

   
Quote
    I'm a kind of sabot right now.

Date: 2008/03/21 12:23:14, Link
Author: VMartin
You know, I am shocked by what happened to "the sabot" doctor Myers in the cinema. Literally gifted dancing artist Chrisitine called if fascism and mentioned also Stalin in her dramatically written post. Something like Stalin making a bodyguard to Goebbles protecting him against "the sabot" Myers in the cinema . That's cool.

Date: 2008/03/22 01:31:48, Link
Author: VMartin
working on it

Date: 2008/03/22 16:10:51, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote

What is your favored explanation of the origin of snakes that seem to mimic coral snakes?


As far as I know neodarwinian school offered only so-called "Mertensian mimicry" as the explanation of the mimicry of deadly poisonous coral snakes. No one bird has been observed to survive after being bitten. So how can any bird learn not to touch coral-like snakes?


Quote

During the next 80 min, the bird became progressively uncoordinated, unresponsive to my approach, and finally collapsed. By 14:05 h the bird was dead of flaccid paralysis typical of the neurotoxic effects of elapsid venom.


jstor 1989: Red-Tailed Hawk Dies with Coral Snake in Talons

Above mentioned professor Grobman who called the whole issue as pseudomimicry offered this solution:

Quote

In developing the concept of pseudomimicry, it is suggested that in secretive snakes, in which there is no selection pressure for a color pattern that is concealing, camouflaging, deflective, warning, mimicking, etc., a wide variety of non-adaptive color patterns could arise
and some might be quite bright and bizarre....
.
.
.
Among secretive snakes there is little or no selection pressure by predators for a protective color pattern. With little or no selection pressure through predation, bright colors and bizarre patterns have arisen among a variety of unrelated species of secretive snakes. Among a substantial number of those species, several independently have developed color patterns of gross similarity although differing in detail. Snakes of similar size with grossly similar patterns bear a superficial resemblance to each other. When such resembling species occupy approximately the same geographic area, the phenomenon might be called pseudomimicry. It is proposed that the superficial morphological resemblances among the coral snake, scarlet snake, and scarlet kingsnake in the southeastern United States comprise an example of pseudomimicry.


Sounds like Heikertinger who refuted natural selection as the source of mimicry entirely.

As to the so-called neodarwinian mertesian mimicry explanation - or in German "Mertensche mimikry" - Komarek from UNI Prague wrote, that the whole explanation belongs more to the realm of fairy-tales.

Mimicry, Aposematism and Related Phenomena in Animals and Plants 1998

For those who are interested in an independent view on the whole issue of mimicry and neodarwinism as well, some of Komarek's views can be found   here pdf.

Date: 2008/03/22 16:42:56, Link
Author: VMartin
You obviously didn't read my previous post where I highlited the text written by professor Grobman. The discussing case of coral snakes is not mimicry, only "pseudomimicry". Mimicry by definition is a resemblance between the species living in the same area giving some of them survival advantage where natural selection is the source of the resemblance. Because in all discussed cases there is not natural selection involved we are not dealing with "mimicry" only with a resemblance. Consequently I have no answer to something that doesn't exist per definition.

Date: 2008/03/23 01:35:19, Link
Author: VMartin
Albatrossity2

Quote

What is your favored explanation of the origin of snakes that seem to mimic coral snakes?


You use words you don't underestand. What do you mean by "to mimic"?

There are placental wolfs and marsupial wolfs that looks very similar. Would you ask me the stupid question:

What is your favored explanation of the origin of placental wolfs that seem to mimic marsupial wolfs ?  

Make clear yourself what do you mean by "to mimic", "mimicry" and come back. Or better - explain me what do you mean by these words.

Date: 2008/03/23 02:04:05, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 22 2008,17:56)
     
Quote
No one bird has been observed to survive after being bitten. So how can any bird learn not to touch coral-like snakes?


If it happens often for a particular bird species, it might give an advantage to any variety within that species that happens to have an aversion (or even just a lack of interest) in snakes of that appearance, over varieties of the species that lack that aversion.

Henry

But there are some cases observed where birds were bitten and died and some cases where birds killed and decapitated coral snakes. In the same article I have given link to there is a table "Published records of Avian predation on coral snakes and red and black coral snakes".

Observed birds were: Red-tailed hawk, Red-shouldered hawk, American kestrel, Laughing falcon, Puffbird, Loggerhead shrike.

The interesting facts are recorded about the laughing falcons: one decapitated a coral snake but didn't eat it, but another laughing falcon ate living false coral snake without decapitating it! I am not claiming laughing falcons distinguish between coral snakes and king snakes, but perhaps who knows.

Your explanation is a current one as far as I know.
But it requires that such innate aversions evolved in many predatory species - which seems to be very strange - and on the other hand there are many species that attack  coral snakes without any harm.

Date: 2008/03/23 02:30:06, Link
Author: VMartin
Lou FCD

     
Quote

I've made no claims whatever, V.


You made claims. You wrote:

     
Quote

Quoting long dead scientists helps you not one whit, especially when you quote ones whose ideas have turned out to be incorrect, which you do with alarming frequency


Do you mean I was incorrect with coloration of fruiting bodies of mushrooms, wasps "mimicry", descent of testicles? All of them are at least open problems for discussion I dare say.  

       
Quote

Given your own posting history, you might want to consider taking a deep breath before bitching about anyone else.  Please look at aforementioned rules for
the term "excessively annoying".


I wasn't bitching. I asked a question.

Date: 2008/03/24 12:53:59, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 23 2008,07:28)
Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 23 2008,01:35)
Albatrossity2

     
Quote
What is your favored explanation of the origin of snakes that seem to mimic coral snakes?


You use words you don't underestand. What do you mean by "to mimic"?

Huh. I thought you were the one who brought up this topic. It's pretty sad when you admit you don't even know the definition of a word you have been throwing around in your last hundred comments or so.

mimic = "look like"

Thanks

So you think that placental wolfs are "mimicking" marsupial wolfs?

Date: 2008/03/24 13:16:33, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 23 2008,12:12)
 
Quote
For those who are interested in an independent view on the whole issue of mimicry and neodarwinism as well, some of Komarek's views can be found   here pdf.


This paper is a work of history. I can find no evidence of research into the possible mechanisms of mimicry in it. "Komarek' views" shed no light on any alternative explanation of mimicry, unless I have missed something. Perhaps you can pick out something?

I suspect you of very superficial reading the material. Komarek for instance wrote:

 
Quote

Day-active birds, as is well known, attack owls with an almost passionate hatred /so called mobbing/, even though most of them do not constitute a direct danger for the birds. On the other hand, the birds usually cannot attack the owls with any great success. In spite of all neo-Darwinian attempts at interpretation of this phenomenon /e.g. Curio, 1978/ it seems, that „irrational“ emotions, something like archetypal hatred between day birds and night birds, play an important role. This is
seen even clearer in occasionally published papers about occurrences of the mobbing of bats by small day birds /Campbell, 1973, Cundale et al., 1988, Strong & Cuffe, 1985/ (this author observed this as well) - Here neither predation nor competition can play even the slightest role, the only remaining explanation is the deep archetypal hatred for non-birds, which are too
similar not to attract attention and at the same time too different to be accepted as „regular“ birds.).



I think that "archetypal hatred between day birds and night birds" is something that is no way in accord with neodarwinian mantras.

 
Quote

It is interesting that nobody from the Continental school attempted to interpret cryptic phenomena using Jung’s and von Pauli’s (Jung, 1952) principle of synchronicity, or rather in this case „syntopicity“, for which it would be an almost ideal subject (synchronicity is understood by Jung and von Pauli to be the cumulation of phenomena, which require joint interpretation - in this case optical phenomena ) in space and time (even various other mimetic phenomena would fit into this thought system very well). It is important to know that Jung’s and von
Pauli’s (and also Kammerer’s, 1919) principle of synchronicity goes against the whole range of modern science with its principle of causality...
.
.
.
then mimetic paralle lism of the external form would remind us of inter-psychic connections between people who are close to one another, which causes for example the induction of psychic symptoms in otherwise healthy individuals by their sick relations (the well known phenomena folie deux).
Considering the fact that modern science does not operate with the term psýché in this way,
the interpretation of mimetic phenomena in this way lies outside its scope of interest, but in any case this analogy seems to be quite useful


Interesting is also the chapter "Darwinism and sociomorphic modeling". As you can see some biologists from Uni Prague have pretty relaxed stance towards the mainstream neo-darwinism.

Date: 2008/03/24 14:48:25, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 24 2008,13:22)
Martin, can you please explain in more detail this 'archetypical hatred of day birds and night birds'?

In particular, this empirical finding seems to verify the biblical prediction that bats are indeed birds.  I am intrigued by your diligent hard work and of course I apologize for heaping such undeserved scorn upon a true sojourner for truth and knowledge.  It must be difficult to be a piranha and I regret my participation in such behavior.

Shhh some one is coming....

Have you sobered up? What did you drink? Mojito with mexican urine?

Are you still working in the University department with that colleague of yours who doesn't know how to tell apart spiders and ants? What Unversity are you working at?

Date: 2008/03/24 14:51:45, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (jeannot @ Mar. 24 2008,13:25)
Martin has got a point here. Defining mimicry is not straightforward. Probably, wikipedia has a definition. Care to look at it, Martin?

Also, the authors of the Nature paper did some measures of predation on snakes, which supported their hypothesis. What say you?

I have offered my definition of mimicry as Heikertinger had defined it. I've done it several times. It's not my problem that nobody at AtBC read my posts. There are several points which have to be fulfilled to enable a resemblance to be called as "mimicry".

Date: 2008/03/24 14:54:31, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 24 2008,13:31)
Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 24 2008,18:53)
 
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 23 2008,07:28)
 
Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 23 2008,01:35)
Albatrossity2

       
Quote
What is your favored explanation of the origin of snakes that seem to mimic coral snakes?


You use words you don't underestand. What do you mean by "to mimic"?

Huh. I thought you were the one who brought up this topic. It's pretty sad when you admit you don't even know the definition of a word you have been throwing around in your last hundred comments or so.

mimic = "look like"

Thanks

So you think that placental wolfs are "mimicking" marsupial wolfs?

Well, no, he wasn't actually making any claims.

He was asking what you thought explains the fact that some animals look like others. So what do you think?

It depends on animals. Some sabretooth's animals looked surprisingly similar but nobody called the cases of convergent evolution as "mimicry" - except Albatrossity2.

Date: 2008/03/24 14:58:38, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 24 2008,14:19)
Quote (jeannot @ Mar. 24 2008,13:25)
Martin has got a point here. Defining mimicry is not straightforward. Probably, wikipedia has a definition. Care to look at it, Martin?

Also, the authors of the Nature paper did some measures of predation on snakes, which supported their hypothesis. What say you?

I agree. I am not sure that V understands it past the "looks alike" cursory definition, however.  Note that he didn't really answer the question (again) but rather came back with another question.

Sigh.

V. Please try again, using whatever definition of "mimic" yanks your chain.

What is your favored explanation of the origin of snakes that seem to mimic coral snakes?

Unless you define what do you mean by "to mimic" I am afraid our discussion has no sense. You don't even know what you are asking. Btw. have you ever heard of "convergent evolution"? What do you think, what is the difference between "convergent evolution" and "mimicry"?

Date: 2008/03/24 15:05:40, Link
Author: VMartin
Ardent, you have a fine picture now. As soon as I notice it I skip the whole post. Did you write anything?

Date: 2008/03/24 15:14:10, Link
Author: VMartin
Erasmus after another shot of mojito with mexican urine:

 
Quote

By the way please let us know when you are available to go through our ant collection and pull out all of the spiders and beetles that are misidentified.  I hear that there are some snake collectors that also need your expertise.


You didn't give us the names of ants and spiders your colleague from University could not tell apart after half an hour of observing (or more? Maybe he was observing them 6 hours while you were writing your scientific dissertation at AtBC). Btw. hasn't your University written above the main entrance something like Sanatorium? It would explain a lot about you and your "colleagues".

Date: 2008/03/24 15:28:50, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 24 2008,15:22)
Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 24 2008,14:58)
Unless you define what do you mean by "to mimic" I am afraid our discussion has no sense. You don't even know what you are asking. Btw. have you ever heard of "convergent evolution"? What do you think, what is the difference between "convergent evolution" and "mimicry"?

V - I do know what I am asking. And I did define what I meant by "mimic". If it isn't satisfactory, please feel free to provide your own definition. Then, of course, you will have to answer the question. Please note that it has always been worded this way ("seem to mimic") so that you couldn't weasel out of it by flailing away at definitions of mimicry and pseudomimicry. Quit flailing. And please quit asking more questions before you answer this one.

What is your favored explanation of the origin of snakes that seem to mimic coral snakes?

I have already defined "mimicry" here several times. Also for you. Read my answers to your posts please.

Date: 2008/03/26 13:49:42, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (jeannot @ Mar. 24 2008,16:47)
Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 24 2008,14:51)
 
Quote (jeannot @ Mar. 24 2008,13:25)
Martin has got a point here. Defining mimicry is not straightforward. Probably, wikipedia has a definition. Care to look at it, Martin?

Also, the authors of the Nature paper did some measures of predation on snakes, which supported their hypothesis. What say you?

I have offered my definition of mimicry as Heikertinger had defined it. I've done it several times. It's not my problem that nobody at AtBC read my posts. There are several points which have to be fulfilled to enable a resemblance to be called as "mimicry".

Thanks Martin.
Now what about my second point?

Of course there might have been such a result. But I don't see why natural selection should have been involved in the origin of the resemblance.

You know marsupial wolfs look like placental wolfs but it doesn't mean they look similar because of natural selection via their predators.  Even if scientists prove that plasteline models of marsupial wolfs are less attacked in the areas where placental wolfs live as compared with the areas where placental wolfs do not live.

Date: 2008/03/26 13:51:52, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 24 2008,16:58)
Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 24 2008,15:28)
I have already defined "mimicry" here several times. Also for you. Read my answers to your posts please.

Great. If you've defined it, then use that definition to answer the question. And don't accuse me of not reading your posts, when you have spent the last week not reading this:

What is your favored explanation of the origin of snakes that seem to mimic coral snakes?

"Seem to mimic" to whom? To you? Than explain your question yourself. I don't think they are "mimicking" or "they seem to mimic" anything.

Date: 2008/03/26 14:06:54, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 26 2008,04:01)
Martin,

I wrote:    
Quote
I can find no evidence of research into the possible mechanisms of mimicry in it. "Komarek' views" shed no light on any alternative explanation of mimicry, unless I have missed something.


You replied:    
Quote
I suspect you of very superficial reading the material.


This is true, but I was merely scanning for evidence of research and any alternative explanation of mimicry; I found none and asked you to point some out. There is nothing in your reply that answers my question.

I see that one or two other posters have expressed a similar interest in hearing your alternative explanation.

You complain:    
Quote
It's not my problem that nobody at AtBC read my posts.


Well, if you want to hold on to the few that are still bothering to glance at your comments, perhaps you could try a new strategy of answering a simple question, for example:

What is your favored explanation of the origin of snakes that seem to mimic coral snakes?

You didn't bothered read my post  where I quoted Komarek for you. Of course he like darwinists doesn't provide evidence. If you are looking for evidence á la neodarwinian explanation of mimicry you wouldn't find them in his book - but what  you will find there is many  
interesting ideas and observations

As to your last question, see my previous post to Albatrossity. My opinion is in accord with John Davison's claims in his Manifesto. The resemblance between marsupial and placental wolfs has been prescribed from the beginning. The same for the coloration of coral snakes, wasps and their so-called "mimics". It is nothing else as "pseudomimcry". In this case I am on the side of Davison, Heikertinger and Grobman. There are many species with the same color patterns which happen to live next to each other.  Sometimes some of them (or better some of their plasteline models) may have some "survival advantage" from looking like their neighbours, but there was not natural selection involved in the origin of their coloration.

Date: 2008/03/27 13:01:41, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Falk Macara @ Mar. 27 2008,00:49)
When you get around to answering  
Quote
What is your favored explanation of the origin of snakes that seem to mimic coral snakes?


You could provide evidence supporting your assertion that    
Quote
there was not natural selection involved in the origin of their coloration

I see. The definition from the site:

Quote

biol: the close resemblance of one animal or plant species to another species, or to a non-living feature of its natural environment, which protects it from predators or enables it to deceive its prey.



This is very innacurate biological definition. But if you and other participants here think it is correct no wonder that discussion about "mimicry" is hampered by such superficial knowledge.

Date: 2008/03/27 13:08:36, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 26 2008,14:37)
 
Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 26 2008,14:06)
As to your last question, see my previous post to Albatrossity. My opinion is in accord with John Davison's claims in his Manifesto. The resemblance between marsupial and placental wolfs has been prescribed from the beginning. The same for the coloration of coral snakes, wasps and their so-called "mimics".

"Prescribed" brings us closer to an explanation, but it is still not a real explanation. Prescribed by who or what? And how was this prescription filled?  And when was this "beginning"?

Thanks in advance

It means that there was an innate tendency in variation in coloration. This has been set in the past and has nothing to do with natural selection. It can be explained as "self-represenation" of species as proposed by Swiss zoologist professor Adolf Portmann or as frontloading as proposed by professor John Davison in his Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. Also other scientists considered so called "mimicry" as variation of coloration of different animals which happened to resemble each other.

Date: 2008/03/27 13:13:43, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,13:08)
V, read this very carefully.

If something seems to mimic something, it means it looks like it. It doesn't mean it "mimics" it for any other than the superficial definition whereby mimic simply means "looks like".


Are you sure? "Mimics" = "looks like"?


Do you think that marsupial wolfs mimic placental wolfs?

Date: 2008/03/27 13:58:32, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Mar. 27 2008,13:20)
snakes and testicles, snakes and testicles, snakes and testicles.

marty I'm beginning ti think you're soft in the head or possibly have a hidden desire/fetish you're not sharing with the class.

Just when did your obsession begin with snakes and testicles?

It has started when I noticed that darwinists are like bulls. If they see a red colored animal they start shouting - look aposematim! Survival advantage!

Descent of testicles is another phenomenon that darwinists are lost how to explain. They claim in their text-books that there must have been cooling of spermatozoa behind it  (whatever the facts are). They stick to this nonsense like a leech.

Date: 2008/03/27 14:03:23, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,13:26)
 
Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,19:13)
 
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,13:08)
V, read this very carefully.

If something seems to mimic something, it means it looks like it. It doesn't mean it "mimics" it for any other than the superficial definition whereby mimic simply means "looks like".


Are you sure? "Mimics" = "looks like"?


Do you think that marsupial wolfs mimic placental wolfs?

Mimics tend to look like things, yes. Admittedly, my comment was poorly written (I'm not entirely on the ball right now) and no, mimics don't simply look like something, but since you failed to understand what "seems" meant, I phrased it badly.

You "seem" to be lost. Do you realise there is also a crypsis? What do you think what is the difference between mimicry and crypsis?

Date: 2008/03/27 14:36:41, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,14:14)
Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,20:03)
 
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,13:26)
   
Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,19:13)
     
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,13:08)
V, read this very carefully.

If something seems to mimic something, it means it looks like it. It doesn't mean it "mimics" it for any other than the superficial definition whereby mimic simply means "looks like".


Are you sure? "Mimics" = "looks like"?


Do you think that marsupial wolfs mimic placental wolfs?

Mimics tend to look like things, yes. Admittedly, my comment was poorly written (I'm not entirely on the ball right now) and no, mimics don't simply look like something, but since you failed to understand what "seems" meant, I phrased it badly.

You "seem" to be lost. Do you realise there is also a crypsis? What do you think what is the difference between mimicry and crypsis?

Guess what Marty? I don't care. Know why? Well, it's because I'm not the one being asked the question. You state that X cannot be true. Great, why can X not be true? In order for you to state this you must know what really IS true. So why do some snakes look like others? Why do some wolves (note: wolVes) look like other wolves?

Describe what mechanism causes some animals to look like others.

Why should I know what is true? If you claim that the fifth root of 15785 is one hundred I am pretty sure you are wrong even thouhg I don't know the result.

But your question is much more exact than the babbling questions of Albatrossity2. Anyway it is too general. As regarding the coral snakes I have already answered it. It is "pseudomicry" - the resemblance is pure coincidence and it was no way selection by predators that has led to the similarity of king snakes to coral snakes.

Date: 2008/03/27 14:46:32, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 27 2008,14:27)
 
Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,13:08)
 It means that there was an innate tendency in variation in coloration. This has been set in the past and has nothing to do with natural selection. It can be explained as "self-represenation" of species as proposed by Swiss zoologist professor Adolf Portmann or as frontloading as proposed by professor John Davison in his Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. Also other scientists considered so called "mimicry" as variation of coloration of different animals which happened to resemble each other.

Sorry, V, that is not an answer. Saying that it has "nothing to do with natural selection" is not the same as giving us some idea about what you (not Portmann or Davison) think it might have something to do with.  "Set" by whom? Or what?  And when "in the past"?

When you say that "The resemblance between marsupial and placental wolfs has been prescribed from the beginning", it implies more than "an innate tendency in variation in coloration". Even the word "innate" hides a mechanism; we're asking you for a mechanism to explain the observation that some snakes seem to mimic coral snakes. So let's back up and try again.  

"Prescribed" brings us closer to an explanation, but it is still not a real explanation. Prescribed by who or what? And how was this prescription filled?  And when was this "beginning"?

thanks

Why couldn't I back up my ideas with Portmann's or Davison's arguments? Did you invent "natural selection" or "random mutation" and do you consider them for your own ideas or what? You support your notion by arguments of neodarwinian scientists. So do I.

I also don't like your sentences like "So let's back up and try again." I am not here on interrogation and you are not the teacher.

Date: 2008/03/27 15:06:45, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,14:44)
Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,20:36)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,14:14)
 
Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,20:03)
   
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,13:26)
     
Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,19:13)
       
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,13:08)
V, read this very carefully.

If something seems to mimic something, it means it looks like it. It doesn't mean it "mimics" it for any other than the superficial definition whereby mimic simply means "looks like".


Are you sure? "Mimics" = "looks like"?


Do you think that marsupial wolfs mimic placental wolfs?

Mimics tend to look like things, yes. Admittedly, my comment was poorly written (I'm not entirely on the ball right now) and no, mimics don't simply look like something, but since you failed to understand what "seems" meant, I phrased it badly.

You "seem" to be lost. Do you realise there is also a crypsis? What do you think what is the difference between mimicry and crypsis?

Guess what Marty? I don't care. Know why? Well, it's because I'm not the one being asked the question. You state that X cannot be true. Great, why can X not be true? In order for you to state this you must know what really IS true. So why do some snakes look like others? Why do some wolves (note: wolVes) look like other wolves?

Describe what mechanism causes some animals to look like others.

Why should I know what is true? If you claim that the fifth root of 15785 is one hundred I am pretty sure you are wrong even thouhg I don't know the result.

But your question is much more exact than the babbling questions of Albatrossity2. Anyway it is too general. As regarding the coral snakes I have already answered it. It is "pseudomicry" - the resemblance is pure coincidence and it was no way selection by predators that has led to the similarity of king snakes to coral snakes.

Well I'm going to do something strange now Marty. I'm going to thank you for actually supplying an answer.

Congratulations, it only took a few pages, but we got an answer.

"It just is that way".

You are wellcome. Actually I wrote the same thing some pages above. The "pseudomimicry" as explanation of coral snake rings was proposed by professor Grobman. Conspicuous coloration of animals is outcome of relaxed selective pressure and not "aposematism" and "mimicry" as neodarwinian school would like us to believe.

Date: 2008/03/27 15:49:57, Link
Author: VMartin
Albatrossity2:

       
Quote

Because, like you, they had no explanations of HOW these things were "prescribed", or WHEN they were "prescribed", or by WHOM they were "prescribed".  If they did, please point us to those passages in their works, and indicate if you fully agree with these sages.


You are wellcome. Professor Davison suggests that new species may occur by rearrangement of existing genetic material by chromosome inversion followed by first meiotic division. Then the oocyte may instantly acquire a new karyotype and "an evolutionary potential as a new kind of diploid organism."  

I am not a genetist so I cannot judge it. But what seem to be very interesting and something I would like to  stress is professor Davison's  idea that sexual reproduction prevents evolution.  

Professor Davison writes:

       
Quote

The actual facts are as follows. In birds the cells destined to become the germ cells first appear in the extra-embryonic endoderm (germinal crescent) anterior to the head of the developing embryo.
Incidentally, this region has no homologue in the hatched bird as the extra-embryonic endoderm is, by definition, resorbed as nutrient for the developing chick. From there the presumptive germ cells enter
the circulatory system and, after a period of time in the bloodstream, penetrate the walls of the venous circulation and invade the gonad where they differentiate into the definitive gametes. In mammals the presumptive germ cells first appear in the endoderm of the allantois, a structure destined to become the urinary bladder of the adult. From here they migrate in amoeboid fashion anteriorly and laterally to reach the gonad where they complete their differentiation. Thus, there is no way that the reproductive cells of mammals can be homologized with those of birds as they
originate from opposite ends of the embryonic axis and reach the gonads by completely different means.


here

As I wrote elsewhere this concept has been quoted by Jaroslav Flegr Uni Prague in his "Evolutionary biology" 2005 where he wrote that precursors of sexual cells migrate into gonads from different places. It means that sexual cells in different groups of Vertebrata are non-homologous (page 240).

It also means that different groups of Vertebrata has arisen independently. But you can check Davison's Manifesto yourself and discuss with him the issue in more details at his own blog if you like.

As to professor Portmann there are no sources available on internet except of his "New paths in biology" which is only in Czech.

here Czech

Date: 2008/03/28 10:58:53, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 27 2008,21:10)
Tread carefully, VMartin.

Javison is banned.  You may discuss his ideas, such as they are, but posting as his proxy is in itself a bannable offense.

I don't know who "Javison" is. I presented my opinions about the work written by professor John A. Davison.

Date: 2008/03/28 11:20:49, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 27 2008,18:05)
         
Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,15:49)
You are wellcome. Professor Davison suggests that new species may occur by rearrangement of existing genetic material by chromosome inversion followed by first meiotic division. Then the oocyte may instantly acquire a new karyotype and "an evolutionary potential as a new kind of diploid organism."  

I am not a genetist so I cannot judge it. But what seem to be very interesting and something I would like to  stress is professor Davison's  idea that sexual reproduction prevents evolution.

I'm pretty sure that explaining HOW a new species develops is NOT the same thing as explaining WHY some snakes seem to mimic coral snakes. But let's go with that explanation.

It seems to me that one prediction from your invocation of Davison's mechanism for species generation would be that snakes that look the most alike are the most closely related genetically. Would you agree with that prediction?

Actually I don't know the exact opinion of professor John Davison about the coral snakes "mimicry". You'd better  ask him. Otherwise I would be only a messenger between him and you. You probably underestand I will be banned here immediately. He has his own blog where you can discuss it.  

As far as I can judge from his Manifesto he would say that the case is similar to the case of resemblance between marsupial and placental wolfs. That would be my personal "prediction".
My opinion about some striking resemblances you can see in my following post to Henry.

Date: 2008/03/28 11:33:05, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 27 2008,20:48)
       
Quote
It also means that different groups of Vertebrata has arisen independently.


The problem with that conclusion is that it would leave us with a huge number of apparently homologous features that couldn't actually be homologous if that conclusion were correct.

As for why some snakes (or any type of living thing, for that matter) resemble each other - given the huge number of species out there, it seems to me that it'd be extremely unlikely to not find some that resemble each other, sometimes in the same geographic area.

For that matter, such a coincidence as that would be a prerequisite for actual adaptive mimicry.

As for the resemblance of marsupial and placental "wolf", as I understand it that's simply a result of having a similar environment, and a similar way of getting food, therefore similar physical abilities would be a direct result of adaptation to that lifestyle. (It's analogous to why dolphins and whales are largely fish-shaped - that shape is advantageous in that environment.)

Henry

I don't know if the problem of coral snakes "mimicry" could  (or couldn't) be solved by the systematics more precisely. Heikertinger who dismissed natural selection amongst butteflies didn't adressed the coral snakes "mimicry" specifically. Yet he used systematics in addressing many cases of mimicry in insect realm. Darwinists of the past days called "mimicry" also resemblances between species of the same genera of butterflies! The whole systematics of butterflies is the science of itself and I don't know if coloration patterns on butterfly wings play an unimportant role in it. I did't find on my books and on internet the rules of systematics of butterflies.

On the other hand the main proponent of Orthogenesis Theodor Eimer observed some transformational rules in the development of coloration of butterflies wings (and on lizard's skins) in the course of evolution. These transformation rules seem to be independent on "natural selection"  and no wonder if some amazing resemblances of coloration of wing patterns of unrelated butterflies (or lizard's skins) may evoke "mimicry" in a darwinian mind.

Date: 2008/03/28 12:36:26, Link
Author: VMartin
Albatrossity2

You are obviously an arrogant person.

 
Quote

One prediction is that if a particular organism (e.g., a snake) with a particular color pattern goes through this process, one could reasonably expect that the "new kind" of snake would have a high probability of having a similar color pattern.


What "predictions" are you babbling about? You didn't read professor Davison's Manifesto. Otherwise you wouldn't make your bold presuppositions. Professor Davison is a proponent of saltationism and therefore there is no need to make predictions how a new species coloration after "saltus" would look like. Saltationism  is also an idea of Richard Goldschmidt. I will not respond to your post anymore unless you know what you are talking about.

 
Quote

If you can't follow it, you have no business here acting as if you understand the biology of the things that you are discussing.


Yes. Why don't you go away to other threads and  spread your wisdom there where it could be appreciated more? I restricted myself to this thread and Bathroom wall. So don't read and respond at these threads.

     

       

Date: 2008/03/28 13:00:45, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 28 2008,12:39)
I said no mayo and extra salad. Geez, just can't get the staff.

Ask Erasmus and his colleague who don't know how to tell apart spiders and ants on the floor. They are janitors at University. Doing nothing all day.

Date: 2008/03/28 16:29:11, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 28 2008,16:12)
 
Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 28 2008,11:58)
   
Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 27 2008,21:10)
Tread carefully, VMartin.

Javison is banned.  You may discuss his ideas, such as they are, but posting as his proxy is in itself a bannable offense.

I don't know who "Javison" is. I presented my opinions about the work written by professor John A. Davison.

We of course are referring to the same nutjob, crackpot Dohn A. Javison.

If there is any crackpot it's  FOO Lcd no doubt.

Date: 2008/03/29 01:06:00, Link
Author: VMartin
Allbatrosity2

 
Quote

This mechanism generates predictions. One prediction is that if a particular organism (e.g., a snake) with a particular color pattern goes through this process, one could reasonably expect that the "new kind" of snake would have a high probability of having a similar color pattern. It follows that genetic similarity between two snakes should be correlated with the similarity between the color patterns.

Do you agree or disagree with this prediction?  If you disagree, what part of it is disagreeable, and why?



You are still talking about "mechanism" and "going through process" and I don't know what mechanism and process do you mean. Previously you  asked me the question about "seem to mimic" ad nausea. Then came Henry, reformulated the question and discussion went on.  I will bet you will keep asking me the same question about unspecified "mechanism" and "going through process" again and again.

Date: 2008/03/29 01:21:20, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (BopDiddy @ Mar. 28 2008,13:56)
 
Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,15:49)
Professor Davison writes:

           
Quote

The actual facts are as follows. In birds the cells destined to become the germ cells first appear in the extra-embryonic endoderm (germinal crescent) anterior to the head of the developing embryo.
Incidentally, this region has no homologue in the hatched bird as the extra-embryonic endoderm is, by definition, resorbed as nutrient for the developing chick. From there the presumptive germ cells enter
the circulatory system and, after a period of time in the bloodstream, penetrate the walls of the venous circulation and invade the gonad where they differentiate into the definitive gametes. In mammals the presumptive germ cells first appear in the endoderm of the allantois, a structure destined to become the urinary bladder of the adult. From here they migrate in amoeboid fashion anteriorly and laterally to reach the gonad where they complete their differentiation. Thus, there is no way that the reproductive cells of mammals can be homologized with those of birds as they
originate from opposite ends of the embryonic axis and reach the gonads by completely different means.

What about monotremes?  Why would the designer throw us a curve ball like that?

Is your point that a lack of homologues means a lack of common descent?  Then why not just point at bird wings and fly wings and be done with it?

I mentioned non-homology of germ cells. Obviously such case doesn't indicate "common ancestor". Your example doesn't indicate it either. But germ cells ar more important for discussion. You must have heard of Weissman's "the protozoa are immortal". You understand that germ cells are necessary in the flow to common ancestor - which is not the case of wings. Different species may theoretically lose and acquire wings in the course of evolution repeatedly and still have a common ancestor. But they cannot lose germ cells. Non-homology in germ cells is a strong argument against "common descent".

Date: 2008/03/29 09:16:45, Link
Author: VMartin
Albatrossity2.


You are pushing me into the position of making a messenger between professor Davison and you. I don't see reason why you don't ask him.


 
Quote

So I asked. One prediction is that if a particular organism (e.g., a snake) with a particular color pattern goes through this process, one could reasonably expect that the "new kind" of snake would have a high probability of having a similar color pattern. It follows that genetic similarity between two snakes should be correlated with the similarity between the color patterns.

Do you agree or disagree with this prediction?  If you disagree, what part of it is disagreeable, and why?


My personal opinion is this:

1) if unrelated snakes do not have common ancestor there is no need to make any predictions how their genes should look like. They might have quite dissimilar genes even if the color patterns on the snakes' bodies are similar.

2) if snakes do have a common ancestor and have also very similar color patterns I would say they express the same gene sets they inherited. In such case we are not witnissing any "mimicry".

Date: 2008/04/04 13:23:33, Link
Author: VMartin
Henry J


Heikertinger ridiculed "natural selection" as the source of aposematism, mimicry and related phenomena. It occurs too often to be explained by "natural selection". Ladybirds are very conspicuous regarding their coloration. Yet neodarwinian school doesn't have any plausible explanation of it. The same for bugs. Who can  exactly tell apart conspicuos coloration - as mimicry or aposematism - of wasps, coral snakes, butterflies, fruiting bodies of mushrooms, bugs, ladybirds and insist on "natural selection" as the only explanation of it? Even the great Darwin solved the problem by these words:
"I could not answer, but should maintain my ground ."

1

2

3
4

5

Date: 2008/04/04 16:24:41, Link
Author: VMartin
It's "natural selection" on the trial here, not me. Try to address my arguments about "natural selection" as the source of varied color patterns of ladybirds. Your attack against me is no way an answer. Or is it the only neodarwinian explanation you are able to produce? A question? He?

Date: 2008/04/10 14:30:18, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Alan Fox @ April 05 2008,08:59)
Quote
Ladybirds are very conspicuous regarding their coloration. Yet neodarwinian school doesn't have any plausible explanation of it.


Nonsense. Unpalatability/toxicity to vizually hunting predators (aposematism) is one explanation relying on selection. Or are you saying this is an implausible explanation?

Not making much headway here either, are you?

Nonsense is neodarwinian explanation of it. I addressed the whole topic of ladybirds at the richarddawkins.net few minutes ago. I've addressed it at EVC few months ago as well. If you like to discuss it you are wellcome.  
But perhaps you could do some study of the issue before. Otherwise it will be discussion a la "scientist" Erasmus about mimicry of ants.

Date: 2008/04/10 14:54:07, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Henry J @ April 04 2008,22:17)
Well, given what's been said so far on the subject, I have to conclude that coloration is not always under selection due to predation. For one thing, if coloration doesn't significantly affect success rates then it would be free to drift. After all, a creature that can be seen is going to have some color pattern, whether it's bright or drab, solid or multicolored patterned. So, sometimes a similarity in appearance may be simply a coincidence - a point that was established up thread and afaik it wasn't denied by anybody. So unless there's something new to say I don't see any point continuing to rehash that issue.

The presence of unanswered questions does not in itself invalidate general principles that are firmly established by the answering of other questions (such as why are there nested hierarchies - a separate origin model would have to look elsewhere for any explanation of that).

I wonder if any of those beetles have good enough eyesight for their color patterns to serve as species recognition and/or mating signals - in that case coloration could be due to social or sexual selection. I also wonder if the males and females of those species have the same color patterns - do any beetles (or other insects) use the strategy that some bird species do, in which one gender is brightly colored and the other one drab?

Henry


But darwinists do not have any clue - except their fantasy of course -  how to tell apart aposematism, mimicry and a coincidence of color patterns. Black-yellow patterns are so common patterns in insect realm that it is hard to imagine  why only some dragonflies should mimic wasps where other conspicuous dragonflies thrive as well in their "struggle for life". I would say we have a pallete of coloration in dragonflies and coincidentally some of them look waspish. The same for many other species or families. Only a prejudiced mind of a selectionist see in all those cases "mimicry".  

 


but what about this one:



or this one

Date: 2008/04/11 13:04:24, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Henry J @ April 10 2008,16:58)
   
Quote
But darwinists do not have any clue - except their fantasy of course -  how to tell apart aposematism, mimicry and a coincidence of color patterns. Black-yellow patterns are so common patterns in insect realm that it is hard to imagine  why only some dragonflies should mimic wasps where other conspicuous dragonflies thrive as well in their "struggle for life". I would say we have a pallete of coloration in dragonflies and coincidentally some of them look waspish. The same for many other species or families. Only a prejudiced mind of a selectionist see in all those cases "mimicry".


Never mind whether darwinists (whatever those are) have any clues; the question is whether evolutionary biologists know how to set up tests on particular species to distinguish which of those factors are relevant for that species.

Henry

If you know something more about modern "evolutionary biologists" who are not "darwinists" and haven't been fired from their Uni yet (except Behe and biologists from Uni Prague hehe) let me know. I quoted Heikertinger, Mc Atee, Portman, Goldschmidt, Neubauer, Komarek, Petr and Davison who are no way orthodox neo-darwinists and who dismissed "natural selection" and "random mutation" as the source of evolution - or mimicry. I would say many of their arguments might be neglected - but not refuted.

Let me know who refuted 45 years lasting research of US agriculture department of 80.000 stomach contents of birds and of so called "aposematism" of insects (the same for Csiki conclusion about 2.900 birds stomachs Hungary 1905-1910) . The argument that they didn't base their conclusions on "representative sample" is no sufficient unless modern "evolutionary biologists" do the same "representative research" themselves. I would say some dubious experiments with stressed caged birds are no way "representative research" dismissing voluminous observation of behaviour of birds in free done in past.

Date: 2008/04/11 13:26:47, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 11 2008,13:11)
Quote (VMartin @ April 11 2008,13:04)
If you know something more about modern "evolutionary biologists" who are not "darwinists" and haven't been fired from their Uni yet (except Behe and biologists from Uni Prague hehe) let me know. I quoted Heikertinger, Mc Atee, Portman, Goldschmidt, Neubauer, Komarek, Petr and Davison who are no way orthodox neo-darwinists and who dismissed "natural selection" and "random mutation" as the source of evolution - or mimicry. I would say many of their arguments might be neglected - but not refuted.

Let me know who refuted 45 years lasting research of US agriculture department of 80.000 stomach contents of birds and of so called "aposematism" of insects (the same for Csiki conclusion about 2.900 birds stomachs Hungary 1905-1910) . The argument that they didn't base their conclusions on "representative sample" is no sufficient unless modern "evolutionary biologists" do the same "representative research" themselves. I would say some dubious experiments with stressed caged birds are no way "representative research" dismissing voluminous observation of behaviour of birds in free done in past.

Sure, Marty

Whatever you say. "Darwinists" are obviously completely wrong about all of this. Nobody can argue with a refutation of 45 years of stomach content analysis...

But there must be a better explanation that you and the other refuters have some evidence for. So perhaps now you can divulge your explanation of how those dragonflies got those colors and patterns.

I'm all ears...

Obviously "natural selection" is no explanation of it.

Date: 2008/04/11 13:29:57, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Alan Fox @ April 11 2008,13:12)
Quote
But perhaps you could do some study of the issue before.


How ironic! Science fascinates me and I try to learn about new developments as time permits. What can I learn from you? How to open a bank account in Bratislava, perhaps?

In Bratislava? Do you think your irony is as witty as those of Voltaire or Stendhal? I am afraid you are the second class comparing those great French authors. You have still to learn.

Date: 2008/04/12 22:01:57, Link
Author: VMartin
Quote (Lou FCD @ April 05 2008,07:18)
   
Quote (VMartin @ April 04 2008,17:24)
It's "natural selection" on the trial here, not me.

You are quite mistaken.

The trial for natural selection took place in the peer reviewed scientific literature a very long time ago.  It was vindicated.

Your sour grapes and cockamamie rantings on the sidewalk outside the courthouse are irrelevant unless you can go inside and get an alternative to be similarly vindicated.

So far, you've got a sandwich board full of lunatic ravings.



     
Quote
Protester or Crazy Man, by tbertor1


Natural selection has been vindicated only in your confused mind Lou.

---

Good message. The neodarwinian idiots have just banned me at EvC.

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin....3&m=226

Date: 2008/04/12 23:47:48, Link
Author: VMartin
Just before I am banned here too.

The top idiots at AtBC are:

1) ArdenChatfield
2) theolddarwinismyhero
3) Erasmus
4) LouFCD

They have never produced any arguments except denigration, abuses, stupid questions and nonsensical babbling. The whole discussion at AtBC is moderated
by idiot LouFCD who has no slightest idea about justice.

Idiots here are unable to discuss any issue. The only thing they are able to do is to "google out" some neodarwinian article and to parrot the first page of it.  

This is not a forum, this is a cage of fools.

Date: 2008/04/13 00:14:56, Link
Author: VMartin
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Your questions are not on the programme now.

But you can hand down a message to LouFCD from professor John Davison.

LouFCD can kiss him on his purple blister.

Date: 2008/04/13 03:25:11, Link
Author: VMartin
You are a neodarwinian idiot par excellence.

Date: 2008/04/13 06:28:29, Link
Author: VMartin
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Regarding "natural selection" let me quote some ideas written by professor John Davison at his blog.

 
Quote

1. No contemporary organism of which we are aware is competent to become a new true species as defined by Dobzhansky.

2. Mendelian genetics has played no role in speciation or in the generation of any of the higher categories.

3. Both sexual reproduction and natural selection PREVENT creative evolution and are instrumental in ensuring extinction.

4. Phylogeny, like ontogeny still is, WAS driven entirely from within, with the ONLY role for environment being to provide the physico-chemical milieu allowing that process to take place.

5. By far the most important thing that has been “discovered” is that the atheist Darwinian mentality is congenitally incompetent to properly interpret the natural world. They are helpless victims of their “prescribed” fate to be “perfect losers” in the lottery of life. P.Z. Myers is a living example of that most important “discovery.”



Professor John Davison addressed also this forum

 
Quote

After The Bar Closes, all of Pharyngula, all of Panda’s Thumb and all of Richard Dawkins.net - none of these flame pits have anything whatsoever to do with the only matter which has ever been in question - the mechanism of a long ago terminated organic evolution. All those “groupthinks” are is gossip factories whose participants play “can you top this” with one another in denigrating any departure from the biggest hoax in the history of science - godless, aimless Darwinian mysticism.


http://john.a.davison.free.fr/?p=18#comments


I agree. Just I wouldn't call people like ArdenChatfield,theadolesecentDarwin, Erasmus and admin LouFCD "participants". They are simply neodarwinian idiots.

Date: 2008/04/13 06:48:30, Link
Author: VMartin
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Professor John Davison adressed "natural selection" in his blog with these words:

Quote

1. No contemporary organism of which we are aware is competent to become a new true species as defined by Dobzhansky.

2. Mendelian genetics has played no role in speciation or in the generation of any of the higher categories.

3. Both sexual reproduction and natural selection PREVENT creative evolution and are instrumental in ensuring extinction.

4. Phylogeny, like ontogeny still is, WAS driven entirely from within, with the ONLY role for environment being to provide the physico-chemical milieu allowing that process to take place.

5. By far the most important thing that has been “discovered” is that the atheist Darwinian mentality is congenitally incompetent to properly interpret the natural world. They are helpless victims of their “prescribed” fate to be “perfect losers” in the lottery of life. P.Z. Myers is a living example of that most important “discovery.”


He adressed also this forum using these words:

Quote

I submit that self-named Albatrossity 2, whoever that is, has placed an albatross around his own neck when the poor degenerate has to insult two minds, vastly superior to his own, in such an obvious display of the crass, monumentally vulgar, infantile manner that typifies “After The Bar Closes,” Wesley Elsberry’s “inner sanctum,” “our forum,” with P.Z. Myers’ “Pharyngula” the major last surviving bastions of Darwinian auto-delusion and frantic, last ditch desperation, both still vainly supporting the most tested and failed hypothesis in the history of descriptive and experimental science.


http://john.a.davison.free.fr/?p=18#comments

I agree. I totally forgot Albatrossity2, who should be added to the list of neodarwinian idiots at AtBC - ArdenChatfiled, theadolescentDarwin, Erasmus and LouFCD.

 

 

 

=====