RSS
Pharyngula - Evolution, Development and Random Biological Ejaculations
Dr. Paul Z. Myers, an associate professor of biology at University of Minnesota, Morris, talks about ‘Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations‘ in his Science blog Pharyngula.
Tell us about yourself / your team.
I’m a developmental biologist at the University of Minnesota, Morris. I live in a very tiny town very, very far away from everything, and I shout down the tubes of the interweb because I must. I tend to be uncompromising, unkind, unpitying, opinionated, and dismissive of nonsense. I bite. I make small children cry, but I am kind to squid. When I meet people in person, they tend to tell me I’m calm and mild-mannered and professorial, which infuriates me — beneath this soft and tweedy exterior lies a howling, fulminating fury. Seriously, if I actually looked like I feel, I’d be 12 feet tall with lasers blasting out of my eyesockets, OK? Don’t you people have imaginations any more?
I don’t have a team. I’m a member of the Scienceblogs cotillion, but we’re all pretty much independent here.
What is your blog about?
The byline is “Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal”. I seem to have a reputation as a ferocious atheist, and I also write about skirmishes with creationists, interesting discoveries in the world of science, that movie I saw at the theater last night, and the weather. It’s about whatever I damn well feel like that moment.
How did you get started?
I had this software sitting on the server in my lab, and there was this white, empty text box pleading to be filled. I started putting a few words into it to satisfy it, but it craves more and more, and now if I stop, the screaming begins…the horrible, awful, desperate screaming. The box must never be empty.
There’s also a wall that must be painted with the blood of creationists, that must never be allowed to dry…but I’ve said too much, and now I’ve revealed my fondness for nny, and Jhonen Vasquez, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses are never going to ring my doorbell again, are they?
I guess I am just a channel for my brain chemistry and my obsessions.
What is the source of your content?
Much of it bubbles out of my brains, although sometimes my gonads also contribute. If it’s science, it’s probably drawn from Nature, Science, Bioessays, Development, Developmental Genetics, Comparative Journal of Neurology, etc., etc., etc. Some people will tell you the source is my ass, but don’t believe them — that’s only my foundation.
How frequently do you write / post?
Several times a day. Screaming empty text box, remember?
Does your blog generate revenue?
Yes. Although I’d be doing it for free (shhh, don’t tell the guys at Seed Media who pay me.)
Who visits your blog? Tell us a little bit about your readers.
Many of my visitors seem to be people who find that the empty text box at the end of the articles screams at them if they don’t fill it. It’s a common obsession, I suppose.
The threads at Pharyngula tend to be godless dangerous places, not entered lightly, and those with gentle dispositions might want to avoid them. There are large numbers of rabid, militant atheists, knowledgeable evolutionists, and savage raconteurs lurking there, and they lie in wait, slavering and drooling and hoping for fresh meat. I used to get a fair number of creationists, but nowadays they get ripped apart by the commenters so quickly that we rarely have time to appreciate them, other than to admire their scattered, gleaming bones.
But hey, don’t be discouraged. Stop on by. Join the pack, or feed their hunger.
Do you consider yourself successful in blogging? Why?
Yes, but I consider every blogger to be successful. We are expressing ourselves as we wish, and that is all that matters. The freedom is wonderful.
It’s all about our criteria for success, and since all I care about is silencing the screaming of the empty text box, as long as my fingers work, it’s a triumph.
Do you have another job?
Yes. I’m an associate professor of biology. I teach genetics, physiology, development, and neurobiology.
Any advice, suggestion, tips or a message you would like to give to other bloggers?
Everyone has a different style and you should just ignore anyone who tries to tell you how you should write. You are writing to express yourself, not to express how somebody else thinks you should be. Ignore the advice, no matter how well-meaning — it’s a gag and a shackle, and the advisors are your oppressors.
Would you like to add anything else?
Hi, Mom!
Tags: Pharyngula, Science Blog, Professor PZ Myers, Evolution
Share This
Might be Doctor Myers should mentioned how he deal with his adversories more in details. He use false fabrication an even lies. See his article about John Davison
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/04/john_a_davison_fool_in_his_own.php
where he first banned him and me than denigrated us }VMartin). He used fabricated pretext to ban me that I am John Davison what is a lie.
One of the most comic sentence from this article is this one:
I used to get a fair number of creationists, but nowadays they get ripped apart by the commenters so quickly that we rarely have time to appreciate them, other than to admire their scattered, gleaming bones.
The true is that posts from professor Davison as well as post are deleted or disemvoweled by dr.Myers. It is not true they know how to response and “creationists are ripped apart” - atheists at Pharyngula just ignored all evidencies against their darwinistic mantras.
One of these mantras is that coloration of animals is due crypsis/aposematism. I have alredy given them many proofs it is not the case - view supported by such prominent scientist as Adolf Portmann - and darwinists at Pharyngula didn’t responded at all and “ripped me apart”. See:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/03/friday_cephalopod_tasteful_and.php#c389004
April 15th, 2007 at 11:25 am
There is no earthly, heavenly or, for that matter, galactic or even universal reason why you should allow this blog to be hijacked by Prof. Myeres for the purpose of intra-family communication. Besides, and anyway, since the Holy Striptures underlay, undergird, and hold up our underwear, under there, you may be facilitating some sort of digitally incestous ploy. Why take a chance?
April 15th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Mooser:
Thank you for your comment. I am willing to take a chance and let Prof. Myers hijack my blog. I believe he brings a very interesting perspective to life, and a lot of other things!
-P.G.
April 15th, 2007 at 11:43 am
Might be Doctor Myers should mentioned how he deals with his adversories more in details. He use false fabrication and even lies. See his article about John Davison
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/04/john_a_davison_fool_in_his_own.php
where he first banned him and me and than denigrated us. He used fabricated pretext to ban me that I am John Davison - what is a lie.
One of the most comic sentence from this article is this one:
I used to get a fair number of creationists, but nowadays they get ripped apart by the commenters so quickly that we rarely have time to appreciate them, other than to admire their scattered, gleaming bones.
The true is that posts from professor Davison as well as mine posts are deleted or disemvoweled by dr.Myers. It is not true they know how to response and “creationists are ripped apart” - atheists at Pharyngula just ignored all evidencies against their darwinistic mantras.
One of those mantras is that coloration of animals is due crypsis/aposematism. I have alredy given them many proofs it is not the case - a view supported by such prominent scientist as Adolf Portmann - and darwinists at Pharyngula didn’t responded at all (not even “ripped me apart”). See:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/03/friday_cephalopod_tasteful_and.php#c389004
April 15th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Please send me explanation why my response is not accessible to
——–
Might be Doctor Myers should mentioned how he deal with his adversories more in details. He use false fabrication and even lies. See his article about John Davison
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/04/john_a_davison_fool_in_his_own.php
where he first banned him and me and than denigrated us (VMartin). He used fabricated pretext to ban me that I am John Davison what is a lie.
One of the most comic sentence from this article is this one:
I used to get a fair number of creationists, but nowadays they get ripped apart by the commenters so quickly that we rarely have time to appreciate them, other than to admire their scattered, gleaming bones.
The true is that posts from professor Davison as well as mine posts are deleted or disemvoweled by dr.Myers. It is not true they know how to response and “creationists are ripped apart” - atheists at Pharyngula just ignored all evidencies against their darwinistic mantras.
One of these mantras is that coloration of animals is due crypsis/aposematism. I have alredy given them many proofs it is not the case - view supported by such prominent scientist as Adolf Portmann - and darwinists at Pharyngula didn’t responded at all (not even “ripped me apart”). See:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/03/friday_cephalopod_tasteful_and.php#c389004
April 15th, 2007 at 11:59 am
Mooser.
1. God does not exist.
2. God does not exist.
3. What was your question again?
April 15th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Oh, yeah…we do have standards at Pharyngula, and crazy ol’ one-note VMartin does not rise to them.
April 15th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Uh, gee, wasn’t VMartin banned for posting the same thing over and over?
And as I recall, the last time Prof. Myers was accused of lying by creationists, he was able to post a page scan showing that exactly what he said was posted on the page he quoted. Unlike the creationists, who took the front end of one post from PZ and appended the back end of another one two months later on another subject, to put a violent opinion in his mouth that he had never expressed.
April 15th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
…er, “printed” not “posted” …
April 15th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Doctor Myers used the same tactic as darwinists at Panda’s thumb forum AtBC - they marked me as profesor John Davison sockpuppet. I don’t underestand it, but Orthogenesis (or theory of evolutuion governed by law, Nomogenesis) are the theory that darwinists are somehow afraid at most. They like more protestant fundamentalists like such theories.
If you like you can check what tactic doctor Myers used to get rid of me and what is the vocabulary of darwinists at Pharyngula that somehow “meet standards of Pharyngula”. Of course the only “standards of Pharyngula” is that you should be darwinist - you can use then vocabulary and abuses however you like.
Doctor Myers about me:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/the_false_equation.php
And then again if you like compare his own set “standards at Pharyngula” and his own vocabulary as well as vocabulary of his darwinistic cronies at article denigrating professor John Davison {such lies even the worst tabloid don’t use):
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/04/john_a_davison_fool_in_his_own.php
It is true I tried nick of existing guy there and it works - but that was at time I was banned there and I wanted defend professor Davison as well as myself having no access on article full of lies and abuses. I have never used the tactic anymore there.
April 15th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Sorry, I missed tag, again:
Doctor Myers used the same tactic as darwinists at Panda’s thumb forum AtBC - they marked me as profesor John Davison sockpuppet. I don’t underestand it, but Orthogenesis (or theory of evolutuion governed by law, Nomogenesis) are the theory that darwinists are somehow afraid at most. They like more protestant fundamentalists like such theories.
If you like you can check what tactic doctor Myers used to get rid of me and what is the vocabulary of darwinists at Pharyngula that somehow “meet standards of Pharyngula”. Of course the only “standards of Pharyngula” is that you should be darwinist - you can use then vocabulary and abuses however you like.
Doctor Myers about me:
Cool. My first confirmed sockpuppet here. He’s gone.
Posted by: PZ Myers | February 26, 2007 09:52 PM
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/the_false_equation.php
And then again if you like compare his own set “standards at Pharyngula” and his own vocabulary as well as vocabulary of his darwinistic cronies at article denigrating professor John Davison {such lies even the worst tabloid don’t use):
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/04/john_a_davison_fool_in_his_own.php
It is true I tried nick of existing guy there and it works - but that was at time I was banned there and I wanted defend professor Davison as well as myself having no access on article full of lies and abuses. I have never used the tactic anymore there.
April 15th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
gheez louise, VMartin
Just get a room for you and Davison and get it over with already.
We’ve heard your lame, lie filled arguments over and over again, they didn’t convince us then, they won’t convince us now.
Oh, and in case you hadn’t noticed, this is the internet; full of people with differing opinions, most of which you won’t like. Grow up and stop obessing over PZ and what he says, you sound like a 5yo holding his breath until he gets his own way.
Dr Myers, enjoyed the article and enjoy your blog even more.
April 15th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
flame821:
We’ve heard your lame, lie filled arguments over and over again, they didn’t convince us then, they won’t convince us now.
It’s not lame. I described how the things on Pharyngula really are and bypassers should know that reality is not how doctor Myers described them in his interview.
I am not convincing anyone about theory of Nomogenesis and about professor Davison contribution to it by his proposed mechanism of semimeiosis. If you don’t believe in it I do not care.
The point is what methods and what vocabulary doctor Myers and his cronies at Pharyngula use to denigrate professor John Davison who is banned there and consequently cannot defend himself.
It is also not true that “creationists are ripped apart”
as anyone can now check in my link above.
I also didn’t noticed that Nomogenesis or Davison’s Evolutionary Manifesto was “ripped apart” on Pharyngula. Of course if darwinists consider coarse abuses and denigration there as “ripping apart” scientifical method I have no argument.
April 15th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Oh, yeah…we do have standards at Pharyngula, and crazy ol’ one-note VMartin does not rise to them.
And really, for the most part, those standards consist of, “If you disagree with the Pharyngulite party line long enough, I’ll ban you.”
Simple, really. Not to mention comforting to PZ and his Sycophantic Horde ™.
April 15th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Nice try, PZ! You can’t hide your warmth, it comes through loud and clear.
Pharyngula is terrific. It is one of my frequent stops, sometimes more than once a day! Always something interesting there - kind of like opening a surprise package at each visit.
Oh, and since I’m a hardcore atheist from many generations of same, I appreciate the light and air the Prof casts on those who refuse to accept reality.
One Blog A Day did a good job on this interview, must add it to my list of post-stops. Keep up the good work!
April 15th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
My friend and ally Martin has more insight into the great mystery of organic evolution than Pharyngula Z. Meyers and his “hands across the sea” crony, Richard (Blind Watchmaker climbing Mount Improbable) Dawkins combined. He is a multilingual scholar and I value his professional opinions very highly, almost as much as I loathe the mindless congenital atheism of the Meyers/Dawkins dynamic duo.
Neither Meyers nor Dawkins has ever published a word that had anything to do with the origin of species or of any of the higher taxonomic categories. They are like two peas in a pod, victims of their “prescribed,” “born that way” fates. So were their predecessors, Stephen Jay Gould and Ernst Mayr. I regard Gould, Mayr and Dawkins as “The Three Stooges” of evolutionary science. Gould and Mayr are lucky to be dead, leaving Dawkins holding the empty Darwinian bag, the biggest and longest lasting hoax in the history of science.
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
I love it so!
“Everything is determined…by forces over which we have no control.”
Albert Einstein
Ergo - The Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.
This should be sufficient to launch another vitriolic attack against Martin and myself. If it is not, just let me know.
“You ain’t heard nothin’ yet.
Al Jolson
One thing is certain. We will not hear from Dawkins. He is the quintessential intellectual coward as he has proved countless times.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 15th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Thank you, Caveat!
April 15th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Thank you John. Of course I am not such scholar as you described me. I only appreciate all works that supports evolution governed by law.
Your Manifesto doesn’t only criticised darwinism in very persuasive way but you also proposed new theory and explantion of mystery of evolution there what is very rare nowadays.
That’s the reason they hate you so and anonyms at Pharyngula are like mad dog on you. The situation is worse that you are banned there by doctor Myers and you cannot defend you and yout thoughts.
You continue in work of great scientists and in tradition of supporters of theory of governed evolution which many prominent philosophers proposed too.
They accused you at Pharyngula that citing such scientists as Robert Broom, Schindewolf, Punnett etc. is something outdated. Yet their Darwin’s teaching from midst 19 century is probably up-todate in their eyes. Anyway they change Darwin’s apolegist who they worship like old socks - they have now Dawkins instead Gould.
Criticising their idol Dawkins at Pharyngula is the sin that follows immediately ban of such blasphemer. They use whatever pretext they have by hand - that you are repetitive (they used it against John Davison) or that you are John Davison himself (this nonsensse they used against me).
Shame on them.
April 15th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Btw. I would like to know why darwinists from Pharyngula are not so talkative here where - as it seem - is no censorship.
Or they prefer rather shielded dark milieu of Pharyngula where they first ban someone and start abuses and denigration thereafter.
On the common article scribbled from doctor P.Z.Myers (new article he spouts every 2 hour unless he sleeps) there are many atheistic responses.
Why are now his supporters hiding in dens?
Don’t they like light at open forum like this?
Forum where professor John Davison can defend his ideas and his personality freely?
April 15th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
I’m always up for a tussle with someone who doesn’t understand the scientific method.
Hit me.
April 15th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Since no one’s responded to me in the last three minutes, I think we can safely conclude that God does not exist.
April 15th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
Well the 20% of the comments that weren’t JD talking to his sock puppet were a little interesting, but for people are familiar with Pharyngula, there isn’t all that much new here. Sorry.
I marvel at the concept of someone defending his personality freely. It certainly seems to be necessary in this case.
Sincerely, I remain one of PZ’s
Sycophantic Horde ™
April 15th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
I really hope the Sycophantic Horde gets action figures someday.
April 15th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
My apologies, One Blog A Day — I seem to have given you cooties. Not one, not two, but three trolls from my dungeon! I think everyone can see why I have to shut them out. You aren’t even seeing the funniest part: VMartin is spamming the comments on my site with a link to this article, and complaining that I’m censoring opportunities to engage him here…and he’s spamming the article that contains a prominent link to this interview. These guys aren’t the sharpest bludgeons in the cesspool, I’m afraid.
April 15th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
You guys are welcome to say anything you want, as long as we are having a healthy discussion. I hope no one is planning on pulling a gun out soon!
April 15th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
I agree that God is probably dead. That does not mean that a God or Gods did not once exist. As a matter of fact, that was the sense of my one and only thread at Dickie Dawkins fan club -
“God or Gods are dead but must have once existed.”
It racked up more than 60,000 views in one week after which I was summarily banned. I cannot even view that Darwinian snake pit. ARN won’t let me view their forum either. It is very revealing. At present the only major forum where I can still speak is ISCID’s “brainstorms” forum. All the rest are dominated by monomaniacal, egomanical ideologues, none of whom have contributed anything of value to the evolutionary scene. Most of them are not even scientists. Bill Dembski sure isn’t and neither are Wesley Elsberry or Pharybgula Z. Meyers. Scientists ask questions and do experiments. All those clowns do is provide ready made answers.
I love it so!
Frederich Nietzche, my favorite philosopher, put it in three words - “God is dead.”
To deny one or more Creators is out of the question and those who insist on such an idiotic position are homozygous damn fools. They are also known as Darwinians. Mayr, Gould, Dawkins, the “Three Stooges” of the evolutionary literature, are by definition atheists. There is no place for purpose in Darwinism. It is a “random walk” don’t you know and according to Gould - “Intelligence was an evolutionary accident.”
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
My own position, based on what I see around me, is that there must have been at least two Gods, one benevolent, the other malevolent. I also have no idea how many times life was created, when it was created, when and how many times once created it may have been front-loaded and most certainly NO ONE knows HOW it was created. Both ontogeny and phylogeny remain gigantic mysteries about which very little is known with certainty. However, one thing IS certain. Chance had nothing to do with either.
“Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance.”
Leo Berg, Nomgenesis, page 134
And so to bed.
“A past evoltion is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 15th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
VMartin is spamming the comments on my site with a link to this article, and complaining that I’m censoring opportunities to engage him here…
Another lie. I have only given notic to others that John Davison here have access and not that I haven’t opportunities here!
April 16th, 2007 at 12:34 am
VMartin is spamming the comments on my site with a link to this article, and complaining that I’m censoring opportunities to engage him here…
Another lie. I have only given notic to others that John Davison here have access and not that I haven’t opportunities here!
April 16th, 2007 at 12:34 am
VMarti&n:
If you are a creationist, then why do you act like a monkey? Isn’t your own behavior enough to convince you we are all descended from a common ancestor?
Or do you not own a mirror?
I can buy you a mirror if you like. Maybe PZ and I can get together and start a collection to buy you a really nice mirror.
On second thought, since the operation of a mirror hinges on the fact that the reflection of light happens at 186,000 miles per second and thus does not “reflect” an accurate representation of your current self (it can only show how you looked just moments ago) then this “demonic” device must therefore be the work of “evil” scientists trying to trick you and cannot be considered worthy to hang on the wall of someone like yourself. Yes, since a mirror alone can prove the universe is billions and billions of years old (telescopes also use mirrors, by the way) then a mirror hanging in your home would only “out” you to your creationist friends as being a closeted rational thinker.
Maybe we can just send you a broken mirror. You can decide how best to use the shards. Hint - they go in your eye sockets.
April 16th, 2007 at 2:23 am
Dan Harlow whoever that really is.
Your message is typical of the sort that one finds at Pharyngula, After The Bar Closes, and most other such internet flame blogs. It contributes absolutely nothing, serving only to expose your own mindless, knee-jerk mentality. You are obviously congenetically impaired, a “born that way,” “prescribed,” intellectual disaster.
“EVERYTHING is determined…by forces over which we have no control.”
Albert Einstein, my emphasis.
Martin and I are both grateful to have this opportunity to present a common view concerning the great mystery of organic evolution and nothing homozygous trash like you will ever prevent that. Got that? Write that down!
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 16th, 2007 at 6:21 am
I hope PZ atheistic rants using science as a front make up for his dearth of peer reviewed publications and status as an “Associate” Professor.
And for having to live in Morris! (hahahahaha)
Hey, when blogs like his count as peer reviewed literature, he will have it made.
April 16th, 2007 at 7:34 am
Well come on P.Z. Meyers. Surely you aren’t going to take all this lying down are you?
Grant that interview with Jason Rennie where you can tell the whole world about me and my sources. I say you won’t do it and Dawkins sure won’t either. You are both intellectual cowards and pompous blowhards. Neither of you has contributed a scintilla to our understanding of either ontogeny or phylogeny. Quite the contrary, you have greatly inhibited that understanding. You are both pathetic.
Ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for Darwinian mysticism.
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 16th, 2007 at 7:39 am
@VMartin:
stop double spamming your post everytime, then people might actually bother to look at your arguments.
@Davison:
True, there is no real randomness, but the forces involved are so complex that it amounts to the same thing. You are only picking on words again. And whats a darwinist anyway? Most people on pharyngula are agnostics, meaning a creationist entity is highly unlikely, but not disprovable, if you look at the evidence. There is simply nothing which points in that direction. It is just reasonable to go for the most likely true path regarding our knowledge. And as long as god doesn’t show his lazy ass so that everyone can see it, stick with the facts. And that is: we don’t know how it started, but we know enough mechanisms of evolution to make it work without a god. simple.
April 16th, 2007 at 7:46 am
Of course it works without a God NOW! Get it Harry, whoever Harry is? Probably not. God’s “ass” as you so eloquently phrase it shows everywhere an unobstructed mind looks.
You are beautiful Harry. Don’t stop exposing yourself.
I love it so!
A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 16th, 2007 at 10:00 am
You state it is more likely that some god created everything than a mindless physical mechanism. Why? Unobstructed mind, eh?
And stop flattering me, i don’t want to buy anything.
April 16th, 2007 at 10:12 am
John A. Davison needs to wipe the spittle flecks from his monitor and attempt to toss us a citeable fact every now and then.
April 16th, 2007 at 10:14 am
GFY
April 16th, 2007 at 11:49 am
…needs to wipe the spittle flecks from his monitor and attempt to toss us a citeable fact every now and then.
This nonsense meets “standards at Pharyngula” very well. Check Pharyngula - discussions there are full of them. Btw. this is also an example what doctor Myers means in the interview speaking of how atheits at Pharyngula will “rip you apart”. Like this:
You can decide how best to use the shards. Hint - they go in your eye sockets.
I see, Nomogenesis and professor Davison’s PEH is really now
“ripped apart” by experts from Pharyngula.
At least we see that these sample of simpletons from Pharyngula speaks for itself. And this is what doctor Myers means describing such cronies of him at Pharyngula as “knowledgeable evolutionists”.
These “knowledgeable evolutionists” spam discussions under his articles that he, doctor Myers “ejaculate” (using his own words) every two hours unless he sleeps.
Yet doctor Myers banned professor Davison (everybody can can check that he tried here to present his views very correctly) because he is “repetitive”. About me doctor Myers wrote - yet he didn’t remove ban - that “I see that when you aren’t being Davison’s sycophant, you’re being a vacuous little troll instead.”
Doctor Myers and his cronies never discussed my issues about coloration. They do not address professor Davison views even here and used only abuses. That’s all they know.
So the reader of the interview with doctor Myers should be aware of the fact that his nice words and reality are totally different things.
Check yourselves Pharyngula blog with its header:
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/the_false_equation.php
April 16th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
John A. Davison is simply being rude by telling me “GFY.” I can only assume it means “Go f*** yourself.”
Hardly the sort of reparteé one would expect during a debate of substance.
I love it so!
April 16th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Well, I originally popped in to read the interview and comment on it, which I did.
I had to mention my atheism because I’m a big fan of diversity and the evolution of rational thought.
I’m also a fan of intelligent debate but I don’t see much, so I’ll go back to Pharyngula now.
April 16th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
GFY stands for good for you. I thought everybody knew that.
Now I am going to make a prediction. Real scientists do that you know. I understand that Pharyngula Z. Meyers has agreed to an interview with Jason Rennie on his Sciphishow. I predict he will never give that interview for the same reason that his cowardly crony Richard Dawkins across the pond won’t. They both know that they haven’t got a leg to stand on. The only way they have managed to survive is by avoiding open discussion at every opportunity. They are still clinging to the flotsam and jetsam of the good ship H.M.S. Darwin in a last ditch desperate attempt to convince the world that not only is there no God but that there never was one.
The notion that it is intrinsic in the nature of matter to self assemble itself into a living, evolving organism is the most childish, the most idiotic, the most deranged interpretation of the tangible world ever proposed by the human imagination. Its transparent silliness pales both the Phlogiston of Chemistry and the Ether of Physics. Ether, Selection, Phlogiston - ESP -extrasensory perception indeed!
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
I love it so!
It doesn’t get any better than this!
How do you like them apples P.Z. baby? I hope they give you gas! You too slick Dick Dawkins.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable,”
John A. Davison
April 16th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
The notion that it is intrinsic in the nature of matter to self assemble itself into a living, evolving organism is the most childish, the most idiotic, the most deranged interpretation of the tangible world ever proposed by the human imagination.
You are right John.
Inteligent people feel the same way I suppose. That’s why atheists need to flock together at Pharyngula where nobody can disturb them.
Pharyngulists avoid open threads like this one. Instead of Myers brag of “veni, vidi, vici” we see only “I came, I made stench, I disappeared”.
April 17th, 2007 at 12:33 am
no, he isn’t right. pathetic is the word. evidence please! you two are like parrots who repeat each others sentences.
April 17th, 2007 at 3:49 am
Who is Harry and who cares anyway? He is obviously a voluntary illiterate or he would know the evidence, reams of it from some of the finest minds of two centuries.
Martin and I “came, saw and conquered” both Pharyngula and After The Bar Closes. Why do you think they had to ban us? We are now looking for anoher “groupthink” to expose and destroy. It is great sport!
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 17th, 2007 at 7:00 am
sigh. grow up. your “knowledge” is outdated for 2 centuries now.
April 17th, 2007 at 7:41 am
John,
I listened to your interview with Jason Rennie and was pleasantly surprised to hear you sounding quite rational, although the content was the usual bare-faced assertions.
However, with your recent displays here and at ISCID, you continue to reinforce the poor opinion most people have of you and your PEH.
On the whole, it is rather a shame, but your choice.
April 17th, 2007 at 8:07 am
Alan Fox is nothing but Wesley Elsberry’s one man goon squad. He has never contributed anything constructive at any venue where he has appeared. Fox is to Elsberry what DaveScot (David Springer) is to William Dembski, nothing but a free ranging sycophantic character assassin whose sole purpose in life it to protect his own pathgetic survival at any cost. It is beautiful.
Thanks Alan for once again volunteering yourself as the mindless intellectual trashbag that you have always been. Whatever you do, don’t change.
“How sweet it is.”
Jackie Gleason
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 17th, 2007 at 10:06 am
Martin
Of course I too am blasphemous.
“All great truths begin as blasphemies.”
George Bernard Shaw
A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 17th, 2007 at 10:14 am
John,
did you notice doctor Myers :
My apologies, One Blog A Day — I seem to have given you cooties.
and Alan Fox on Sandwalk:
Sorry, Professor Moran, the nurse must have forgotten to lock his door.
Supposing Myers and Fox is not the same person (I noticed very high occurence of bipolarity among darwinists) how could be explained such convergence in excuses? Probably psyche of darwinists suffer
of grandeur of medieval kings?
April 17th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
John,
did you notice doctor Myers :
My apologies, One Blog A Day — I seem to have given you cooties.
and Alan Fox on Sandwalk:
Sorry, Professor Moran, the nurse must have forgotten to lock his door.
Supposing Myers and Fox is not the same person (I noticed very high occurence of bipolarity among darwinists) how could be explained such convergence in giving excuses? Probably psyche of darwinists suffer
of grandeur of medieval kings.
April 17th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Hi VMartin,
How do you explain convergence? How do you explain mimicry? How do you explain camouflage? How do you explain how different organisms are found in environments that they are best adapted for, such as Riftia tube worms at hydrothermal vents, golden moles in deserts, blind cave fish in caves etc. etc.?
April 17th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
If there is a any meaningful content in VMartin’s posts then it must have been encoded using a method which just happens to produce the same statistical properties as a quasi-random gibberish generator.
April 17th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Martin
Pay no attention to Alan Fox. He is intellectual trash, a perfect loser!
I have another message for Pharyngula Z. Meyers. I just forwarded the link to this blog to your boy friend “Tricky Dickie Dawkins” across the pond at Oxford. Maybe he will come to the rescue for his American atheist crony. Then again maybe he will just let you hang out to dry. Would you like to comment P.Z. baby?
I’m betting you will keep your snotty trap shut as you are not in charge here. Homozygous “prescribed” cowards are like that don’t you know. You also will never give that interview to Rennie either. You and Dawkins are both history. Trust me.
It doesn’t get any better than this.
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 17th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Mr. Davison?
Do you have any, you know, facts or anything to discuss? Or are you just going to try and bait PZ on a blog that isn’t even his?
By the way, how many books have you published? I’d like to read a few of them.
April 17th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
If there is a any meaningful content in VMartin’s posts then it must have been encoded using a method which just happens to produce the same statistical properties as a quasi-random gibberish generator.
And why are you so surprised on this?
It is your theory that “random gibberish generator” created feathered eagle from an ancient fish. Of course in theory of darwinism such giggerish generator is called “random mutation”. To refine their stupidity even more they added “natural selection” to it.
April 17th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Pay no attention to Alan Fox. He is intellectual trash, a perfect loser!
John,
Alan pretends at one forum (at his dying Neutral venue best) how he is interested of discussion with someone and he denigrate the same person at the same time on the other “venue”.
What an interesting example of a darwinist! Something like doctor Myers who has his “biological ejaculation” every two hours unless he sleeps.
April 17th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Vmartin:
Is English your first language? I would like to engage in debate with you, but I need to know exactly how much English you can understand.
Judging from the quality of your posts thus far, I’m not sure how technical I can get.
April 17th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
wOOt, anonymous, ignorant, sycophantic coward that you so obviously are.
I have been publishing scientific papers in refereed journals since 1954. Mayr, Gould and Dawkins write science fiction novels for illiterate naive imbeciles like yourself for one reason only. It is to make money and to secure for themselves their endowed chairs which will eventually and probably already prove to be a hideous embarrassment to both Harvard and Oxford. Not one of them ever did a laboratory experiment or dirtied his dainty little fingers in the field. They all three retired prematurely to their endowed chairs to become transparent charlatans, the “Three Stooges” of the recent evolution scene.
Now just what do you intend to do about it you mincing idiot?
You bore me. Thanks for exposing yourself.
Martin is multilingual. fluent in English, German, Czech and God only knows how many other languages. That you would stoop so low is an indictment of your character or rather lack of same. You are intellectual and ethical trash just like Alan Fox and Pharyngula Z. Meyers.
Stifle yourself dingbat!
Archie Bunker
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 17th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Wow, Mr. Davison, you’re really starting to come off as unhinged.
I’m just trying to have a civil discussion about evolution and you’re flying off the handle.
Is this a common behavior for you, or did you just have a bad day? How about you have a warm cup of tea and then we can come back to some civil discourse?
April 17th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Is English your first language? I would like to engage in debate with you, but I need to know exactly how much English you can understand.
Don’t be afraid. I understand just enough English to see you are babbling nonsensess all the time.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:46 am
wOOt
Before you waste too much time with John (or Martin), check out ISCID brainstorms and EvC forums and you will see John is quite consistent (not to say predictable) in his behaviour
April 18th, 2007 at 2:31 am
WooT, whoever that is and who cares anyway?
It is Dr. Davison and has been for over half a century.
What I want to know is where is Pharyngula Z. Meyers, the second most cowardly bully in cyberdom? DaveScot aka David Springer is numero uno by a large margin and has the track record to prove it.
Martin
Let’s go conquer Uncommon Descent next. Unlike myself, who has been twice dispatched from that insecure “groupthink” (along with all my papers), you haven’t been banned yet have you? Of course you may have to use your computer expertise to get past their “explanatory filter” and Springer’s ever watchful, albeit thoroughly hypocritical devotion to Reverend Dembski, boy mathematical genius and self appointed leader of the “intelligent design movement.”
That “movement” seems somewhat constipated and could use a suppository of some real honest to God science, followed by a thorough flushing of its Biblical underpinnings. You are just the ticket to lead the charge. Geronimo! Give it some serious thought.
I love it so!
And so to bed.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 18th, 2007 at 2:38 am
John A. Davison, why do you have to keep stroking yourself with “I love it so!” and that self-quote? It’s pretty disgusting.
April 18th, 2007 at 4:47 am
I’m still trying to figure out what Mr. Davison’s positions are, besides being really mad at having been banned at several blogs.
VMartin seems willing to argue at least, so I’ll start with a question for him/her.
VMartin: Please propose a mechanism for the development of novel resistance to antibiotics in formerly non-resistant bacteria. For example, explain the recent rise in MRSA.
I’m interested to hear your thoughts.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:23 am
WooT
My position has been published in several journal articles over the past twsenty-five years and need not be repeated here just for your personal consumption. Like a dog with a bone you remain a steadfast illiterate blowhard. So does Pharyngula Z. Meyers who has never published a word on the one thing that still remains uncertain - the MECHANISM of a long past evolution. Indeed, has he ever published ANYTHING of significance? Not that I am aware of. Perhaps he will enlighten us but I wouldn’t bet on it here or even at his own monomaniacal blog. Cowards are like that don’t you know. In venues they do not control they wilt and become silent.
THAT is why I continue to say -
I love so!
The truth is not subject to argument and never has been. It can only be discovered and, once discovered, disclosed. That is exactly what I have been doing for the past half century and hopefully I am not through quite yet. If I never publish another word, nothing will save either the “Darwimps” or the “Fundies” from certain oblivion. That is another reason I say -
I love it so!
Get it WooT? It is fun being in on the kill. That is yet another reason I say -
I love it so!
Who is next?
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A.,Davison
April 18th, 2007 at 7:09 am
John does have a PhD in Zoology from Minnesota U in ‘54 (before the structure of DNA was established and the genetic code elucidated)and was an assistant professor of biology at Vermont U until 2000 (he’s a month short of 80) although he produced very little published work after the 70’s, and took no classes for many years before retiring.
His seminal work is his Prerscribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. It is discussed here, although this forum is heavily moderated and owned by William Dembski.
John also set up several Google blogsites, here, here and here.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:14 am
Excuse typo: Prescribed.
There are threads at Pandas Thumb and After the Bar Closes where John has “contributed” but the pattern of hurling non-sequiturs and invective is pretty standard. Also John’s relationship with Dave Scott Springer (DaveScot) the current blogzcar at Uncommon Descent is amusing. 2 years ago Dave was John’s sidekick, then John was banned, reinstated, banned again at UD (ostensibly for foul language) and they are now less close. I can find a few links if you want but it is all pretty repetitive.
VMartin seems to have popped into the blogosphere last August, starting at EvC forum, and later at After the Bar Closes. He claims no scientific training, but dismisses RM + NS out of hand. Apart from having an ISP in Bratislava, Slovakia, he has disclosed little other information about himself, and not really expounded on any alternative to RM + NS, other than apparent support for John’s PEH. It might be worth looking at this thread
April 18th, 2007 at 7:29 am
Thanks Alan.
I’d really like to understand exactly how evolution occured in the past, but recently ceased, which is apparently what Mr. Davison’s position is.
Perhaps he would care to enlighten this illiterate blowhard, that I might better respect his genius.
Also, although your homepage lists you as a biology professor at UVM, the Faculty Page for the Biology Department at UVM makes no mention of you.
Have you retired, or am I looking in the wrong place?
April 18th, 2007 at 8:46 am
@ wOOt
This comment is in moderation, maybe because of multiple links:
Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
I’m still trying to figure out what Mr. Davison’s positions are, besides being really mad at having been banned at several blogs.
John does have a PhD in Zoology from Minnesota U in ‘54 (before the structure of DNA was established and the genetic code elucidated)and was an assistant professor of biology at Vermont U until 2000 (he’s a month short of 80) although he produced very little published work after the 70’s, and took no classes for many years before retiring.
His seminal work is his Prerscribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. It is discussed here, although this forum is heavily moderated and owned by William Dembski.
John also set up several Google blogsites, here, here and here.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:14 am
April 18th, 2007 at 8:59 am
Not one thing that Alan Fox has just offered is accurate. That is typical of this degenerate worm. I was born June 15 1928 for example. The rest is typical lies from this pig, Wesley Elsberry’s personal one man goon squad, the most useless pile of genetic trash that ever graced the internet. When ones chonological age becomes an issue you know you are dealing with the bottom of the ethical barrel.
Yes. I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution umdemonstrable.
John A. Davison
April 18th, 2007 at 11:05 am
w00t Says:
VMartin: Please propose a mechanism for the development of novel resistance to antibiotics in formerly non-resistant bacteria. For example, explain the recent rise in MRSA.
I am not familiar with the case so I check answeringenesis and I found what I presumed:
The antibiotic resistance of the MRSA bacteria (methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus, sometimes known as the “Superbug”) is due to mutations, which destroy some genetic information thereby allowing MRSA to resist antibiotics. There is no increase in information. While Darwinists assume that natural selection is the engine of evolution, in practice evolution would only proceed by natural selection plus information-increasing mutations.
So there is no increase of new information in the bacteria. I have never heard about such an example. Bacteria either express hidden genes already present or bacteria switch off expression of active genes.
Do you have any other information?
That random mutation does have created brand new genes in the bacteria?
It is perfectly in concordance with John Davison’s Manifesto - information was frontloaded.
Citing answeringenesis doesnot mean I believe fundamentalists. Yet they have more sources to follow darwinists.
I do not refute evolution but I believe in directed evolution in which chance (random mutation) plays no role.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Um, Mr. Davison?
Your own CV does say that you have a PhD from the University of Minnesota in 1954, so I’ll give Alan Fox the benefit of the doubt with regard to his other assertions.
Especially since you haven’t answered my other questions regarding your credentials.
Maybe you can answer the question I posed to VMartin earlier, since he seems to have temporarily vanished:
Please propose a mechanism for the development of novel resistance to antibiotics in formerly non-resistant bacteria. For example, explain the recent rise in MRSA.
I think we would all benefit from your many years of experience in the biological sciences.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
wOOt
“Um,” just what the hell is that supposed to mean?
I no longer answer questions that obviously have been dealt with in my publications. When such questions are asked, they only prove that those who ask them are unfamiliar with my papers. I am not on trial here or anywhere else. Darwinism, Lamarckism and Christian Fundamentalism are the “isms” that are on trial and always have been. So are their pathetic leaders. I have no truck with any of them and never have had. I am a scientist, not a mystic.
I will offer this however. Antibiotic resistance has nothing to do with evolution for the simple reason that it is phasic and reversible, something that true evolution has never been. Like ontogeny, phylogeny has been entirely emergent, with no role for the environment other than to offer the environment for it to take place. In short, selection, natural or artificial has now and never had anything to do with creative evolution, a phenomenon of the distant past. What do you think my signature means?
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 18th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Apologies, John. You are, as you point out, merely two months short of 79. Please excuse the arithmetical error.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Apologies, John, for the error in stating your age as 79 rather than 78.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
And excuse the double post, the first did not show up till I entered the second one.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Maybe you can answer the question I posed to VMartin earlier, since he seems to have temporarily vanished:
Do not fabricate nonsensess again. I’ve already answered - post nr.70. (Of course I dont know what role horizontal transfer plays in the case etc.)
April 18th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Mr. Davison–
What has changed between now and the distant past that caused “creative evolution” to stop?
Could “creative evolution” happen again?
April 18th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
And excuse the double post, the first did not show up till I entered the second one.
…and then the third one…I see Alan. There is no post at your Neutral venue from March 20 (with 13 comments only). You need to talk with somebody and because you are like masochist you prefer John.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
VMartin–
Answers in Genesis is not a credible scientific resource. Their argument that mutations do not create information is patently false:
Check this link.
Note that this explanation includes further citations in peer-reviewed journals, something which the Answers in Genesis
site clearly does not.
April 18th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
wOOt is apparently a very slow learner. I don’t have time for him or anyone else who is that ignorant of my work and that of my sources.
Jason Rennie
I suggest you offer to grant an interview to Alan Fox so we can all have the pleasure of seeing that flaming little hypocrite turn you down flat. What do you say Jason? That way he can join the ranks of all the other cowards who, by refusing to be interviewed, prove to the world that they are ashamed to reveal their shabby convictions assuming they even have any! Perhaps Rennie would be kind enough to remind us about those evolution experts who have REFUSED to be interviewed. If he doesn’t, I will be happy to do it for him. It speaks volumes about the integrity of those who are terrified of the prospects of a neutral venue such as Sciphishow provides.
Martin
Alan Fox’s pathetic little blog died when I informed the whole world at “brainstorms” why I will never post there again. You and I are the only reason it lasted as long as it did. His record speaks for itself, a record of lies, deception, deceit and chicanery. He is a typical member of Elsberry’s inner circle at After The Bar Closes, the last bastion, the Alamo of Darwinian mysticism.
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 18th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
80 posts and only one message from the pompous, arrogant subject of this thread. And nothing from his blog either. God but isn’t that revealing?
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
It doesn’t get any better than this.
Naturally,
I love it so!
“A past evoution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 18th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
More lies from Alan Fox.
I retired on December 1, 2000 at the age of 72 from UVM as an Associate Professor, not an Assistant Professor as the liar claims. Only in the fall semester was I not teaching much to the relief of the administration. I retired when I did partly because a coward in the adminstration was threatening to detenure me. In retrospect I should have let them try as I could have sued them silly. To detenure a tenured member of the faculty is unheard of and technically quite impossible by definition. The other reason I chose to retire when I did was because the Provost, Jeff Gamble, had arranged a $102,000 compensatory award to me for the shabby way I had been treated by the adminsitration he was leaving. He and I resigned on exactly the same day, he to assume the presidency of Montana State University, I to leave a shabby repressive institution. Had I not resigned when I did I am certain I would never have seen that $102,000. Jeff Gamble is a decent man which is more than I can say for any member of the University of Vermont administration, then or now.
So much for some more of Alan Fox’s compulsive incapacity to tell the truth.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 18th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Between 8:58 A.M and 4:48 P.M today Pharyngula Z. Meyers has introduced 5 (five) new threads in a frantic but futile attempt to divert attention away from what is happening to him here at One Blog A Day. God but it is beautiful! The Captain Queeg of the internet is obviously in dire straits.
Naturally,
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 18th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Mr. Davison,
wOOt is apparently a very slow learner. I don’t have time for him or anyone else who is that ignorant of my work and that of my sources.
You’ll have to forgive my ignorance of your work. Visionary though it may be, it has not yet made you a household name like, say, Gould or Dawkins.
I’m working my way through your manifesto, but I need to ask one question. Has it been submitted to a peer-reviewed journal of manifestos?
I haven’t gotten to the part yet where you deal with why “creative evolution” doesn’t happen any more.
Can you maybe give me a little nugget of truth to hold me over until I get that far?
April 18th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Not a chance.
April 19th, 2007 at 2:09 am
What I want to know is where is P.Z. Meyers, the one, describing himself as follows.
“beneath this soft and tweedy exterior lies a howling, fulminating fury.”
Could he have died or has he simply been throughly cowed by “Martin and Davison Ghostbreakers Inc.” currently stationed at “brainstorms” forum, the most tolerant venue on the current biological scene? We would both be delighted if he would join us there to “fulminate” to his precious heart’s content. I especially want to see those “lasers blasting out of his eyesockets” don’t you know.
It doesn’t get any better than this.
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 19th, 2007 at 2:40 am
I’d really hoped to engage you in a meaningul dialog, Mr. Davison, but it appears that you’re dangerously close to being just another crank with a dialup connection.
With regard to this “I love it so” business… you may not be aware that in some south Tibetan dialects there’s a phrase that sounds to the Western ear like “ah laffet show.”
It can be broadly translated as “My vagina hurts.”
April 19th, 2007 at 6:10 am
You bore me.
April 19th, 2007 at 6:52 am
That’s fascinating, because you keep coming back here for more without defending your positions.
You could easily dispense with my questions by using a judicious dose of your long experience in the biological sciences, but for some reason you seem to resort to personal attacks first and reason second.
Ah laffet show!
April 19th, 2007 at 7:00 am
I am not here to respond to your Inquisition style interrogation. You are obviously a rank amateur with virtually no knowledge of the evolutionary literature.
I am here to take this opportunity to expose P.Z, Meyers as the rabid, ruthless egomaniacal bully he so obviously is. Neither he nor his hero, Richard Dawkins, have contributed anything of value to the central feature of phylogeny which is the MECHANISM of an evolutionary sequence which, I am convinced, terminated with the production of the last mammalian species ever to appear on this planet - Homo sapiens. Evolution has obviously been a goal-directed process and that goal was reached long ago.
“La commedia e finita.”
The last words in Pagliacci.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 19th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Mr. Davison–
Thank you for your reply and your keen insights.
An authority no less than the Smithsonian Institute says that Polar Bears evolved about 100,000 years ago, which I think puts them right around the evolutionary timescale as Homo sapiens.
What occurred 100,000 years ago to freeze polar bears and us in our present forms?
April 19th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
What the hell does the Smithsonian Institute know about evolution? Get serious. It is Dr. Davison and has been for 53 years. Grow up!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 19th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
wÒÓ†:
Can’t you see that Dr. Davison doesn’t have time to answer your silly questions? He’s a very busy man, spending his days posting insults and assertions on blogs! Besides, you know that the best scientists are the ones who refuse to waste time talking about their work.
April 19th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Get out those ball bearings P.Z. and try to calm yourself. How is your blood pressure?
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 19th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
wÒÓ†.
Polar bears evolved from Alaskan brown bears about 100,000 years ago…
I dont know what do they mean by “evolved from brown bear”. Probably loss of brown pigment, he?
This loss of pigmentation as well as case of MRSA bacteria where probably mutation destroyed some existing genetic information is everything you have offered yet to support view how random mutation and natural selection are the only evolutionary forces.
John is right that darwinistic bag is empty.
April 19th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Next Monday evening 8:00 P.M. Dawkins is scheduled to be interviewed by Bill O’Reilly on Fox news. If he gets wind of what is happening to his alter ego P.Z. Meyers here at One Blog a Day he may not show! I think I will remind him.
I love it so!
“A past evolution undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 19th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Frankly, I don’t think PZ very much cares what’s going on here. He’s awfully busy like, publishing and teaching and stuff.
I’m glad you have rejoined the conversation, Mr. Davison. It would be a shame if you had been forced to retire from it prematurely.
You still haven’t suggested a testable hypothesis for why Homo sapiens evolution stopped 100,000 years ago, either here or in your manifesto.
Would you please help me out? I’m really seeking to understand your point of view.
April 19th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
The scientist never asks the question why - only how. All present evidence points to a predetermined evolution which terminated a long time ago. I am not going to present evidence I have already published. Read my papers.
That is not why I came to this blog. I came here to expose P.Z. Meyers as the cowardly bully he so obviously is.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable”
John A. Davison
April 19th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
I’ve read most of the 24 papers listed on your website, but I’m sure there are some that I am missing, as someone with a 40+ year career in the biological sciences would undoubtedly produce a greater body of work than what’s listed there.
As I understand it, some of your more prolific scientists can defecate that many papers before lunch.
Could you please point me to the other papers you’ve written? It would be a great help. Thanks.
April 19th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Good For You.
April 19th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
I mean, seriously. Take a relatively wet-behind the ears scientist like Dr. Judith Van Houten as an example. She’s got credit on over 50 publications, lead on at least half of them, and she’s only been publishing since 1977.
April 19th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Gregor Mendel had 13 total and only three of them were biological. Darwin never published a refereed paper in his lifetime. Books don’t even count as they are to make money.
“Study Nature not books.”
Louis Agassiz
You probably never heard of him.
Get off my case and find something constructive to offer. Fat chance! I am not responding to any more of your idiotic mouthings. And quit hiding behind your alias. It makes you look like a degenerate, illiterate coward which is what you really are.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 20th, 2007 at 6:23 am
I decided you do not exist.
April 20th, 2007 at 7:20 am
Comparing yourself to Darwin? Leaving aside for the moment that in the past you’ve declared Darwin to be a fool, I’d say that in your more lucid moments you maybe approach Paley with a head cold.
I would be interested to read your thoughts on Dr. Judith Van Houten’s recent publication concerning olfactory sensory neurons in mice.
(It’s a PDF file, you’ll need Acrobat Reader to view it.)
For instance, how can tools like deconvolution microscopy offer insights into the mechanisms of semimeiosis?
Thank you in advance, Mr. Davison.
April 20th, 2007 at 8:18 am
Since I am banned from posting without explanation, that puts this snakepit in the same league with Pharyfgula. GFY
April 20th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
I would like to but you cowards won’t allow me. So much for this flameblog.
Adios
April 20th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
I’m confused. If you’ve been banned, how did you manage posts #106 and #107?
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect, Mr. Davison.
April 20th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Am I to understand I am once again allowed to post?
If so I invite all to tune in next Monday night 8:00 PM, to hear the interview scheduled to be given by Bill O’Reilly with Richard Dawkins. I notice that Meyers has made no mention of this on his pathetic little Pharyngula. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if Dawkins chickened out and never showed. Cowardly sociopaths are like that don’t you know.
In any event be sure to tune in to Fox News and “The Factor” to hear the biggest charlatan since Paul Kammerer promote the biggest hoax in the history of science. I can’t wait myself.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 21st, 2007 at 5:48 am
I’m sure Dr. Dawkins will do a fine job, since he speaks in public quite frequently.
However, Mr. Davison, you still haven’t addressed Dr. Judith Van Houten’s paper on olfactory sensory neurons in mice, especially vis-a-vis deconvolution microscopy.
In post #107 you said you’d like to, so I’m very much looking forward to your educated response.
April 21st, 2007 at 6:02 am
wOOt
I don’t care for your Inquisition style interrogation whoever you really are. I don’t even know who the sponsor of this blog is. He too is shrouded in anonymity. I have no truck with such cowards. At least P.Z. Meyers shows his real identity and even brags about it. He is wonderful!
I would like to have my missing messages restored. If that is impossible you need hear no more from me. I have better things to do than to deal with cowardly, arrogant, anonymous blowhards like you.rself
Incidentally, I am not at all certain that Dickie Dawkins will even show. If he does he will be taped by me and his every utterance will be used against him in future. Of that you may be certain.
For several years I have attempted to establish a dialogue with Dawkins. His only response to me finally arrived two days ago as follows -
“John A. Davison has been identified as a time-waster and his message is automatically deleted.”
I also demand that Martin be reinstated here as a prerequisite to any further participation by me. Got that? Write that down. Now clean up your act or shut it down.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 21st, 2007 at 7:22 am
Mr. Davison–
You could always use the “Contact Us” button at the top of the page to communicate with the site administrator. I am sure they would be happy to respond to a politely phrased request.
Come on, you’re an intelligent man. They don’t give out Ph.D’s in Zoology from the University of Minnesota to morons, you know.
Now, what was that you were going to add about Dr. Judith Van Houten’s paper?
April 21st, 2007 at 9:24 am
Judith Van Houten’s record where I am concerned is a matter of record and requires no further commentary from me. I have made it public at my now frozen home page under the title -
“What it means to be an antiDarwinian at the University of Vermont.”
The important thing is that she is no longer chair of the Department of Biology, much to the relief of the faculty of that department and the University in general.
Now go bully someone else you anonymous, ignorant coward.
This will be my last response to wOOt or to anyone else that finds it necessary to employ such tactics. If this to be the tenor of oneblogaday.com/ I want nothing further to do with it anyway. Flame blogs are a dime a dozen.
Ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for Darwinian mysticism.
I love it so!
‘A past evoloution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 21st, 2007 at 10:45 am
What we see here is only provocateur “wÒÓ†” spouting out his “questions” with the same neurotic frequency as doctor Myers is “ejaculating” his atheistic articles at Pharyngula.
April 21st, 2007 at 11:48 am
I didn’t ask you how you felt personally about Dr. Van Houten. She could be the sweetest, nicest, most sympathetic person in the world and it wouldn’t make a whit of difference with regard to her research. She must be doing something right though, since she managed to get a lab named after her since leaving her post as head of the Biology dpeartment.
What I’ve been asking you to discuss how tools like deconvolution microscopy can be used to further your semimeotic hypothesis.
Maybe molecular biology isn’t your thing. After all, you are a zoologist. Perhaps you would care to comment on a paper describing the evolution of loons?
This paper deals with loon wing morphology being radically different from other avian wing structures, and seems to fly in the face of the semimeotic hypothesis.
I’m interested in hearing your thoughts. Thanks.
April 21st, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Thank you Martin.
I am going out on a limb to predict that Tricky Dicky Dawkins will NOT show up Monday night for his interview with Bill O’Reilly. I suspect Pharyngula Z. Meyers suspects the same which is why he is not advertising this great event which could very easily spell the end of Dawkinsian damn foolishness once and for all. The man is an ideological disaster which just hasn’t occurred quite yet.
Once the “Darwimps” have been put away, Martin and I are going after the “Fundies.”
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 21st, 2007 at 1:02 pm
John,
darwinists would hold on their theory whatever happens. Atheists during Italian Rennaisance spread ideas that animals aroused “by chance”. It was enough for them to explain life.
Nowadays they innovated their nonsens via “random mutation”. They thinks they created putting math into their babbling genuine “Science”. They do not see what their really are - sorcerers.
April 21st, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Since this whole thread is in honor of Pharyngula Z. Meyers, I now ask him why hasn’t he advertised the upcoming interview his hero has scheduled with Bill O’Reilly on Fox TV Monday night? That strikes me as very strange indeed. Such an opportunity for the most prominent American atheist Darwinian to endorse the most prominent British atheist Darwinian doesn’t occur every day. After all Dawkins even wrote a poem in honor of your 50th birthday and you have even been photographed together as everyone knows. Let’s hear from constantly “ejaculating” P.Z. Meyers. Don’t be shy P.Z. It doesn’t fit your self-declared image. You know, with those lazer beams shooting out of your eyesockets and 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
April 21st, 2007 at 3:14 pm
I’m still waiting for a coherent response from Mr. Davison concerning either convolution microscopy or the evolution of avian wing structure.
Earlier you made an interesting point about antibiotic resistance, and I’d like to see some of that genius shine onto loon locomotion, as referenced above.
Thanks in advance.
April 21st, 2007 at 3:26 pm
What part of “this will be my last response to wOOt” do you not understand?
Grow up.
Send in the A team.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 21st, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Whether Dawkins shows or not is of no significance as he is finished either way. So is P.Z. Meyers. Trust me.
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable,a pesent evolution undeonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 22nd, 2007 at 5:56 am
Compare P.Z Meyers’ silence here with the vitriol and unbridled contempt he demonstrates against Martin and myself on his own turf at Pharyngula. Words have meaning and so does their absence. He is a coward.
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 22nd, 2007 at 7:37 am
What part of “this will be my last response to wOOt” do you not understand?
The irony is so thick, one could cut it with a UMinn Ph.D in Zoology.
At any rate, since you’ve repeatedly declined to comment on either deconvolution microscopy or loon evolution, I’d like to just declare victory in those departments and move on.
Have you read the paper on leg length evolution in Australian toad populations?
It’s fascinating stuff, and also a fine example of how the commonly accepted Theory of Evolution can be used to make predictions, which can then be tested against experimental data.
The semimeiotic hypothesis doesn’t seem to be able to make predictions about how events like the cane toad migration happen, only that they do happen.
Would you please address this shortcoming of your theory in your next post? Thank you.
April 22nd, 2007 at 2:23 pm
What part of “this will be my last response to wOOt” do you not understand?
The irony is so thick, one could cut it with a UMinn Ph.D. in Zoology.
Since you’ve declined to address either the issue of deconvolution microscopy or avian wing evolution, I’d like to just declare victory in those areas and move on.
Have you read anything about the evolution of cane toad leg length in Australia?
It’s fascinating stuff, and an excellent example of how current theories of natural selection can be used to make predictions, which can then be tested against data.
Your semimeiotic hypothesis does not seem to be able to make testable predictions, only outright assertions about the nature of modern organisms.
Would you please address this shortcoming of your theory in your next post? Thanks.
April 22nd, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Whoops, sorry for the double post. You can answer either one, they’re functionally the same question.
April 22nd, 2007 at 2:38 pm
John,
history repeated. Giordano Bruno was treated the same way once as was Robert Broom treated only some years ago.
Giordano Bruno was ridiculed and denigrated by Oxford professors in Protestant England only to be put to the stake in Counter Reformation Rome.
The same is applicable for Robert Broom - he was dismissed by religious as well as atheistic circles.
It could mean and support idea that theory of Orthogenesis, Nomogenesis or your PEH might be correct and sound.
April 22nd, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Thank you Martin.
What I want to know is where is Pharygula Z. Meyers, the second biggest bully and coward in cyberdom. We all know who numero uno is - DaveScot, aka David Springer, aka The Yellow Rose of Texas. Bullies and school yard cowardice run together as we all learned as children. When openly challenged they shut their vile traps and cower, pretending they have no adversaries. Each of these cowards has hitched his wagon to a boulder, Meyers to Dawkins, Springer to Dembski and his loyal followers. A major difference is Springer doesn’t believe a thing Demsbski stands for while Meyers is a rabid professed atheist just like his idol. Each has resorted to the vilest of tactics against anyone and everyone who might take exception to their arrogant pronouncements. It is wonderfully revealing of their shared lack of character, honesty and integrity. Naturally -
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 22nd, 2007 at 5:09 pm
It doesn’t get any better than this!
April 22nd, 2007 at 6:21 pm
That’s an interesting comment on cane toad evolution you made there.
April 22nd, 2007 at 6:22 pm
The subject of this thread is P.Z. Meyers, his forum and his personality and has nothing whatsoever to do the fact that Martin and myself have rejected both Darwinian atheist mysticism and religious fundamentalist fanaticism in favor of a much more rational interpretation of the living world and how it got to be that way. I recommend that the thread remain on the subject. If that can’t be done I see no reason why we should remain here. What do you think Martin?
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 22nd, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Yes, but what about the cane toads?
April 22nd, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Think of the cane toads, Mr. Davison.
Think of the cane toads.
April 22nd, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Just imagine. A silent P.Z. Meyers just like a silent David Springer.
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 22nd, 2007 at 11:19 pm
John,
might be Myers observes the discussion here very closely and then he will “ejaculate” an article about it. It will deals how darwinists ripped apart our opinions here. There will be 150 responses following the article at Pharyngula where they “rip apart” our views again. Of course we wouldn’t be able to defend ourselves there because of ban.
April 23rd, 2007 at 1:31 am
I don’t know, guys. This thread’s over a week old, which means in Internet Time it might as well have been written by Mayans.
It’s just we three.
And the cane toads, which Mr. Davison refuses to address.
The odds that someone else is reading this are pretty slim.
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:35 am
I see I have been deleted again.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:37 am
Deleted twice in a row! You are out!
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:51 am
Are you using profanity in your posts? Sometimes that’s enough to get a post deleted.
On a side note, Mr. Davison, I have to say that you’re a great example of an African-American overcoming adversity to achieve greatness.
It could not have been easy building a career as an African-American in biology during the civil rights struggles of the 60’s and 70’s. The fact that you did should serve as an example to us all, regardless of race.
You’re like the George Washington Carver of Vermont. I salute you, sir.
April 23rd, 2007 at 8:16 am
tOOt
You cowardly little Darwimp. It is Meyers that is obcene with his idiotic “ejaculations.”
oneblogaday is in the same category as After The Bar Closes and Pharyngula, just anpther flame blog. Delete this too you simperimg nitwit.
I love it so!
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:01 am
“Ejaculate, ejaculate,
Don’t contemplate,
Don’t hesitate.
Just ejaculate.”
Pharyngula High School fight song.
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:06 am
I don’t have any control over what gets deleted here, Mr. Davison.
If you’re unable to maintain a civil level of discourse, that’s your problem.
Now, about those loon wings?
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:38 am
I love it so!
April 23rd, 2007 at 2:37 pm
John,
doctor Myers “ejaculated” header “Dawkins meets bellowing bully tonight!” in the end.
It is interesting to read some opinions of “knowledgeable evolutionists” that follows in the discussion of the article.
Especially this one: “Richard Dawkins is both a phenomenon and an inspiration to us all.”
Poor guys. Some of them are obsessed by Dawkins meme how selfich gene climbed mount improbable became ejaculating darwinist.
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:04 pm
God bless you Martin.
It is nice to know that there is at least one other rational Homo sapiens contributing to this “Festschrift” honoring the great Pharyngula Z. Meyers.
Be sure to tune in to Fox News at 8:00 PM tonight to see his alter ego Richard Dawkins pontificate on Bill O’Reilly’s show. It will be rerun at 11:00. That is of course if Tricky Dicky Dawkins hasn’t chickened out which I regard as a disinct possibility. I wouldn’t miss it for the world. Meyers finally announced it over at his blog with what seems to be much trepidation. The comments are priceless.
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:09 pm
You two realize that you’re fellating each other in what amounts to an empty room on the Internet, right?
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Martin and myself are waging a very effective war against the forces of darkness on both sides of this idiotic debate, sides which are dead wrong and always have been. Our success is measured directly by the extent to which we share bannishmnet and ridicule by those same factions we have exposed as charlatans, as “prescribed” victims of their fates to be mindless spokespersons of ideologies devoid of rational foundation.
We are currently involved in the most important battle in the history of mankind which is our purpose in the infinite scheme of things. Martin and I represent the forces of reason and sanity in a world which has been and continues to be destroyed by the forces of evil, ignorance, and irreversible compulsive auto-destruction which characterizes the present intellectual scenario dominated as it is by atheists like Dawkins and Meyers on the one hand and Baptist bible-banging Christians like Dembski on the other.
There is now and never was a place for any philosophy in the pursuit of the truth. It has always been independent of dogma and perspective, just waiting to be discovered.
At present there is absolulely no evidence for a livimg God nor is there any need for one. It is also transparent that chance has played no role in the origin and subsequent evolution of life. The truth lies elsewhere. Martin and I have pointed the way. If others choose to ignore, ban, insult and ridicule us that is just fine. It is the best proof we are on the right track.
“The applause of a single human being is of great consequence.”
Samuel Johnson
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:18 pm
John,
I haven’t noticed that your opinions were “ripped apart” by “knoweledgeable evolutionists” here.
What I see is that darwinists disappeared leaving only as their spokesman an “wÒÓ†” who is probably alcoholic.
M.
April 24th, 2007 at 3:21 am
Martin
That is an interesting idea. I hadn’t thought of that. I figured he might be one of Van Houten’s graduate students but who cares anyway?
John
April 24th, 2007 at 5:48 am
I see I have been muzzled again. That is typical of second rate flame pits. It probab;ly all depends on who is manning the “filter.”
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 24th, 2007 at 5:54 am
Oops. I see I was just delayed. Pardon my paranoia.
“Even a paranoid can have enemies.”
Henry Kissinger
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 24th, 2007 at 6:01 am
If you’re going to wage a war on scientific orthodoxy, you might try a different venue. As far as I know, they don’t publish spittle-flecked blog rants in Nature.
And I’d stay away from backwater Italian journals. You’re not likely to get much attention there, especially if your last publication was six years ago.
April 24th, 2007 at 7:40 am
Davison, J.A. 2005, A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis, Rivista di Biologia 98: 155-166.
April 24th, 2007 at 10:19 am
Pardon me. You last published in a backwater Italian journal two years ago.
April 24th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
I doubt wOOt ever published anything. If he did he would have to divulge his real name to prove it. He or she is just another unfulfilled blowhard. The internet is crawling with them.
April 24th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Actually, my name’s listed on a single published paper.
But it was in the late 90’s, right around the time your career at UVM was imploding, so you can be forgiven for missing it.
April 24th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
I’ve got it!
wOOt is Pharyngula Z. Meyers! He has never published anything of substance either. He is too busy cranking out mindless threads for his equally mindless fans.
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 24th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Your ability to leap to conclusions without supporting data must have been instrumental in the formation of the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.
April 24th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
John,
I suppose darwinists at this thread are finished. Except of one darwinistic drunkard babbling nonsensses.
Because they cannot ban us they backed away and do not discuss issues at all. Otherwise they are talkative like old babes - having no opponents of course.
April 24th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
VMartin–
Did you check out the earlier articles on cane toads? I would be interested to hear what you think about it.
(See comment #123.)
Thanks.
April 24th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
This thead isn’t even about us Martin. It is about constantly ejaculating P.Z. Meyers, but some cowardly anonymous half-wit keeps changing the subject away from the “one blog a day” hero who for this thread happens to be the second biggest bully in the history of internet communication, Pharyngula Z. Meyers, the American version of Richard Dawkins, the biggest charlatan since Paul Kammerer.
“Atheist Darwimpians of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your natural selection.”
after Karl Marx, another atheist loser.
“Marx, Darwin and Freud are the three most crashing bores of the Western World.”
William Golding
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 24th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Cane toads.
April 24th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
It’s a pity, wÒÓ†, really. You try and try to engage them in something other than yanking their own chains and all they do is go on and on about another blog. Cripes! but they’re boorish oafs. I’ve been reading all the comments and there’s not a single offering of content from J.A.D., let alone his sock puppet or flunky or whoever VMarti&n is. I mean,
“There is now and never was a place for any philosophy in the pursuit of the truth. It has always been independent of dogma and perspective, just waiting to be discovered.
“At present there is absolulely [sic] no evidence for a livimg [sic] God nor is there any need for one. It is also transparent that chance has played no role in the origin and subsequent evolution of life. The truth lies elsewhere. Martin and I have pointed the way.”
– What a load of woo-woo hoo-haw! I’m sorry you’ve had to have it festering here.
April 24th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Moody 83, just another illiterate anonymous blowhard probably from After The Bar Closes, the Alamo of Darwimpian damn foolishness.
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 25th, 2007 at 12:48 am
Mr. Davison–
Have you considered creating a Wikipedia page for your hypothesis?
It would reach many more people, and the publication costs would be nil.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:27 am
So, John, do you have anything published on evolution that isn’t in everyone’s favourite comic, Rivista di Biologia?
Or are you going to claim a big conspiracy against you that stops you getting any of your work on evolution into a semi-respectable journal?
My bet’s on the conspiracy…
April 25th, 2007 at 6:42 am
DrFrank, another cowardly alias I see.
If I had never published another paper following my 1984 paper in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, that paper alone is sufficient to lay to rest both Christian fundamentalism and Darwinian atheism once and for all. Neither ever had anything to do with evolution. Incidentally I am no longer welcome at Rivista di Biologia which I regard as a conquest of objectivity over dogma just as significant as my exposure of Darwinism as the biggest hoax in the history of science.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 25th, 2007 at 7:56 am
RE: “since the Holy Striptures underlay, undergird, and hold up our underwear,”
The bible only holds up underwear if you are a mormon.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:57 am
Have you ever thought that you might be “banished” because you are a raving nutbag?
April 25th, 2007 at 7:59 am
This is simply the same alias I’ve always used all over the web (including Panda’s Thumb and Pharyngula).
So, since (if I understand correctly) you don’t think that sexual reproduction can produce real evolutionary change, what’s your view on all the significant transitional fossils? All hoaxes perpetrated to keep evolution alive?
Also, do you believe that humans and apes share common ancestors or not?
April 25th, 2007 at 8:15 am
Darwinians resorted to their old tactic. If anything was not published in Nature it wouldnot exist for them. Evidently the sun doesnot shine because there is no an article in Nature about it.
Darwinians are afraid of discussing problems of directed evolution and are afraid of discussing issues of coloration of animals.
So they are shouting here like madmen where is an article from professor John Davison or professor Adolf Portmann in Nature.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:18 am
Btw. DrFrank is one of those liars from ATBC forum who banned me under pretext that I am John. They used the same dirty tactic at Pharyngula. Unable to discuss mimicry and defend their nonsensical darwinistic view on development of mimicry they banned me rather.
Using words of doctors Myers they “ripped me apart with they arguments”.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:37 am
Thanks for the laugh guys. You two are pure comedy.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:50 am
Yeah, so what? Einstein was wrong about quantum physics — demonstrably wrong. Get over it.
Hey, it happens that great scientists make mistakes. Schindewolf was wrong about typolysis: take a somewhat longer and harder look at the fossil record than Schindewolf was able to do in 1950, and you’ll see that with your own eyes.
Sure I’ve heard of him. He went on to write a multi-volume encyclopedia of fossil fishes.
If you were a scientist, you’d know that arguments from authority are unscientific.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:55 am
I don’t think PZ or others have been doing the hijacking somehow…
April 25th, 2007 at 8:58 am
What a profoundly ignorant claim. Your doctorate should be retracted. Yes, seriously.
April 25th, 2007 at 9:02 am
This was kind of fun to watch; this imploding thread. It really seems as though the axe that Dr. Davison and v. Martin have to offer is only intended to knock down other people. I have not seen anything at all substantive except the bleating that Myers and Dawkins have hurt your feelings because they no longer respond to your childish insults.
I admire w00t for hanging in so long, as well. BTW - PZ Myers doesn’t owe you anything, nor does Dawkins. I suspect that Myers’ laughing at your idiocy is what really hurts and this is why you strike out so viciously.
And your notions that something could block evolution once it reaches a prescribed point is crankery at its best.
v. Martin - the differences between polar bears and grizzlies is more than one of color. Their necks have adapted to better poke their heads through holes in the arctic ice, enabling them to pull seals out of the water. There are other adaptations, all of which are more recent than the development of homo sapiens sapiens.
April 25th, 2007 at 9:12 am
Incidentally, Paul Z. Myers (correct spelling) is rolling on the floor laughing about this thread. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/04/the_most_important_battle_in_t.php
Think of the cane toads…
April 25th, 2007 at 9:15 am
David Marjanović :
Your doctorate should be retracted. Yes, seriously
You should better address problem of mimicry or coloration of animals as babbling nonsensess about doctorate of professor Davison.
Do not forget we are not at Pharyngula here and your feeble-minded denigration wouldnot pass uncommented.
Anyway if your knowledge about crypsis vs. aposematism or Batesian vs. Mullerian mimicry is same as your knowledge about difference between Czech and Russian language no wonder you restrict yourself to babbling about nothing.
April 25th, 2007 at 9:19 am
Umm, vmartin, I’m pretty sure that I’ve never posted on After The Bar Closes, and I certainly don’t have the power to ban anyone on any forum apart from my own tiny blog.
Sorry, but I’m really not in on the huge conspiracy against you.
April 25th, 2007 at 9:25 am
Dr.Frank
There was an scribbler with nickname Dr. Reverend Frank at ATBC as far as I remember. He was spouting his posts with the same frequency as doctor Myers “ejaculate” his articles about theology and cephalopods.
If it is different person I am sorry. Anyway darwinist Dr. Reverend Frank seems to me to be strongly afflicted by bipolarity.
April 25th, 2007 at 9:38 am
Could we please get back to discussing the cane toads, people?
I haven’t heard anything from VMartin or Mr. Davison about them yet, despite my repeated entreaties.
April 25th, 2007 at 9:50 am
@VMartin
You are confusing Dr.Frank with the indomitable Reverend Doctor Lenny Flank, who does post at “After the Bar Closes” but does not have any moderating control there. Incidentally, AtBC are, I believe, willing to reinstate your posting rights there, if you contact Steve Story via private message there.
April 25th, 2007 at 9:53 am
Well, where is the problem? What about it does the theory of evolution fail to explain? I don’t know what you mean.
And what’s up with the difference between Czech and Russian? I’ve had 4 years of Russian at school, I know both when I see them (and not just because they don’t use the same alphabet).
April 25th, 2007 at 10:02 am
David.
As you know darwinists explain eyespots on butterfly wings as aposematic signs. Their development is explained obligatory as survival advantage for those that possess them. Of course only random mutation and natural selection should be explanation of their development - combined with Mullerian/Batesian mimicry.
Thanks Alan Fox who noticed me that the reality is sometimes different as darwinists would like see it (even if other scientists prove following research to be false) .
The presence of eyespots did not increase the escape probability of resting butterflies once captured (even a form with enlarged eyespots did not add to effective deflection of attacks). There was also no evidence that eyespots influenced the location of strikes by the predators. This study thus provides no support that marginal eyespot patterns can act as an effective deflection mechanism to avoid lizard or avian predation.
See
Significance of butterfly eyespots as an anti-predator device in ground-based and aerial attacks
Anne Lyytinen, Paul M. Brakefield and Johanna Mappes,
available abstract on inet.
April 25th, 2007 at 10:16 am
This is class, but I suspect that Davison (Dr.) and Martin are just having a laugh. No-one could be so un self-aware and just plain embarrasing by accident.
April 25th, 2007 at 10:20 am
“The presence of eyespots did not increase the escape probability of resting butterflies once captured (even a form with enlarged eyespots did not add to effective deflection of attacks). There was also no evidence that eyespots influenced the location of strikes by the predators. This study thus provides no support that marginal eyespot patterns can act as an effective deflection mechanism to avoid lizard or avian predation.”
I notice that the first sentance contains the words ‘once captured”. It clearly means that the study does not cover all possible instances of being a butterfly with spots.
I’m just sayin.
April 25th, 2007 at 10:24 am
Willams and company.
I am wasting my time with you but anyway - problem of mimicry/aposematism of butterflies is complicated and interesting one.
1) It is not sure that predators see or detect it either - see my previous post. It is also opinion of Franfurter school of structuralism.
2) In case of polymorphic Papilio Dardanus there coexist at the same area mimics and non-mimics of the same species very well. Mimics do not prove to have greater survival advantage as non-mimics.
3) Explanation of evolution of mimicry on butterflies wing is explained via “mutation with great phenotypic effect”. It is of course darwinistic new speak of the fact, that mimicry in the case is explainable better via saltationism.
It was Punnett opinion cited in professor Davison Manifesto.
Feel free address any of my previous point.
April 25th, 2007 at 10:40 am
What is all this nonsense about a “theory” of evolution? There is as yet no “theory” of evolution. Theories, sensu strictu, are verified hypotheses. Neither Lamarckism nor Darwinism even remotely qualify. They are both inventions of the human imaginatiom without a scintilla of tangible support.
In the meantime the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis continues to gain strength as EVERTHING being revealed by molecular biology pleads for a predetermined, “prescribed” phylogeny in which chance played no role whatsover, a phylogeny which is now complete with Homo sapiens the terminal mammalian product.
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
You better believe it.
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 25th, 2007 at 11:10 am
So you’ll be putting PEH up on Wikipedia then?
April 25th, 2007 at 11:19 am
“My friend and ally Martin…is a multilingual scholar…”
He should learn English as well.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:25 am
“I agree that God is probably dead. That does not mean that a God or Gods did not once exist.”
By the very definition of god, it could not die. Therefore you invalidate everything you believe in with this single statement. Case closed. Good day.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Please present my most recent post. Thank you.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:42 am
If this is an act, then they’ve been milking it for a long time. Kinda like the Smothers Brothers.
April 25th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
wÒÓ†, that was a thing of beauty.
April 25th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Excuse me.
Martin and I are obviously wasting our time here as we were at Pharyngula and After The Bar Closes. They were forced to ban us to silence us. The same fate will await us here as we are dealing with “prescribed,” atheist, Darwinian mystics. They are no better than the Bible-thumping Baptist bigots over at Uncommon Descent, led by the biggest bully in the history of internet communication, David Springer. The second biggest bully is of course Pharyngula Z. Meyers, presumably the subject of this thread. They are both cowards or they would respond. Bullies are like that don’t you know.
Martin, this is what I propose. Let us see if we can’t force the same resolution here that we have elsewhere. It is the best evidence that we have them on the ropes. I am sick and tired of dealing with ideological disasters such as those who infect this blog like so many others in the wonderful world of cyberspace which is, nothing but therapy for unpublished, unprincipled, insecure, cowardly, anonymous, unfulfilled, “born that way,” “prescribed” subnormal, abnormal, congenital losers.
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 25th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Uf, we have here secondclass too. Another darwinian expert.
Secondclass is a guy who observing development of embryo came to the conclusion that entropy in embryo during its development is increasing. And development of embryo in his eys proves also validity of the allmighty second law permeating the Universe.
April 25th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Another loser has arrived in thwe person of Alan Fox. What a jerk!
April 25th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Hilarious
April 25th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Mr. Davison, if you do leave, can you
let us know where you go?
April 25th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
John,
I like it here. Darwinists think how clever they are and in fact they are laughing on their own stupidity. They even do not see it.
Dr. Myers called me your “pet sycophantic monkey”. Uf, that must have been an inspiration by Muses, that was a “biological ejaculation” par excellence! I suspect him that he is now so tired after such an artistic “biological ejaculation” that he need rest. He pretend to be in Boston and he will maybe write there another interesting atheistic articles about theology and cephalopods.
April 25th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Hilarious?
What’s hilarious is the way the gibbering hordes of Darwinian dummies over at Meyers’ crummy corner of the internet are mocking my harmless habit of referencing my own wonderful words at the end of each of my offerings of stunning wisdom to their undeserving minds.
Why are they so ungrateful? I give them the opportunity to read my infinitely enlightening thoughts, yet they mock me for offering them twice in one post! There is no better bargain than that!
Buy War Bonds!
So I love it!
“The profound truth of my statements bears repeating again and again”
David A. Johnson
April 25th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
The internet is the true cesspool of intellectual thought.
April 25th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Yeah, that’s why I love it so.
April 25th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
wÒÓ†, is you the same “wÒÓ†” of boobies (the SFW, blue-footed kind) fame over at Atrios’ place?
April 25th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Martin, if believing in the universality of the SLoT is wrong, then I don’t wanna be right. I’ll cast my lot with the deluded physicists, whom, incidentally, you should be thanking for making possible the monitor that you’re reading right now. What has ID done for you lately?
And I don’t recall ever saying anything about embryos, but the entropy of an embryo certainly increases as it develops. Not that this has anything to do with anything.
April 25th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Mr Davidson and marVin the Marti(a)n (that would explain the horrid grammar):
Deconvolution microscopy, loon wings, cane toad legs
You don’t need the so called Darwinists to gag yourselves. You do it yourselves by only using personal attacks and self or mutual pats on the back. Perhaps if you could discuss something testable by facts, like the opportunities given to you, cited above…
Anyway, if you want more exposure, without the censorship alleged by you, have you considered auditioning for Saturday Night Live or similar shows?
April 25th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Well I have to admit that I have rarely seen a more funny train wreck. Johnson and Martin. They even sounds like a comedy duo. Take it on the road boys you will make a fortune.
For God’s sake think of the toads.
April 25th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
John A. Davison Says:
“Martin and myself are waging a very effective war against the forces of darkness on both sides of this idiotic debate, sides which are dead wrong and always have been. Our success is measured directly by the extent to which we share bannishmnet and ridicule by those same factions we have exposed as charlatans, as “prescribed” victims of their fates to be mindless spokespersons of ideologies devoid of rational foundation.”
Please come down from your cross, we need the wood.
April 25th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Perhaps the real identities of Davison (oops! I typed it wrong the first time… I avenged PZ! As Mr Davison always spells his last name as Mayers) and Martin are Mace Windu and Obi-wan Kenobi, hence their fight against the Dark Forces. If that is the case, they certainly have done a lousy job! With Palpatine in charge, Ankin turned to the Dark Side, and Darwin’s theory being the most respected one, not their pet theory…
April 25th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Martin
Notice that it is just one anonymous jackass after another, not a rational man in the lot except for David A. Johnson. All the usual suspects chime in except the hero of this thread who is ejaculating himself into a stupor in Boston I understand. I don’t doubt it for a moment. And where is his counterpart David Springer, The Yellow Rose of Texas. Where is he ejaculating I wonder? What a divine pair of ejaculators, both bullies, both intellectual cowards, both ethical and moral terrorists, both terrified to display their degenerate selves outside the sanctuary of their home domains, Pharyngula and Uncommon Descent respectively. Between the two of these ejaculators they have banned more people than all the other blogmasters in the internet combined. It is gloriously revealing.
Each rules his domain with an iron fist. Don’t you ever think that Dembski is in charge at Uncommon Descent. Dembski and O’Leary are both terrified of David Springer who has openly insulted both of them in unspeakable terms. Don’t take my word for it. Just visit You Dream of Janie and go back through the Archives. Springer makes Osama bin Laden look like Mahatma Gandhi. He also makes Dembski look like a wimp.
Well I am not afraid of either one of these arrogant snots which is why they both are keeping their traps shut here on a neutral venue where they could speak if they weren’t homozygous yellow-bellied cowards.
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 25th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Is the “I love it so” phrase a code for “May the Force be with you”?
April 25th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Notice that it is just one anonymous jackass after another, not a rational man in the lot except for David A. Johnson.
Was that a joke, and I’m just not getting it?
David A. Johnson
John A. Davison
Hmmm…
April 25th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
A poorly disguised jackass?
April 25th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
John A. Davison, I recommend youget psychological help.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
RCP whoever the hell this is just admitted that he was posting as David A. Johnson. I should have known of course but I am senile don’t you know. RCP just proved it. He also proved he is garbage!
“He used to be a decent scientist but something happened to him in the 1980’s.”
Some anonymous coward.
Please don’t hesitate to visit Pharyngula where Martin and I are once again demonstrating to the rational world that the ongoing ideological dightmare known as Darwinian mysticism is still alive and thriving. It is nothing more than 148 years of mass hysteria!
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 25th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Ric
…I recommend youget psychological help.
It’s you and your darwinian cronies who need help. But you are much more serious cases - psychologist wouldn’t help. You need psychiatrists and a great dosis of valium to calm down. You become hysteric when somebody shows you what the darwinism really is - nonsens and pseudo-science from the mid 19 century.
It looks here like if all madmen from AtBC and Pharyngula started raving after beeing incited by “biological ejaculation” of their
atheistic leader.
No arguments, no serious responses, just denigration of professor Davison.
Like in the madhouse. Shame you.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Still funny.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Thank you for alerting me this this cad is slandering my good name by falsely stating that he posted as me.
I had never thought these Darwinian mystic miscreants would stoop so low as to impersonate an innocent, rational man! It just goes to show how a worldview of deluded deceptions and hysterical lies addle the brains of its adherents!
It’s hard to believe it’s not butter!
You better believe it!
So I love it!
“The profound truth of my statements bears repeating again and again”
David A. Johnson
April 25th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Funny. Davison and VMartin are really fellating each other. That’s sure better than ejaculating, ain’t it?
Anyhow, first they complain because no Darwinisits show up ’cause they must be afraid (but both still hang out here even though they are almost alone, with the exception of wÒÓt with whom they refuse to speak, merely to engage in pseudo-intellectual masturbation.) When people finally come over they point out that they just want to talk to PZ Myers and with noone else.
Therefore Davison apparently refuses to discuss anything about “PEH”, because he’s too busy (yeah, right. Too busy ’cause he’s got to post here all day, to thank or congratulate VMartin for his comments or he’s to busy being retired. Way to go, pal!) Now that’s how genuine scientists react when they are challanged, they refuse to discuss anything regarding their pet-hypothesis and they refuse to comment on new data/papers.
Either way, did it ever occur to you that neither PZ Myers nor Dawkins may want to talk to you because you are simply ridiculously off the mark? It is the same reason why reputable Historians are not going to debate Holocaust deniers: they do not debate liars. I think PZ Myers and Dawkins are enganging Creationists because these guys are at least worth a good laugh. You two are just repetitive and boring. And you pose no threat to science in any way, unlike Creationists whose agenda is to destroy science. Creationists also have a huge crowd of mindless minions, lacking critical thought but having a lot of political power, while you Mr. Davison got one mindless minion (VMartin [Don’t you see the irony? Complaining about Alan Fox and DaveScot: “Alan Fox is nothing but Wesley Elsberry’s one man goon squad. He has never contributed anything constructive at any venue where he has appeared. Fox is to Elsberry what DaveScot (David Springer) is to William Dembski, nothing but a free ranging sycophantic character assassin whose sole purpose in life it to protect his own pathgetic survival at any cost)” post #47 even though he does just the same for you. How hypocrtical…], who holds no political power whatsover, at least in no civilicized country.
Apart from that, maybe it’s your profanity Dr. Davison, that keeps you banned from oh so many blogs and discussion boards, ever thought of that? I am baffled by the thought that VMartin actually complains about PZ Myers’ choice of words, even though his beloved professor Davison does so as well? Darwimps, anyone?. In addition don’t you think that refusing to talk to people with pseudonyms is logical invalid? Pseudonyms may be a cheap way to avoid responsibility for one’s words, but that does not mean that those words aren’t right.
Regarding PEH, there’s no tangible evidence whatsover that there’s any purpose in the evolution of life. There’s no evidence that there had to be a God or some such deity to bring everything about. Why deduce a higher power when natural causes suffice? What’s so bad about “randomness”? Btw. “random” in this context does not mean that things don’t follow certain natural laws, it means that there are too many variables to predict something accurately. It is the same with the weather, which is in this sense “random” as well, though nobody argues that it doesn’t follow natural laws. The only real random occurences are found in quantum physics, imho. This said, however, God is still a redundant term and according to Ockham’s razor is not likely to have actually done anything, ever. (Nevertheless the existence of God can never be ruled out completely, nor is it supported in any way.) And of course the age old question: Who brought this god about, anyway?
I’ve been pretty hostile in my post and I was somewhat insulting, but since Davison and PZ Myers aren’t mild-mannered either I don’t see any reason why I should.
P.S. This David A. Johnson guy is a pretty good parody of John A. Davison, I almost couldn’t tell the difference!
P.P.S. No, English is neihter my native nor first language.
P.P.P.S But it is still better than VMartin’s
I love it so!
“Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”
Theodosius Dobzhansky (see, I can quote, too! But I don’t have to quote myself, which would be pathetic.)
April 25th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
You left out batshit crazy retired professors.
I read your PEH paper…and completely want that twenty minutes back. It’s terrible. I probably won’t return to this thread, so save your abuse for someone who cares.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
“Don’t you just love a bargain?”
Motto of the Christmas tree shops.
Neither “Darwimp” nor “Fundy” are obcenities. Neither are “Bible-Banging Baptist Bigots” or “chance-happy, mutation-intoxicated, randomly-drugged anally compulsive deniers of a purposeful universe.” Hell, they are nothing but categories into which tens of thousands of illiterate “prescribed” nincompoops naturally fall.
It doesn’t get any better than this does it Martin?
I love it so! Don’t you?
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 25th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
J. Daley
Promises, promises.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
I was enjoying this train wreck enormously right up until I read Davidson’s following comments:
What’s hilarious is the way the gibbering hordes of Darwinian dummies over at Meyers’ crummy corner of the internet are mocking my harmless habit of referencing my own wonderful words at the end of each of my offerings of stunning wisdom to their undeserving minds.
Why are they so ungrateful? I give them the opportunity to read my infinitely enlightening thoughts, yet they mock me for offering them twice in one post! There is no better bargain than that!
Then it stopped being funny and became sad and pathetic. Nothing funny in laughing at, or arguing with, the mentally ill. Seriously John A. Davison, you need to get some help. How utterly tragic that you should spend your final years an obsessed, bitter, unhappy old man, unable to adapt (heh) to the changing world around you.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Cane toads?
April 25th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Hey, HMS Beagle, I got news for you… Your two quotes were from David A. Johnson, not John A. Davison. ; )
Even though Davison ain’t got no clue, you need to be fair, right?
Yeah, why does nobody think about the Cane toads?!
April 25th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
John,
do you follow the discussion of the article at Pharyngula? One of the lies that darwinian simpletons put there is this one from “Colugo”:
Whatever the shortcomings of their theories, L.S. Berg and Otto Schindewolf were really smart guys and don’t deserve to be posthumously associated with the ramblings of those two admirers.
Probably their shortcoming is that they dismissed darwinism as nonsense. That’s why it is forbidden to mention them by the others and only darwinists can do it.
I have never mentioned Schindewolf. Some of Berg’s conception I discussed with you at Brainstorm. I read one interesting chapter of Bergs Nomogenesis available in Russian on inet.
I mentioned mostly as antidarwinian scientists Heikertinger, Suchantke, professor Portmann, professor Neubauer etc.
Another nonsense is that I am Czech. There is an “expert” on languages David Marjanovic who do not know how to distinguich Russian from other Slavonic languages. He deduced I must be Czech.
Yet Doctor Myers flattered these simpletons from Pharyngula as “knowledgeable evolutionists”.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Yet Doctor Myers flattered these simpletons from Pharyngula as “knowledgeable evolutionists”.
At least they’re knowledgeable enough to speak/write proper English.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
At least they’re knowledgeable enough to speak/write proper English.
And that is all what these simpletons know.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Daniel C. Pfeifer, oops, you’re right. The insanity was so thick that I must have gotten confused. Unlike some folks around here, I can admit when I’ve made a mistake. Still, I have to stand by my observation that Davison is a crazy, obsessed, bitter old man, drooling away his final years. Must be evolution is done with him now that he’s too old to breed.
Seriously though, I have wonder how many students he poisoned with his nonsense before VermontU wised up and dumped him?
April 25th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
And that is all what these simpletons know.
Which is apparently more than you know. So, what does this tell about you? (Hint: You are not only biologically challanged.)
April 25th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Beagle babbled
Seriously though, I have wonder how many students he poisoned with his nonsense before VermontU wised up and dumped him?
What is poisoning student’s minds is study of pseudo-science darwinism.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Holy moley, what a pleasant read. “Dr.” Davison, you got nothin’. I gotta say that you’re one of the few pieces of evidence I’ve ever seen for the process of evolution having stopped. I mean, you, yourself.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Davison, you got nothin’.
You are wrong. Davison’s Manifesto is great work. It’s darwinists here who are holding the empty atheistic bag.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Daniel C. Pfeifer, oops, you’re right. The insanity was so thick that I must have gotten confused.
At first I didn’t recognize the difference as well. (I had to rewrite my first post because of that, otherwise I’d be much harsher.)
But I agree with you in your characterization of Davison.
What is poisoning student’s minds is study of pseudo-science darwinism.
Has it ever occured to you, that “Darwinism” is an outdated term? You know, no university teaches “Darwinism” per se anymore, except maybe in a fancy science-history class. That’s because now people study the “Theory of Evolution” which is more than just Darwin’s ideas, for Darwin didn’t know about genetics at that time, for example. Ever heard of “modern (evolutionairy) synthesis”? You should first read Darwin’s “Origins of Species” (The full text! For free! At your leisure: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin.html) and then you should inform yourself about the modern synthesis at the nearest university library. Believe me, it’s worth the effort.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Ever heard of “modern (evolutionairy) synthesis”? You should first read Darwin’s “Origins of Species” (The full text! For free! At your leisure..
Ever heard of professor of zoology Adolf Portmann the head of University Basel? Who criticised darwinism? Ever heard about his “Neue Wege der Biologie” 1960? It’s free on Czech translation. At your leisure:
http://discordia.sk/seed/browse/S555c7e6b0dbb5a84010dbb6a2e010016;jsessionid=rgu0n70cua14
April 25th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Incidentally, my unpublished “An Evolutionary Manifesto: A New Hypothesis For Organic Evolution.” will be published in Czech. It still awaits publication in English. I have no intention of seeking a publisher in the atheist Darwinian dominated Anglo-American world and I never will. It is their loss much to my pleasure. They deserve my contempt and I am happy to supply it.
It doesn’t get any better than this.
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 25th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Why not ask about the Marine toads too? They’ve “appeared mysteriously as if from thin air” here as well.
“Drop that toad and no-one get hurt!” (Døn 2007)
April 25th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Incidentally, my unpublished “An Evolutionary Manifesto: A New Hypothesis For Organic Evolution.” will be published in Czech.
Because, of course, you’re a scientist and all the really good science is published in Czech. Seriously, Doc, this the equivalent of a sullen 8th grader asserting that he “really does have a girlfriend, but she’s, you know, Canadian. Sure you do, Pal, sure you do (wink, wink).
April 25th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Hey, you claimed on Pharyngula that you were Czech. I wanted to test the alternative hypothesis that you were John A. Davison, so I asked you to translate your post into Czech. You wrote a post in Czech — not a translation of your previous post, but still, a post in Czech. Not Russian, not even Slovak (I hear your IP address belongs to a computer in Bratislava). What’s up with you? Што с тобой, по-русски?
April 25th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
You guys realize that science kept on going after 1859, right? I’m sure you do, but it’d be nice if you actually pointed out flaws in the modern interpretation of evolutionary theories. I’m willing to listen to you, but you have to provide something more substantial than a 20-something year old manifesto and criticisms of a 150-year old text.
Otherwise, what reason should we have for keeping you out of the conspiracy theory file (along with: flat-earth / the atkins-diet / faked-moon-landing / a young-earth / holocaust-denial / 9-11-was-an-inside-job / and abstinence-only training prevents unwanted pregnancies)?
Is it unreasonable to request real information?
April 25th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Cane toad = Bufo marinus
(Frost et al. took it out of Bufo last year, which is a good idea, but I forgot where they put it.)
April 25th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Anybody else noticing the cultist indicators here?
We’ve got a Messiah who can see TRUTH that others cannot see. The Messiah becomes enraged when anybody asks for proof of his vision or questions his interpretation. He’s got a “manifesto.” And then there’s the blind zombie-like obedience of VMarti&n…
That is, of course, if VMarti&n isn’t a sockpuppet, if he is, well then it’s not a cult, it’s just masturbation.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Heh, noticed that VMartin mentioned PZ’s “false fabrications” in that first post. Sometimes the truth just forces it’s way out.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Is there still pie available?
April 25th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
I’m beginning to think that this Davison character doesn’t exist at all, and is simply a convoluted series of satires.
Or maybe that’s just wishful thinking. Thinking there really is some retired college professor who compares himself to Darwin because nobody will take this crackpottery seriously makes me depressed. I’m an undergraduate just getting into science, and seeing what a sticky end a scientist can come to is a real impulsion to work hard and stick to the scientific method. Seriously man, let go. Not even the ID crew take you seriously. None of the stuff you’re spouting is going to be remembered further than next week. You need to get off the internet and reclaim what is left of your life…
April 25th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
Ssshhh! I wanted to know if JAD knew that!
April 25th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Oh and should I mention the aptly named Giant Toad. We got those here too.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
English lesson: When you say “Darwinists explain” [capital letter because Darwin is a proper name], this will be interpreted as “the Darwinists explain” and therefore as “all Darwinists explain”. But what you mean — or at least what would be closer to reality — is “some Darwinists explain”. This still leaves us with the silly term “Darwinists” (two words for you: Modern Synthesis*), but it would avoid the wrong (and deeply naive) assertion that all evolutionary biologists have exactly the same explanation for each and every case of mimicry.
So your problem seems to be that half an eyespot is good for nothing, right? If so, learn what exaptation means. Maybe the spots evolved as part of a camouflage pattern, and when they had become large enough, they started scaring predators away because they somewhat resembled eyes; then we get natural selection toward closer resemblance to eyes. Easy, no? I love it so.
BTW, if you say “random mutation and natural selection, combined with Mullerian/Batesian mimicry”, this proves you have neither understood natural selection (which is very easy to understand) nor Müllerian nor Batesian nor any other kind of mimicry. Why do you talk about things that you don’t understand?
Regarding Lyytinen et al., go to this page and click on the PDF links. Enjoy reading. You’ll learn something.
* That’s the theory that was built after Portmann and Schindewolf had published. In other words, their objections are outdated. They are of nothing but historical interest.
Bullshit.
Science is incapable of verifying anything, so there is no such thing as a verified hypothesis. Disproof is possible, but proof is impossible — proof beyond reasonable doubt is possible, but as I’m sure you agree it’s not possible to define “reasonable”. Whether sensu stricto or lato, theories are just larger than hypotheses: they rest on more data and explain more data. Go here to learn the difference.
It is amazing that you went all the way to and then through a Ph.D. program without learning what science is. But what do I expect from a creationist. Creationists never get the idea that maybe they don’t know everything there is to know; they are interested in parroting, not in learning.
“Reality is that which does not go away if you stop believing in it.” I forgot the author, but anyway it’s not me.
“The wish is the father of the thought.” Muħammad
“Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment, you must also be right.” — Robert Park
For the record, I study paleobiology and molecular biology. Both fields provide lots of evidence against teleology.
The entropy inside the embryo does not increase, but the embryo produces more entropy — that’s called metabolism — than it loses by growing. That’s related to the refutation of the ignorant argument some creationists make that evolution supposedly violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
I haven’t mentioned frontloading yet. This is an extreme case of special pleading, but at least it’s a falsifiable and therefore scientific hypothesis. Show me the evidence. What would frontloaded information in a genome look like? Tell me. Keep in mind that many genomes have already been sequenced, so searching for whatever you’ll tell me frontloaded information looks like will be easy.
Doctorate? You don’t even recognize a blatant parody of yourself. You need a psychiatrist.
Cane toads.
As long as he refuses to explain the cane toads, he cannot claim to be a scientist, but must be considered a pseudoscientist, a crank, a woo merchant.
*croaking in the silence*
April 25th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Oops, sorry. I forgot to close an tag and somehow put a
But nooooooooooo…
Hey, at least it’s funnier than Scientology, despite the references to the Dark Lord Xenu. This folie à deux is not going to pull money out of people’s pockets. It’s just an Internet legend.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
jeezus …
btw, did anyone grant davidson’s wish and ban him from this site? he seems to really want to be banned — he’s continually harping on it. must be he’s working on a merit badge.
April 25th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Hey, at least it’s funnier than Scientology…
Funnier, yeah in a sad, silly sort of way. The “science” in both cults is about the same. Maybe Davison will declare himself Commodore next, seems like a logical evolutionary step in cult development.
April 25th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
I’m noticing a lot of indicators, all of them hilarious. I hope this thread keeps on for a while. It’s pure entertainment. But that’s always the case with JAD and his little cane toad VMart%$&@#n.
April 25th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
“evolution governed by law” … never a cop around when you need one
(see #18 above for full quote if you came in toward the middle or end of this debacle)
April 25th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
RE: “They are both inventions of the human imaginatiom without a scintilla of tangible support.”
Nah, that’s gawd, mate.
April 25th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
I have come to the sudden (but not inexplicable) understanding that JAD and VMart (and any other sock puppets) are not only one and the same person… er, entity… but… OK, hold on…
It’s God! JAD is GOD!
Think about it for a moment: What else could be so irrational, ridiculous, pompous, angry, narcissistic, self-contradicting, silly, self-referencing, unreal (-istic), so utterly over-the-top poisonously deluded, nasty, and painfully incapable of self-reflection? I mean, no one could possibly take any of this crap seriously — let alone in this godlike volume!
I think we’ve finally found God, people. And He’s just like Philip Pullman portrayed Him in the His Dark Materials trilogy! Wow. I mean, just, — wow!
Just wait… At any moment He’ll evaporate like a sigh into the luminiferous æther with a big babylike grin on his wizened old face. Or else dissipate like an old fart.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
We had a pet Bufo marinus when I was teaching Introductory Biology at Washington University in St Louis in the 1950’s. I used to feed it half grown mice. I believe it is still the same toad it was then. I also used the much smaller Bufo americanus in lecture. If you rolled marbles at it it would hunker down and take a defensive posture but it would lap up bbs as fast as you could roll them at it. The students got upset with me until I took the toad by the hind legs and shook all the bbs back out again. It brought the house down.
I wish I could shake all the Darwinian B.S. out of the Dawkins/Meyers dynamic duo and all of their thousands of their mindless followers half as easily.
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
Thanks for all the free publicity.
I love it so!
A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 26th, 2007 at 12:43 am
You want cults? Try Uncommon Descent, Pharyngula, Panda’s Thumb, Sandwalk and Richard Dawkins’ motley assortment of adoring sycophantic lemmings. Cults are for deranged insecure fanatics. The internet is crawling with them.
“Then we have the fanatical atheists (Dawkins, Elsberry and Meyers) whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics (Wells, Dembski and the whole damn Discovery Institute, “A Christian Institution.”), and it springs from the same source… They are creatures who can’t hear the music of the spheres.”
Albert Einstein, my parenthetical insertions.
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 26th, 2007 at 1:12 am
So you are quite familiar with Bufo Marinus then John? Have you read anything about them recently? Perhaps some papers from the Antipodes?
April 26th, 2007 at 1:13 am
vmartin: empty atheistic bag? i deny the validity of your hokey bag cult! you must prove there is a bag to fill, and i see no bags in this thread, held by atheists or crackpot believers.
thus, you lose. i’d recommend taking davison to the subway and clapping while he accosts passerby with his cane. some high-pitched giggling might work too.
i’m still leaning towards thinking you’re both wannabe turing machines.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:21 am
What day did evolution stop, I wonder? I’m guessing it was on a Thursday.
Also, I stubbed my toe today and probably broke it. Is it too much to ask that evolution consider accurate proprioception adaptive enough to fit into the final make and model of mankind? Honestly, I wish I could go back to like, two weeks before evolution ended so I could add that to the list. Now I guess it’s too late
April 26th, 2007 at 2:19 am
Brian
If you were not illiterate you would know that it was a Darwinian, Julian Huxley, originator of the term “The Modern Synthesis” and author of the book “Evolution: The Modern Synthesis” who stated in no uncertain terms that evolution had stopped long ago, two million years ago at the genus level. I refer you to page 571 of that book. Pierre Grasse had independently reached the same conclusion and I refer you to page 71 of his book “The Evolution of Living Organisms.” It was the antiDarwinian Robert Broom that had convinced Huxley that evolution was probably finished. The Darwinians have conveniently forgotten that it was one of their own who had questioned the very basis of the Darwinian fairy tale.
The title of Grasse’s book is particularly interesting because it stands in stark contrast with the conclusions he presents in its contents.
Now like a good little Darwimp, you scuttle out to the library as you won’t find these books on the internet. Or alternatively, I refer you to my Manifesto or my published papers where you will find those comments fully documented.
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 26th, 2007 at 6:50 am
More, more, Encore I implore.
SOCKITTOME!
Saturady Night Live
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
It doesn’t get any better than this. God but this is fun! I love dealing with half-wits.
“Oooooooh, that’s good booze. How sweet it is!”
Jackie Gleason
“There are more horses asses than horses.”
anonymous
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 26th, 2007 at 7:04 am
I love it so!
April 26th, 2007 at 8:11 am
Are you a politician or something? You still haven’t answered the question. Publish or perish — put up or shut up.
Ad hominem arguments, my ignorant friend, are unscientific, too. When someone famous says something stupid, it doesn’t become any less stupid. Linus Pauling fully deserved both of his Nobel prizes, but then he still went on and made up an embarrassing pseudoscience about huge doses of vitamin C.
There isn’t even such a thing as the genus level — Linnaean ranks are subjective! Nobody can claim Frost et al. were right or wrong when they took B. marinus out of Bufo because the latter genus was paraphyletic and too large to handle, and indeed nobody has claimed so; it’s all just a matter of convenience.
Hey, J. Huxley made other mistakes, too. He believed that evolution inevitably results in progress, for example. Like all science, the modern synthesis rests on evidence, not on people.
Evolution is observable, and it has been observed numerous times. Both in the lab with bacteria, and in the wild with Darwin finches. Pretending that no research has been done in the last 50 years does not make it go away. When you call others illiterate, it reeks of projection.
April 26th, 2007 at 8:23 am
Sorry Mr. Davison, I will learn to read (Czech, was it?) and get back to you when I have successfully rejected mainstream views in every major scientific field. Thank you for the helpful tip!
“It’s about 9am, I think”
-Brian
April 26th, 2007 at 10:00 am
Darwin’s finches are all one species. Sorry - no cigar.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:14 am
I was reading a blogpost on the Internet. It was all about me. Some Darwimpian was laughing at the eternal truths I had uncovered. I told him to lick my booty-hole. I delivered a real yell-down on his ass.
I kicked Darwin’s ass!
I kicked Darwin’s ass!
I kicked Darwin’s ass!
I kicked Darwin’s ass!
You are a petty tyrant. You are the random ejaculation of a gutless internet bully. You are a Darwimpian adherent to a fairy tale.
I kicked Darwin’s ass!
I kicked Darwin’s ass!
I kicked Darwin’s ass!
I kicked Darwin’s ass!
Rock over London, Rock on Chicago!
“Budweiser, it’s the king of beers!” - Wesley A. Willison
April 26th, 2007 at 10:40 am
“Rowan and Martin’s Laugh-in”, actually. Even JAD’s pop references suck.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:15 am
David Marjanovic
The entropy inside the embryo does not increase, but the embryo produces more entropy — that’s called metabolism — than it loses by growing. That’s related to the refutation of the ignorant argument some creationists make that evolution supposedly violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Evidently entropy of embryo during its development decreases. So the development of embryo itself contradiscts the 2 law unambigously. You can babble about open systems, dissipative structures, metabolism or whatever you likes - the matter wouldn´t change.
So your problem seems to be that half an eyespot is good for nothing, right? If so, learn what exaptation means. Maybe the spots evolved as part of a camouflage pattern, and when they had become large enough, they started scaring predators away because they somewhat resembled eyes; then we get natural selection toward closer resemblance to eyes.
Maybe eye spots scare in darwinists heads - but it is not the case of predators probably.
Anyway your conception how allegedly aposematic patterns evolved from cryptic patterns on butterfly wings is brand new. You should inform F.Nijhout and Nature as well about it - maybe such an idea is loony enough to be embraced wholeheartedly by darwinists. Darwinists like fairy tales like that.
And this one of you is better - to my opinion - as that one of late Poulton who proposed to explain similarity on wing patterns between unrelated butterflies that lives at different areas in Asia - by selection of migratory birds!
* That’s the theory that was built after Portmann and Schindewolf had published. In other words, their objections are outdated. They are of nothing but historical interest.
You don´t know anything about Portmann´s theories. Anyway you dismissed them as outdated.
———
remark under the line.
Portmann theories are based on Goethian conception of scientifical research. Such conceptions were of course ridiculed by ignorants like you more than 150 years as outdated. Yet the Goethe´s theory of color proved to be correct by complicated experiments only some 30 years ago. Human can percieve color even if its frequency is not in spectrum entering the eye. Something that newtonian scientists ridiculed more than 150 years.
So be carefull when you mark some ideas as outdated.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:18 am
http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/dsm-iv.html#npd
(snicker)
April 26th, 2007 at 11:40 am
You and me against the world,
Sometimes it seems like you and me against the world,
When all the others turn their backs and walked away,
You can count on me to stay.
Remember when the circus came to town
How you were frightened by the clown,
Wasn’t it nice to be around someone that you knew,
Someone who was big and strong and looking out for
You and me against the world,
Sometimes it seems like you and me against the world
And for all the times we’ve cried I always felt that
Truth was on our side.
And when one of us is gone,
And one of us is left to carry on,
Then remembering will have to do,
Our memories alone will get us through
Think about the days of me and you,
Of you and me against the world.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:47 am
What is it with all the loons and SLoT? None of them have ever seem to notice the isolated system bit.
Oh, yeah it’s the ultimate quote mine!
“The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.” - Rudolph Clausius
(Sorry, I didn’t feel the need to reformulate it so I could put my name after it)
April 26th, 2007 at 11:53 am
I hope you washed your hands!
“Of course if you didn’t, that would explain a lot” - Døn
April 26th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
David Marjanović:
The entropy inside the embryo does not increase, but the embryo produces more entropy — that’s called metabolism — than it loses by growing.
We may be talking about different kinds of entropy. WRT thermodynamic entropy, as the number of molecules in the embryo increases, the overall degrees of freedom increase, and the internal entropy thus increases. Once the embryo is fully grown, it maintains a fairly static internal entropy, but only at the cost of increasing external entropy, as you said.
Martin:
Evidently entropy of embryo during its development decreases. So the development of embryo itself contradiscts the 2 law unambigously. You can babble about open systems, dissipative structures, metabolism or whatever you likes - the matter wouldn´t change.
And Martin can make patently false and ignorant statements like this ad nauseum, and the only response will be more mocking.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Martin
The best thing about this thread is its incredible length and the enormous free publicity that gives the Prescribed Evolutonary Hypothesis, the distinguished scientists on which it is so firmly based and, of course, last but not least, the utter damn foolshness of both the Darwinian worshippers of the Great God Chance and the Bible-Banging Fundamentalist fanatics. It is a beautful sight to behold.
And what a gorgeous display of so many anonymous, illiterate, “born that way,” “prescibed,” intellectual defectives, more than I have ever seen assembled on a single thread in my experience, 275 comments and still going strong, without a peep out of the two biggest blowhards in the history of the internet, P.Z. Meyers, the subject and author of this idiotic thread and DaveScot, aka David Springer, Dembski’s loyal chihuahua. It is unbelievably revealing and free, absolutely free.
“Don’t you just love a bargain?
motto of the Christmas Tree Shops
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
“How sweet it is”
Jackie Gleason
I love it so!
Who is next? Don’t be shy. The more the merrier and its FREE! WHOOPEE!
“Wunnerful awunnerful!
Lawrence Welk
“I’m an old campaigner and I love a good fight.”
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 26th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Cane toads.
It all comes down to the cane toads.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Second class probably consider increasing complexity in development of embryo as confirmation of second law.
First “Second class” see fertilized egg cell. Then he see how morula changes into blastula. Afterwads he see development of internal organs, development of brain.
According his darwinistic opinion this process corroborate 2-nd law exceedingly. He probably would like to modify the rule of Clausius into this one:
“The entropy of the embryo tends to a maximum”.
—
WRT thermodynamic entropy, as the number of molecules in the embryo increases, the overall degrees of freedom increase, and the internal entropy thus increases.
Of course. Entropy is also defined as the degree of randomness. You should be a darwinist of “second class” type to believe that complicated process of expressions of genes and morphological development in embryo constantly increases embryo’s “degree of randomness”. Even Marjanovic tried rather metabolism to explain 2-nd law.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Martin says: Of course.
Well, I’m glad we agree.
BTW, was that really you serenading JAD in post #271?
April 26th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
VMartin wrote:
Ever heard of professor of zoology Adolf Portmann the head of University Basel? Who criticised darwinism? Ever heard about his “Neue Wege der Biologie” 1960? It’s free on Czech translation. At your leisure (…)
Thanks for the link. I’d give it a try, if I could read Czech that is. Nonetheless, yes I have actually heard of Adolf Portmann, but as far as I know he is neither the head of the University of Basel, because he’s already dead since 25 years, nor was he ever during his lifetime, iirc. Furthermore I don’t know of any occassion where he actually criticized the validity of the theory of evolution (modern synthesis) in any way (on the contrary, Florianne Koechlin of the Swiss WoZ attended one of his lectures, where Portmann himself explained the evolution of a fish’s fin into the human’s arm. http://www.blauen-institut.ch/Tx/tF/tfPortmann.html).
I can imagine him criticizing plain old “Darwinism”, but as I’ve pointed out earlier this term is either outdated or a grave misnomer (unless it is okay in the Czech Republic to say “Darwinism” instead of theory of evolution, “Newtonism” instead of theory of gravitation, “Einsteinism” instead of theory of general relativity, “Kochism” instead of pathogenic theory of medicine and last but not least “Davisonism” instead of stupidity.).
But I do not know what he actually wrote in “Neue Wege der Biologie”. So, to verify your claims, could you post excepts of it in English (German would also be acceptable.)? But please don’t translate it yourself, thanks in advance.
You also seem to have some misconceptions about the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but I won’t bother to explain it to you. There’s information galore on this topic on the internet. Much of it with a way better writing style than I could ever muster. But I could provide you a link, if you so desire.
VMartin wrote:
Portmann theories are based on Goethian conception of scientifical research. Such conceptions were of course ridiculed by ignorants like you more than 150 years as outdated. Yet the Goethe´s theory of color proved to be correct by complicated experiments only some 30 years ago. Human can percieve color even if its frequency is not in spectrum entering the eye. Something that newtonian scientists ridiculed more than 150 years.
Huh? Care to back that up, like with evidence (articles in peer-reviewed journals should suffice.)?
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution is undeniable as well. Look at the friggin’ bacteria!”
Daniel C. Pfeifer
April 26th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF
WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF
HHOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWLLLLLLLLLLL
WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF
“WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF” - JAD
April 26th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP
YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP
(PUNT) *SCREECH!* YIPE YIPE YIPE YIPE YIPE
April 26th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
Davison, have you ever heard of George Shollenberger? I think you two should get together.
April 26th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
wOOt - thanks for bringing up cane toads two dozen times. Whatever number of times you said that was the critical mass necessary to get me to google it, and the Nature article is pretty fascinating.
Which is odd, because JAD keeps saying the exact same thing over and over, too, and frankly it’s not that compelling.
“Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition!” -Loesser
April 26th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Daniel C. Pfeifer
Your link is interesting. Depends on how Koechlin percieve darwinism - I suppose positively. In his article he continues:
In Mode war ein simpler Neodarwinismus: Die Tüchtigsten überleben; die Schwachen sterben aus.
I would say it is neodarwinism par excellence nowadays too.
And yet you probably missed these sentences:
Portmann widersprach dezidiert und führte seine Gestaltenlehre an: Warum, so fragte er, sind maritime kleine Hinterkiemerschnecken derart farbenprächtig und warum haben sie eine so unglaubliche Formenvielfalt? Das kann durch simple Selektionstheorien allein nicht erklärt werden.
As you see he rejected natural selection as source of forms and especially of animal coloration in the case. Instead he proposed “Selbstdarstellung” as explanation. This is connected with “Innerlichkeit”. I didn’t know that Jaspers and Barth were his colleagues. But as far as I have read he was close friend with C.G.Jung. His conception of “Innerlichkeit” is probably influenced from this side. Even if tradition of “internal forces” has tradition in European thinking - Heikertinger etc.
To my opinion Portmann accepted Natural selection as real force in evolution. But he focused more on the appearence of animals and he dismissed molecular biology as something that could help us underestand better this appearance and its meaning. I dare say that his conception of “Selbstdarstellung” is really “mystisch” and can be compared with mysterious “internal forces” of F. Heikertinger or maybe P. Grasse.
Huh? Care to back that up, like with evidence (articles in peer-reviewed journals should suffice.)?
If you like try to google out something about Clerk Maxwell experiment with three photographs. Edwin Land elaborated it in more details. Interesting is his abstract test “Pieta Mondriana”. Phenomenon is known as Land’s effect. It questioned former explanation of color perception based on newtonian spectrum conception.
—
And you should stop denigrate professor Davison and read his Manifesto instead. It is very good work.
April 26th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Which reminds me, JAD, why do you only ever refer to theories/statements/etc that are completely obsolete? Why won’t you look at or acknowledge any of the contemporary primary literature?
Don’t dodge the question by throwing mud my way, now. I know it’s tempting.
“Butter up that bacon, boy. And bacon up that sausage!”
-Homer J. Simpson
April 26th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Whether the ground finches are three species or one is a matter of definition, not a matter of fact. Under the so-called Biological Species Concept* they are (marginally) a single species, because they can and (rarely) do interbreed. Under most or all of the 23-upwards other species concepts they are three separate species. Incidentally, hybrids are selected against in dry years — if the climate stays dry or becomes even drier, we can expect that the ability to interbreed will be lost; if it becomes wetter (which is AFAIK probable, due to global warming), the species are likely to fuse.
But I don’t get what your point is. Evolution is evolution, who cares how many species are involved?
Oh, maybe I get it. Maybe you want to see a speciation event because that’s what many creationists foolishly call “macroevolution”. (That would explain why you stubbornly refuse to talk about the cane toads.) Several such events that conform to the Biological Species Concept have been observed. Remember: Google is your friend.
* Ernst Mayr was a bit arrogant here. All species concepts are, obviously, biological, and his is not even applicable to all organisms, only to extant ones that reproduce sexually.
You are so proud of your ignorance that I will babble about open systems. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics only applies to closed systems, and a closed system is one that neither matter nor energy can enter or leave. For how long did you go to school?!? Apparently not for more than five years.
Is not knowing the uttermost basics of physics somehow a prerequisite for being a creationist?
You know full well why I won’t: because I just made that explanation up, and because I haven’t tested “my hypothesis” and will not test it because I know a lot of research on this topic already exists (have you read the articles I found you yesterday?).
Now it’s your turn. What is your proposal? How did the eyespots originate? Did God find creating eyespots fun?
It would help you a lot if you wouldn’t act as if biology ceased to exist in 1950.
This is an ad hominem argument. You are saying that everything Goethe said is likely to be true just because it’s Goethe who said it.
Goethe, too, was only human. For example, he simply refused to accept the fact that white is a mixture of colors, even though he knew full well what Newton had found. He wanted to believe that white was “pure”. Wishful thinking and self-deception are not science.
Last time when I asked you to explain what you mean, you didn’t. Please do now.
That proves it then. Of course wishful thinking trumps reality, of course it does.
Someone sane for a change:
Oh. Good point. Of course the embryo has a temperature above 0 K!
I repeat: You can’t base a hypothesis on people. Base it on evidence, or it just hangs in the air (and is called a theological hypothesis). I also repeat that your doctorate should be retracted because, evidently, while you did your doctorate you didn’t have the slightest idea of what you were actually doing.
Good creationist, always ignoring natural selection. *tapping Doggison’s head*
First, reality check: he’s not the author of this thread.
Secondly, he doesn’t post here anymore because he doesn’t need to. I can defend myself against your arrogantly trumpeted ignorance, and so can everyone else. PZ Myers (correct spelling) has more interesting things to do than to repeat what everybody except you already knows.
That link in post 279 is interesting. Translation of the first sentence: “Adolf Portmann · He had a lasting and important influence on biology at the U. of Basel – till the latter [biology, apparently] began to overtake him.” I can’t see anything in that article that argues against the theory of evolution; to the contrary, Portmann argued against the Nazis’ and other racists’ wishful misunderstandings of it, and explained the evolution of the tetrapod limbs in his lectures. (In case anyone wonders, German is my mother tongue.)
Incidentally, the link in post 270 is also interesting. You should read that page.
____________________________________
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution is undeniable as well. Look at the friggin’ bacteria!”
Daniel C. Pfeifer
April 26th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
I get the impression you understood one word out of this sentence. Here goes: “A simple neodarwinism was in fashion: the fittest survive; the weak die out.” This is called “simple” because reality is more complex (as Portmann was, unsurprisingly, smart enough to notice). Firstly, all that are fit enough survive, no matter how many those are; secondly, what “fit enough” means depends on the environment, which can change; thirdly, those who are “fit” under one set of circumstances are “weak” under another set of circumstances. When the circumstances suddenly change, sometimes the previously fittest die — sometimes the biggest, strongest, healthiest, fastest deer with the biggest antlers is struck by lightning; sometimes a mountain falls from the sky, and more than half of all species die out within years to millennia. This complexity is what much of evolutionary biology in the last 50 years has been dealing with. You have been sleeping for the last 50 years. Wake up, smell the coffee, and read the
newspaperprimary literature.“Portmann disagreed vehemently and brought his ‘teaching of form’ [maybe ‘Theory of Form’ is better] into play: why, did he ask, are small marine opisthobranch slugs so very colorful, and why do they have such an incredible diversity of shapes? This cannot be explained by simple/simplistic selection theories alone.”
Well, I agree on the “simple” part, but there hasn’t been such a simple theory of natural selection for decades. Two words: Gould, spandrel. Go read.
You missed the “alone” and the “simple” parts. If you want to read German, learn it first.
Internal forces are still metaphysics and not science. Too bad for Portmann. I suppose that explains why he’s less famous than even Riedl.
It’s potentially misleading to call natural selection a “force”. After all, we’re not in Star Wars here. Natural selection happens inevitably when fertility* is inheritable to a not too small degree. It is a process like crystallization or evaporation, it’s not a force.
* Measured as the number of surviving fertile descendants per ancestor.
That’s not quite how I read the article, though he did emphasize (his interpretation of) morphology over molecular biology.
(The article also points out that many early geneticists believed in eugenics, and that Portmann — unsurprisingly — pointed out that eugenics is unscientific.)
Meaning? What do you mean by “meaning”?
You dare say he was a pseudoscientist? Is that a compliment? I hope not.
Thank you for mentioning the Land effect. I googled for it. Here is the first result. It is an ordinary optical illusion: we expect certain things to have certain colors, so we believe to see those colors even though we don’t. We are fooling ourselves; we do not perceive colors that really are there. Was that so hard to understand? ~:-|
April 26th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
David Marjanovič
Last time when I asked you to explain what you mean, you didn’t. Please do now.
See my post nr. 284.
April 26th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Yes, thanks again. You should have done that much earlier.
April 26th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
(BTW, ć is the sound between c and č. All three occur in Serbocroatian.)
April 26th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
David Marjanovic
It is an ordinary optical illusion: we expect certain things to have certain colors, so we believe to see those colors even though we don’t.
Uf. Look at the red object on non-colored backround for 30 seconds. Then move your sight to white background. You will see the exactly same object but - in green. This “afterimage” is based on opponent rule of perception of colors proposed even by “outdated” Schopenhauer.
Woodworth and Schlosberg 1959 described phenomenon when grey paper on red backgroud is percieved as with oponent color on its margines.
This exmples has nothing to do with Land’s effect which is much more complicated. It’s only your opinion that we see what we expect.
–
Thats also why it is so difficult to judge how birds with much more acute vision (also percieving UV spectrum) see mimics. The problem is clear only for darwinists.
April 26th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Whatever you do don’t stop. All this publicity is invaluable and free, absolutely free. What a deal!
If any of you clowns want to engage in a serious discussion I recommend you join Martin and I at a decent forum, ISCID’s “brainstorms.” That is if you are allowed. I recommend you leave your aliases behind as I and some others frown on them. You will certainly have to clean up your acts as the sort of mindless flaming that is allowed here will not be permitted there. Also feel free to refer Martin and myself to your evolutionary publications if you have any which I seriously doubt. If you did you would be proud to mention them. Of course that would involve disclosing your real identity wouldn’t it? Congenital cowards typically don’t do that but P.Z. Meyers is certainly a notable exception. On the other hand he has never published a word on the mechanism of organic evolution. He has been much to busy adoring Dickie Dawkins.
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
In the meantime continue making damn fools of yourselves here.
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 26th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Davis Marjanovic
You missed the “alone” and the “simple” parts. If you want to read German, learn it first.
If you see so great difference between “simple Selektionstheorien allein” and “Selektionstheorien” as such (because we should consider struck by lightning) than it is nothing more as neodarwinian dialectic nitpicking to obscure issue.
April 26th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
I keep saying it doesn’t get any better than this but it does and its costs nothing!
April 26th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Well, it would certainly be terrible if it cost, say, $102,000.
April 26th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Hi Mr. Davison,
This certainly has been an enlightening thread for me too! Now I know how to read (thanks to your advice), and have read MANY peer-reviewed journal articles. Unfortunately (and also related to your advice above), I now have to systematically misinterpret all of them to allow my previous beliefs to coexist. What a fun day. I love it so!
As you may have guessed, I am ALSO the beneficiary of free publicity, as my photo on the registered sex-offenders website has led to countless visits from local friends! Never a down-side to free publicity!
I love it so!
“It’s better than cleaning toilets”
-Brian
April 26th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Ok. That’s it. I do not believe you are that stupid. You have got to be a troll here just to stir things up. That’s the real reason you find yourselves banned most places. If that’s your goal, it probably won’t happen here since the owner of this blog has such an open policy. I suggest you look for a different blog that might actually ban you.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
Darwinism is not worth stirring up. It is laughable. It is time for a new hypothesis and I have presented one. So far there has been not a single published mention of it in a refereed journal. Exactly as my predecessors were in their day, I too am not allowed to exist by “born that way” atheist worshippers of the Great God Chance. The Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis is solid as a rock as proved by the fact that it is still not referenced in the refereed literature. In the meantime Darwinism survives only in the imagination of congenital, “prescribed” atheists such as infest this blog. Mendel was not recognized until 32 years after his 1868 publication, long after his death. Pontificating blowhards like Karl Nageli decided that Mendel’s results were “empirical but not rational.” Today we have pontificating blowhards like Richard Dawkins and William Dembski, both afraid to even mention my name. Dawkins finally responded to me the other day with the following revealing private email.
“John A. Davison has been identified as a “time-waster” and his messages are automatically deleted.”
Well, Dickie Dawkins, it is public now!
That is more than I have ever heard from any of the so-called “Intelligent Design” crowd. All I got was from David Springer when he relayed Dembski’s opinion that I was “nuts.”
Well it was 32 tears before Mendel was recognized and I have been ignored for only 23 years so far. My sources have been ignored far longer than that. That is the way it is supposed to be, the way it was “prescribed” to be.
“Everything is determined… by forces over which we have no control.”
Albert Einstein
You got that right Al!
Instead of recognizing me and my predecessors directly they send their lap dogs, P.Z. Meyers and David Springer out to discredit me after excluding me from their personally generated intellectual empires which have nothing to do with the MECHANISM of organic evolution which is the only real issue involved. Wes Elsberry does the same thing with his minions, many of them flamimg away right here. Internet forums and blogs are nothing but fan clubs for insecure, hide-bound ideologues and their lock step adoring devotees. It is an old story and one loaded with significance. It is bigotry, ignorance and cowardice plain and simple. Mendel knew what it meant and said so -
“Meine Zeit wird schon kommen!”
“The one thing we learn from history is that we don’t learn from history.”
anonymous?
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
April 27th, 2007 at 3:30 am
I think Mr. Davison gets paid by the word.
April 27th, 2007 at 6:31 am
It is Dr. not Mr. Davison and has been for 53 years, you mindless fart.
Who is next?
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. davison
April 27th, 2007 at 6:45 am