|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 05. September 2007 16:45
Arden Chatfield and Alan Fox are both cut from the same bolt of homozygous atheist mysticism. They were "born that way." The only way to deal with such trash is to give them every possible opportunity and urge them to continue making fools of themselves. Then congratulate them! It never fails.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 06. September 2007, 06:34: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 06. September 2007 02:00
quote:
Even Alan Fox didn't respond to my post that adressesd(sic) his latest response.
Do you mean this: quote:
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.
This is not addressing my point. I suggest you have to produce more than your (and others, maybe, though that is not always clear from a quote) distaste for current evolutionary. You are welcome to whatever beliefs and opinions satisfy you. What interests me is whether you have any actual evidence that you can share to substantiate your assertions.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 06. September 2007 06:29
I recommend that Alan Fox/Arjun retreat to After The Bar Closes to continue his abuse of Martin there rather than here. The last time Fox showed up here he was asked to leave by others not by me. He offered nothing then and nothing now. He represents the dregs of internet communication, nothing but Elsberry's servant as just one more atheist worshipper of the Great God Chance.
I also recommend that Martin pay no attention to Fox here but, instead, remind the folks at After The Bar Closes of what Elsberry's hired goon is once more up to which is to denigrate, by whatever means available, any challenge to the Darwinian fairy tale, the most enduring hoax in the history of science.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 06. September 2007 08:12
quote:
He continues to repeat the same question like an automata - if DNA in dinos has been found and where.
Not quite true, Martin. You said:
quote:
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?
I (and John Davison) pointed out that the alleged discovery of 70 million year old T-Rex DNA was due to contamination. I still wonder why you think this would have been a problem for TOE.
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 06. September 2007 13:22
At AtBC there is nobody to discuss issue of mimicry. Heikertinger made fools of Weismann, Bates, Mueller and Poulton. Especially delightfull is reading about Poulton explanation of white C on Vanessa C. album wings. Considering many thousands of bright color patterns on butterflies wings it is really funny - White C should represent split in broken dry leaf and so some kind of refined mimicry.
Heikertinger was of opinion that predators do not focus on coloration but on the movement only. If the predator is motionless none of his prey are afraid of it.
It reminded me on John experiments with toads. Of course toads would catch everything in motion. There is no possibility that they can refine color patterns of anything. But darwinists need such refinement so much that they believe it. Otherwise they are lost.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 06. September 2007 13:54
Martin is referring to one of my lecture demonstrations involving my pet Bufo americana which would lap up BBs as fast as I could roll them at it. It is only the "movement of any small object" that evokes this response. Large moving objects such as marbles produce a defensive reaction. Incidentally I shook the bbs back out of the toad later much to the delight of the students and probably the toad as well!
Would someone please tell Alan Fox to go away and stay away this time? He contributes nothing of value and never has. He is nothing but a troublemaker and Wesley Elsberry's personally appointed ambassador at large for Darwinian mysticism. If Elsberry had an ounce of integrity he would appear here personally, something he has never done to my knowledge. Neither have Myers nor Dawkins. Their absence speaks volumes as to their security. They are much too busy frantically keeping their loyal followers in line!
It is hard to believe isn't it?
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 06. September 2007, 20:15: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 07. September 2007 09:30
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/09/hey_maybe_australia_could_keep.php#comments
Let the record also show that P.Z. Myers has found it necessary to describe our President as asshole-in chief. What else could one expect from a "godless, randomly ejaculating liberal?" The man is a Freudian psychiatrist's dream come true!
It doesn't get any better than this.
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 07. September 2007 12:32
quote:
Heikertinger was of opinion that predators do not focus on coloration but on the movement only.
Did Heikertinger base his opinion on observation and experiment? Any references?
Edit: Is this the amateur entomologist Franz Heikertinger, who died in Vienna in 1953?
Further edit: I note Martin already posted in another thread... quote:
Another influential scientist who did not believe in selection was Austrian entomologist Franz
Heikertinger. Even though not professional biologist, he showed all weak points of darwinian
theory of mimicry.
So, question answered, thanks.
[ 08. September 2007, 06:50: Message edited by: Arjun ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 07. September 2007 14:43
It seems that Arjun/Alan Fox is quite welcome here at "brainstorms" to freely continue what he always has done which is his usual mindless Inquisition-style interrogation. I am disappointed in the management.
I have no intention of responding to him now just as I refused to do so the last time he appeared. I recommend Martin do the same. Fox will soon tire of being obnoxious if he is ignored.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemnstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 07. September 2007, 14:47: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 08. September 2007 05:11
I just noticed this question by another poster that seems to have gone unanswered. I don't know if anyone would like to address it now?
Doctor Davison
You have stated that in order to test the semi-meiotic hypothesis it requires amphibians known to be heterozygous for one or more chromosome reorganizations.
Could you please be so kind as to to describe for us what is involved in acquiring amphibians known to be heterozygous for one or more chromosome reorganizations?
[ 08. September 2007, 06:51: Message edited by: Arjun ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 08. September 2007 22:28
What part of "He does not exist" does arjun/Alan Fox not understand? Besides, I have answered that question countless times. The real mystery is why it has not been actively pursued by others not only in amphibians, but in mammals and other animals as well in which meiosis can be experimentally manipiulated. One thing is for sure. No Darwinians will do the experiments. They are afraid to! Besides they are much too busy sending out their goons like arjun/Alan Fox to disrupt any adversaries to the biggest hoax in the history of science. I can't recall anyone since Dobzhansky who experimentally tested selection, the heart of the Darwinian myth. He of course failed and admitted it. Apparently contemporary species are immutable just as Linnaeus, Cuvier and Owen all assumed. Why Dobzhgansky remained a Darwinian is another mystery. He should have stayed in Russia with his mentor Leo Berg. If he had, I honestly believe Darwinism would have collapsed long ago. Actually it always was a monumental joke anyway. It is kept alive only through the frantic efforts of congenital atheists like Dawkins and Myers and their adoring sycophants like Elsberry, Alan Fox and all the rest of the denizens of both Pharyngula and Panda's Thumb, Darwinian mystics all.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 08. September 2007, 22:32: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 10. September 2007 13:13
quote:
Besides, I have answered that question countless times.
In that case it should be easy enough to tell me where to find one of these countless repetitions of the answer.
Thanks in anticipation.
IP: Logged
|
|
oldmaninthesky
Member
Member # 6038
|
posted 10. September 2007 13:24
VMartin,
The subject "the age of the earth" has come up over at ATBC on the thread for you over there.
Can we conclude that your unwillingness to give a direct simple answer of your opinion on that question (instead VMarting mentions how wildly estimates have diverged over the years) somehow hinges on your acceptance of the PEH and some facet of it?
Or are the two unrelated and co-incidental?
I suppose the longer the earth has existed, the more problematic you'll find it to explain away the absence of any evidence for
quote:
as many independent ancestors in Mammalia as there are mammalian Orders. There might have been many creation.
As far as we can tell, there was not a single creation, never mind many.
[ 10. September 2007, 13:25: Message edited by: oldmaninthesky ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 10. September 2007 13:57
Martin is free to answer your questions on your own blog - After The Bar Closes. Someone there has even introduced a whole thread to "Martin's Cosmology." I recommend you interrogate him there. This thread has to do with my PEH. Your interrogation of Martin has no place here. You are simply being disruptive exactly as Alan Fox has always been. Neither of you have ever offered a positive comment here or elsewhere. Do us all a favor and go away.
"Ae past evolution in undeniable,a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
