Friday, December 01, 2006

John Davison, this is for you

John,

I am an optimist. I, along with one or two others, am also somewhat sceptical about your ideas. From your recent posts at ISCID I gather you are an evolutionist, if a somewhat unconventional one, and that you would like to engage with posters at After the Bar Closes. Please feel free to hold forth here (remembering my mother does not like profanity or obscenity; this simple rule applies across the board) and see what happens.

403 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 400 of 403   Newer›   Newest»
Charden Atfield said...

John, I've just figured something out. You're really the same person as DaveScot, aren't you?

Occam's Aftershave said...

LOL! John Davison complains about being treated poorly

JAD: "He and his cronies at the Slippery Floor Saloon have treated both Martin and me in a manner unacceptable by any standard anywhere. (snip list of derogatory terms)"

But let's look at what his stated objectives here are

JAD: "Laugh at them, ridicule, them insult them and expose them as the subnormal cowardly phonies that they all are. That is what I am doing and I expect the same from you."

And what terms has JAD used to describe fellow posters here?

JAD: "Bible-Banging Baptist Bigot or a Moonie or a deranged, "prescribed" atheist, egomaniacal ideologue
foul-mouthed bully
perfect foul-mouthed schmuck
nasty, degenerate, foul-mouthed two-faced lying Chihuahua
herd of illiterate cowards
sociopathic misfits
egomaniacal lightweights
pseudo-intellectual, uneducated, natural born, "prescribed," helpless ideologues
a bunch of illiterate gossips venting your pathetic spleens
egomaniacal atheist half-wit
a joke and a psychiatrist's dream come true
intellectual Philistines and unfulfilled sociopathic out patients
We are dealing with morons Martin. Their IQs are in the room temperature range.
These clowns are a joke
low life cowardly sociopath.
yellow slimy two-faced homozygous schmuck
intellectual and ethical degenerate
prematurely wrinkled up old bags.
slime bag
mindless knee-jerk imbeciles
Arrogant intolerant, cowardly, plagiarizing blowhards
perfect low class snot

Which brings us to another of my favorite JAD quotes

JAD: "If there is anything I loathe it is a hypocrite." :D :D :D

Well John, self-loathing is one way to explain your irrational anger.

Also, JAD writes about his sockpuppet Martin

JAD: "Did it ever occur to you to check our IPs? Ask Esley to do it for you. He is very good at keeping people out of his shabby little groupthink. My God, Martin and I aren't even on the same continent."

IP addresses through a proxy are easy to set up John, they say nothing about where they were established or by whom. Tell us John, how do you know what Martin's IP is, and that it is on another continent unless you (or a friend) set up the account?

Anonymous said...

VMartin.

Its ridiculous. I have been banned from antievolution.org. Just when we have started discussion of evolving of mimicry in butterfly species. The reason obviously is that John and I are the same person! Or perhaps Johns supporters are not wellcome (they are "sockpupptes") in fair discussion with banned John, hehe.

Anyway on darwinistic explanation of butterfly mimicry did not believe Punnett, Eimer, Heikertinger, Suchantke.

And I would like to know why mimicry evolved only in some species, when in the the same area live and thrive non-mimetic butterfly species as well. Perhaps in non-mimetic butterfly species small gradual random mutations leading to mimicry did not occur at all boys?

Charden Atfield said...

Your accent's slipping there, 'Martin'. Do be more careful.

Occam's Aftershave said...

JAD's sockpuppet VMartin:
"Its ridiculous. I have been banned from antievolution.org. Just when we have started discussion of evolving of mimicry in butterfly species. The reason obviously is that John and I are the same person! Or perhaps Johns supporters are not wellcome (they are "sockpupptes") in fair discussion with banned John, hehe."

Easy John. You were originally banned for your disruptive behavior. 'VMartin' was banned because that sockpuppet was your attempt to dishonestly avoid the first ban.

Want to show otherwise? Then why is it, when I was asking questions directly to VMartin, that it was JAD who answered me directly and acknowledged I was talking to directly to JAD? Give us a plausible alternate explanation.

Failing that (which you will), tell us about yourself VMartin. JAD hates when people use aliases, so please tell us your whole name, gender, and age; where you live, schools you attended, degrees awarded if any. Give ue enough info to verify who you are and I'll retract my statements.

Anonymous said...

Vmartin

Occam Aftershave you are Charden Atfield and Arden Chatfield too!
Prove us you are not! Give us your name, education, name of your grandparents and explain us why do you use different IP adress from Bulgaria!

JohnADavison said...

I just offered my interpretation of mimicry over at "brainstorms" so I won't repeat it here. Butterfly patterns, like every other novel living feature, never did evolve gradually. They appeared instantly in definitive form and without intergrades. How does that grab you? I hope it gives you morons the runs.

I am delighted to get down in the gutter with you subnormal creeps. If my sources hadn't been such perfect gentlemen you guys wouldn't have a pot to pee in or a window to through it out of. Well, in case you haven't noticed, I am not a gentleman except where it counts in the published literature where you will find no trace of my hideous personality. When in Rome do as the Romans do and man, this is Rome, let there be no doubt about it.

Let the games begin.

Trumpets and fanfare galore!

G C E G' E G' for you music freaks.

"There are more horses asses than horses."
anonymous

Martin.

These goons still think we are the same person.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so - don't you?

It doesn't get any better than this.

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

Anonymous said...

VMartin


John,

is it really their last resort to consider us for the same person? Really they have no argument on mimicry? I would like add name Komarek form Charles Univeristy of Prague who wrote "On mimicry and aposematism" and who in some consideration ridicules darwinistic explanation of mimicry substantially.
As far as I know book was published in english too.

Anonymous said...

Vmartin

Stanislav Komarek:

English:
"Mimicry, Aposematism and Realted Phenomena in Animals and Plants, Vesmír 1998."

Anonymous said...

VMartin

Sorry

Komarek:

Mimicry, Aposematism and Related Phenomena: Mimetism in Nature and the History of Its Study.

http://www.bestwebbuys.com/Mimicry_Aposematism_and_Related_Phenomena-ISBN_3895868515.html?isrc=b-search

Charden Atfield said...

Occam Aftershave you are Charden Atfield and Arden Chatfield too!

No, he's Arden Chatfield but not Charden Atfield. Get it right.

These goons still think we are the same person.

No, I now believe that David Springer and John Davison are one and the same person. Which means John banned HIMSELF from UD, and that Dave threatened to go up to Vermont to beat himself up. That's how crazy he is.

Anonymous said...

VMartin

No, he's Arden Chatfield but not Charden Atfield. Get it right.


I got it. Both of them are morons like you.

Charden Atfield said...

Hey, 'Martin', Is Darwin's imaginary common ancestor a parody of Christ? Does the theory of creation from Christ's body' satisfy rational requirements? Do you love it so?

Anonymous said...

VMartin.

Hey, 'Martin', Is Darwin's imaginary common ancestor a parody of Christ? Does the theory of creation from Christ's body' satisfy rational requirements? Do you love it so?


Who are speaking now? Arden Chatfield, Charden Atfield, Occam's Aftershave or that bipolar person "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank from Pandas thumb?

Charden Atfield said...

Did you not understand the question, 'Martin'? Some long word in it that needs explaining?

Anonymous said...

VMartin


Did you not understand the question, 'Martin'? Some long word in it that needs explaining?


Yes. My pre-intermediary english teacher recommended me to exchange posts with darwinist-bipolar-simpletons. Best school - he said. No deep thoughts.

Charden Atfield said...

Okay, 'Martin'. You're a little slow, but I'll try and accomodate you.

Please tell me whether you agree with either of Kazmer Ujvarosy's following statements:

1) "Darwin's imaginary common ancestor is a parody of Christ"

2) "the theory of creation from Christ's body satisfies rational requirements"

If you can't answer these, I'll either assume you're a troll, or that you're not too swift, which your fondness for Javison seems to confirm.

Occam's Aftershave said...

VMartin, you forgot to answer this important question:

"Want to show otherwise? Then why is it, when I was asking questions directly to VMartin, that it was JAD who answered me directly and acknowledged I was talking to directly to JAD? Give us a plausible alternate explanation."

John Davison, you forgot to answer this important question:

"Tell us John, how do you know what Martin's IP is, and that it is on another continent unless you (or a friend) set up the account?"

Either of you 'two' free to give us your explanations. We're listening...

Anonymous said...

At first I want to know who I am speaking to. Arden Chatfield, Charden Atfield or Occam's Aftershave? Introduce yourself - give us your real name, birth date, education, names of grandparents and explain us why your post are arriving from different Ip adresses. If somebody helps you redirect your posts so that they seem to come from different inet servers? And why are you not still banned - as bipolar person - from antievolution.org. Thanks.

Occam's Aftershave said...

LOL!

Still waiting for your explanations, John or 'Vmartin' or whoever you're posting as today.

Of course, your continued silence tells us all we need to know.

Gotta hurt being publicly exposed to be such a liar and a hypocrite, doesn't it John.

JohnADavison said...

Occam's aftershave.

I haven't the foggiest idea about Martin's IP address. What the hell is the matter with you? You just can't accept the notion that someone else in the whole bloody universe might agree with me can you? Nobody is redirecting anything that I know of. Obviously you need to be redirected to the nearest psych ward. No wonder you use an alias. If your family knew what you were up to they would have the commitment papers signed in a millisecond. Get some help you feckless schmuck. Better yet - don't!

Your miserable mindless machinations are mindbogling. You are a caricature of your deranged self and don't even realize it.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

Who is next?

I love it so!

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

JohnADavison said...

Spravid Dinger, The Yellow Rose of Texas has retired from the contest here at alanfox.blogspot.com/

He is desperately hoping that everyone will forget what a pompous arrogant tyrant he is if he can just keep a low profile long enough. He is not in charge here and he can't ban anyone here. That is all that is required to make a schoolyard coward wilt.

As for mimicry, the fundamnetal error was to assume that it had any adaptive significance in the first place. Such evidence exists only in the minds of the Darwinian naturalists that study it. Over at "brainstorms" I mentioned the professor who had his grad students eating butterflies only to discover that the ones that presumeably taste bad taste just fine and they weren't poisonous either as I recall. Birds don't taste much anyway. Their olfaction sucks as anyone can see by looking at their brain.


How do you Darwimps like them apples?
I hope they give you cramps.

This is more fun than a barrel of subnormal Darwimps.

I love it so!

Who is next?

"A past evoluition is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

Charden Atfield said...

Okay, 'Martin'. You're clearly having a bad day here, so I'll try and help you out.

Please tell me whether you agree with either of Kazmer Ujvarosy's following statements:

1) "Darwin's imaginary common ancestor is a parody of Christ"

2) "the theory of creation from Christ's body satisfies rational requirements"

If you can't answer these, I'll either assume you're a troll, or that you're not too swift, which your fondness for Javison seems to confirm.

Occam's Aftershave said...

John, it's simple. Follow with your finger if it helps:

I was having an ongoing exchange with VMartin, and asked VMartin a question regarding something VMartin had claimed.

You (not VMartin) continued the conversation without skipping a beat and answered me directly.

It sure looks to me like you got confused and forgot to use your VMartin sockpuppet.

Give us a plausible alternate explanation and maybe we'll listen. Otherwise we're justified in thinking you and VMartin are the same person.

the guy who delivers John Davison's pizzas said...

You just can't accept the notion that someone else in the whole bloody universe might agree with me can you?

Nope!

JohnADavison said...

This is thigh-slappingly hilarious. Occam's aftershave (can you believe this guy?) still claims a conspiracy between Martin and myself. Worse, he still thinks we are one person. It is paranoid crap like this that is destroying the credibility of the whole damn Darwinian hoax. This clown is SERIOUS!

The idea that someone else might support the PEH is anathema to his congenital condition. He is homozygous at the Darwimp locus, a "natural born," "prescribed" loser. There are thousands of them. You can't turn over a rock but there is a Darwimp grinning up at you supremely delighted with the most idiotic, the most thoroughly discredited, the most infantile hypothesis ever concocted by the human imagination. It doesn't even qualify as an hypothesis because it can make no predictions about anything and never could.

"To insist, even with Olympian assurance, that life appeared quite by chance and evolved in this fashion, is an unfounded supposition which I believe to be wrong and not in accordance with the facts."
Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, page 107

I, earlier on this thread, itemized the predictions inherent in the PEH, all of which are being realized by the discoveries of molecular biology and all of which remain in perfect concert with the fossil record. There has never been a role for chance in either ontogeny or phylogeny. The whole business was planned from the begining, or more likely beginnings, and is now finished.

"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134.

I only wish Berg could have said "was" instead of "is." I bet he would if he were alive today.

Get used to it boys and girls. Robert Broom did, Pierre Grasse did, Julian Huxley did and so did I. I have presented the only conceivable alternative to the Darwinian myth, A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. If this should prove inadequate it will still never rescue the biggest hoax in the history of science from the long overdue oblivion which is its certain fate.

There is something else you better get used to also. Your hero, Richard Dawkins, is a "prescribed," "born that way" charlatan, doomed to ultimate disgrace exactly as was his Lamarckian counterpart Paul Kammerer. We are all victims. Some of us have been luckier than others. With respect to the motley assortment assembled here, Martin and I are apparently the only lucky ones. The rest of you, like your deranged egomaniacal hero, Richard (The blind watchmaker climbing Mount Improbable) Dawkins are history!

"We seek and offer ourselves to be gulled."
Montaigne

"EVERTHING is determined... by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein, my emphasis.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

Who is next?

I love it so!

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

Occam's Aftershave said...

As expected John, you fart and bluster but can offer no explanation for why 'VMartin' suddenly turned into you.

The evidence is pretty clear that you (or possible a close acquaintance) are indeed are 'VMartin.'

The evidence is equally clear that you are lying through your teeth about it, probably because you are too embarrassed (or mentally deranged) to face facts.

As someone else noted, you're nuttier than squirrel poop.

Have a good time in your dishonest, lying little pre-Alzheimer's world.

Anonymous said...

Its interesting that Alan Fox molested John repeatedly to be decent here. Anyway darwinistic simpleton Occam (Charden Atfield or Arden Chatfield or whoever this simpleton in reality is using five nicks at the same time) denigrate and uses abuses whenever he likes.

The same occured in antievolution.org. Darwinistic simpletons denigrate me there with the most coarse abuses and - it was me who was banned there!

To summarize darwinistic tactic on inet forums:

1) denigrate, denigrate, denigrate

2) insist blindly that all antidarwinists posts are from the same person (from different servers all around the world) .

3) send repeatedly stupid pictures and stupid questions in order to block any discussion.

(Like: Did you ever see new information? How did it look like?

or

Martin - are you Davison? Martin - are you Ujvarosy? Ujvarosy its you?)

4) check the grammar.

5) ban the antidarwinists.

6) congratulate yourself how smart you are.

7) and denigrate again banned persons.


Martin

The question for intelligent discussion neverthenless stands still:

Why mimicry evolved only in some butterfly species, when in the the same area live and thrive non-mimetic butterfly species as well as species in mimetic ring.
Perhaps in non-mimetic butterfly species small gradual random mutations leading to mimicry did not occur at all?

Anonymous said...

Anyway I am missing here jeannot, bipolar "Reverend Frank" and a darwinistic femme fatal with literary ambitions Kristine.

Panoptikum (fun house) of darwinistic weird creatures will be perfect.

Martin

Anonymous said...

John wrote:

Nobody is redirecting anything that I know of. Obviously you need to be redirected to the nearest psych ward. No wonder you use an alias. If your family knew what you were up to they would have the commitment papers signed in a millisecond. Get some help you feckless schmuck.


Thats right. You fried him.

Martin

JohnADavison said...

Go get them Martin. All they know what to do is to call us liars. I have been called a liar more times than any other person in internet history, yet I know of not a single instance in which I have ever had to present a falsehood in either my papers or on forums. Spravid Dinger has called me a liar countless times. Just check my blogs if he hasn't removed them by now. He also found it necessary to accuse me of being a draft dodger, of falsely representing my position as an Emeritus Professor at the University of Vermont, of being a lousy parent and countless other demeaning characterizations none of which are true. To accuse an adversary of being a liar with absolutely no documentation is the lowest trick in the barrel. These clowns here are doing the same thing with both of us. Be proud to have earned such a distinction.

Speaking of lying, let me digress for a moment on something scientific that has to do with mimicry.

If birds are so discriminating in their feeding habits that they can avoid insects that don't taste good (which is a lie in the first place), then why is it such a piece of cake to "poison pigeons in the park."?
Or why are sea gulls so stupid as to gobble up Alka Seltzer tablets and blow themselves up?

Birds can't taste worth a nickel as one can see by looking at their olfactory lobes which are virually non existent. They feed entirely visually. The pecking instinct is established immediately on hatching. It is like the sucking instinct in mammals.

The biggest congenital suckers in the world are the Darwimps. They too are "born that way." They love to suck don't you know. In short, they suck!

Frogs and toads are entirely visual feeders as well. I had a pet toad for some time that I used in lecture. If I rolled a marble at him he would go into a defensive posture and crouch. I could roll bbs at him all day long and he would gobble them up until he couldn't move. Of course some of the students got all upset with me until I picked the toad up by the hind legs and shook all the bbs out of him. It used to bring the house down. I miss that aspect of lecture teaching. Now they wouldn't let me back into the lecture hall for all the world, the cowardly swine!

Darwimps see adaptation everywhere they look without ever testing to see if it even exists. They are nothing but a bunch of chance-happy, ignorant, "prescribed" mystics.

I love it so!

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

Alan Fox said...

Of course some of the students got all upset with me until I picked the toad up by the hind legs and shook all the bbs out of him. It used to bring the house down. I miss that aspect of lecture teaching. Now they wouldn't let me back into the lecture hall for all the world, the cowardly swine!

Interesting reminiscence, John. Do you keep in touch with any of your former students?

Anonymous said...

John,

you are right. Darwinists do not make any outdoor research nowadays and they just detect mimicry ad hoc from their armchairs. All rich materials collected from the beginning of the 20 century are not worth of seeing for them.

I was surpised that Viceroy vs. Monarch mimicry turned to be mullerian one instead of batesian as darwinist claim so many years!

They - darwinists are not even sure if birds are main predators of butterflies.

And we know that vision ability of birds are much more better than vision of humans. Having four color receptors they see also in UV spectrum. And in UV spectrum for instance peppered moths resting on some kind of leaches are unconspicuous for us but reverse is true in UV light - they are conspicuous.

Darwinists avoid to answer question why mimicry evolved only in some species, when in the the same area live and thrive non-mimetic butterfly species as well.

Martin

JohnADavison said...

Alan Fox

Just what the hell are you asking me about my former students for? Most of the students at UVM were not even Vermonters because the instate tuition is to high for the natives to pay, the highest in the nation for a State University. Even today most Vermont high school graduates go elsewhere for a college education. Most of the students were the children of out of state millionaires who were primarily interested in getting rid of the kids so they could play hanky panky themselves while the kids were safely out of the house for four years.

If this will make you happy, most of the students and every one of the faculty and administration thought I was crazy to openly challenge the "one true faith," Darwimpian mysticism. The one exception was the Provost Jeff Gamble who resigned the same day I did to become the President of Montana State University, a position I believe he still holds. He gave me a going away gift of 104,000 dollars as partial compensation for the way I had been treated by the administration. If I had not resigned with him I am sure I would never have received that money.

I do occasionally hear from a few of my former students that I managed to abandon Darwinian mysticism, damn few.

Does that make you happy now as if I really cared?

Who is next?

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

Arden Chatfield said...

'VMartin':

I find it fascinating how you absolutely refuse to answer the questions about the Ujvarosky article. What exactly are you so afraid of?

JohnADavison said...

Martin

Tell the Grand Inquisitor, His Eminence
Charden Atfield to go to hell! You are not on trial here and neither am I. He and all his cowardly, illiterate entourage have been tried and found guilty as charged here and elsewhere of deceit, deception, moral terpitude, flagrant hypocrisy and ethical malfeasance. We probably both have grounds for legal action. The trouble is cowards don't even have the guts to disclose their own identity.

We won, they lost, big time. Rejoice and Merry Christmas.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so!

CASE CLOSED

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

JohnADavison said...

Why don't all you Darwimps go back to the Slippery Floor Saloon where you all came from and tell all your cronies how you routed Martin and myself, how you proved we are the same person and how we are everything you have always called us. Declare victory and go away. You are all nothing but moral garbage, unfulfilled third rate losers, afraid to disclose your identities because you secretly fear, even know with certainty, that you are on the verge of intellectual extinction. Real men and women are proud to put there names beneath their written convictions. I guess you all know what that makes each and every one of you. The dumbest thing that was ever permitted was internet anonymity. Anyone caught using it should have been automatically banned for life.

To expose you for what you are gives me enormous pleasure. It is a dirty job but I enjoy it thoroughly. Now that Martin and I have done just that, what are you going to do about it? You have no recourse except the one creeps like you always employ - bannishment.
We will soon see about Alan's "Neutral Venue."

I love it so!

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

JohnADavison said...

I love it so!

Charden Atfield said...

What do you think about those Ujvarosky statements, John? Do you agree with them or disagree with them? 'VMartin', for some reason, seems to be far too much of a coward to answer this question.

Occam's Aftershave said...

JAD "You are all nothing but moral garbage, unfulfilled third rate losers, afraid to disclose your identities because you secretly fear, even know with certainty, that you are on the verge of intellectual extinction. Real men and women are proud to put there names beneath their written convictions. I guess you all know what that makes each and every one of you. The dumbest thing that was ever permitted was internet anonymity. Anyone caught using it should have been automatically banned for life."

That's 'their names' John. Don't want anyone thinking you're an illiterate intellectual lightweight, now do you?

John, what is VMartin's whole name? 'Martin' could be anyone, like Bill or Bob or Frank. So either you're a world class hypocrite, or to you VMartin must be just more moral garbage, and an unfulfilled third rate loser, right?

Which one is it John? Or are both statements correct?

JohnADavison said...

This is just typical divide and conquer tactics. My comment was directed to the historical origin of internet communication which at the very beginning adopted anonymity as the standard. When I first started using the internet I actually thought it was mandatory to use a handle and used one myself - salty. Then it dawned on me what the significance really was and still remains. It is nothing but a device to vent hate and vicious innuendo immune from identification and effective response. Only insecure egomaniacal sociopaths need to resort to such tactics. The internet is crawling with them. Just look around.

Here is an example from my own experience. EvC decided to readmit me to their "groupthink" and allowed me to present my PEH in a special venue called "showcase." I was allowed to comment only there. DaveScot wanted to denigrate me there so desperately that he made me promise not to reveal his real name. Can you imagine such a condition? Naturally I agreed. He immediately began to attack my science and made himself so obnoxious that he was denied further participation. I invited him back and he immediately resumed the same tactic. This time he was removed permanently from the "showcase" venue by the EcvC management. Once he was history I revealed his real name. Why wouldn't I? All hell broke loose and he called me a liar more times than I can remember. He had a similar history with me at "brainstorms" where both he and Alan Fox were so obnoxious that others, not I, asked them to stop participating on my thread. Fox was actually banned. Springer should have been but I am sure his relationship with Dembski protected him. It still does. The notion that this man remains Dembski's blogczar reflects very poorly on Dembski. That suits me fine too!

Both episodes were very revealing. So desperate to discredit me and for quite different reasons, both these creeps had one objectve in mind which was to eliminate me whatever the cost. Both failed miserably. They were each obediently representing their masters, Dembski and Elsberry, because I had declared my independence from the perspectives represented by these opposing factions. I still do and always will.

There is no place for a personal God in science and never will be. My firm position for one or more Creators is represented by the title of my only thread at Dawkins' blog - "God or Gods are dead but must have once existed." It is implicit in Nietzche's "God is dead" and in Einstein's impersonal God as well. I agree with both, a couple of the greatest minds of all time.

No objective person can conceivably deny one or more totipotent Creators in the past yet that is precisely the position maintained by the ultra-Darwinists like Dawkins and his loyal followers so well represented here.

The notion that it is intrinsic in the nature of the chemical world to self assemble itself into a living evolving system is transparently ridiculous yet that is the firm conviction of the Darwinian establishment. It is unbelievable but demonstrated nevertheless both here and elsewhere.

Both extremes in this idiotic conflict are dead wrong. Of that I am convinced and for that reason I am anathema to both camps. That too suits me just fine. I wouldn't have it any other way.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so!

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

Alan Fox said...

I do occasionally hear from a few of my former students that I managed to abandon Darwinian mysticism, damn few.


That must make the effort you put into teaching worthwhile. Must sign off now as family and friends here for Christmas.
Happy Holiday and best wishes to all for the New Year.

Alan

JohnADavison said...

Bah humbug to you too!

JohnADavison said...

Hey Alan, before you hibernate -

Who is this clown "Reciprocating Bill" over at the Alamo? He just described Der Fuhrer as a "gnomish stiff." Is he trying to get himself banned or has he got something on Esley Welsberry, boy fisheries biologist?

Please explain.

Thanking you in advance, yours sincerely,

John A. Davison

I love it so!

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

Alan Fox said...

Just feeble Darwinist humour , John. I'll
raise a glass to your continuing good health. Best wishes,
Alan

JohnADavison said...

My health sucks.

JohnADavison said...

So do you!

Stephen Elliott said...

Falan Ox,
Your patience is remarkable.
While I am here, Merry Christmas and happy new year to everyone.

Anonymous said...

Anyway I am missing here jeannot, bipolar "Reverend Frank" and a darwinistic femme fatal with literary ambitions Kristine.

Sorry that you've missed me. I've been busy. Perhaps, Martin, you should talk to JAD because he's the one who told me to go away and you know I always do as I'm told!

But I came across this amusing quote last night at a party:

"Perhaps God is not dead; perhaps God is himself mad."
--R. D. Laing

So, a merry Christmas, anyway, JAD. I hope your health is not too bad.

JohnADavison said...

You suck too. Climb back up onto your stool at The Slippery Floors Saloon and celebrate the victory of the Darwimps over Martin and myself.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so!

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

JohnADavison said...

What are you flaming atheists doing wishing anyone Merry Christmas. Wouldn't Happy Holidays more in keeping with your chance-happy Darwimpianism? Such blatant hypocrisy and mendacity makes me sick.

Bah humbug!

I love it so!

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

Charden Atfield said...

Falan, I do hope your wife and family appreciate your phenomenal patience and unflagging faith in humanity. :-)

Joyeux noël et bonne année!

JohnADavison said...

charden atfield

You nasty little hypocrite. You aren't even dry behind the ears yet. Go peddle your Darwimpianism somewhere else. You have never contributed a positive note on any site you have ever posted and you are too yellow to use your real name. Darwimps are like that because they know they are finished. You are a loser.

Got that? Write that down.

I love it so!

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

Alan Fox said...

John,

That is not very charitable. You have to learn to separate the ideas from the people expressing them. I also find it much better not to respond to perceived insults but respond to the content, should there be any. It is nearly time to break out the cuba-libres, surely, now, anyway. Got to go, Mrs Fox just got in from delivering presents.

Arden, thanks for the kind thoughts,

Meilleurs voeux pour la nouvelle année

JohnADavison said...

Bah humbug to you too.

The simple truth is that Martin and I are dealing with a bunch of "prescribed, "born that way," irreversible idiots. If my sources hadn't been such perfect gentlemen you morons wouldn't even have a voice anywhere. Christ, it is impossible that such a motley assortment of genetic defectives still exists but there you are, en masse, defying all odds. It is gloriously revealing and of course -

I love it so!

and as I keep saying -

It is hard to believe isn't it?

and

It doesn't get any better than this!

Pinch me as I must be dreaming!

Maybe His Eminence, The Most Reverend Dilliam Wembski, boy mathematician and Bible Banger extraordinaire, will lead all you flaming atheists in prayer on this, the eve of the birth of Jesus Christ.

Forgive them Father for they know not what they do!

This blog has finally and definitively provided the proof that -

"You can't make chicken salad out of chicken droppings."
John A. Davison

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

DaveScot said...

Speaking of bannings at ATBC...

I just got a weird comment in the moderation queue at uncommondescent from someone saying their very first comment at ATBC was quickly removed and they were no better than UD. The comment was odd and not related to the thread so I disapproved it. The email address used was a freebie from hotmail or yahoo (I forget which) but I checked the IP address of the sender before deleting and it was from berkeley.edu.

Is this correct? Is ATBC arbitrarily deleting comments and keeping it on the QT? Wouldn't surprise me at all.

Stephen Elliott said...

DaveScot said... "
Speaking of bannings at ATBC...

I just got a weird comment in the moderation queue at uncommondescent from someone saying their very first comment at ATBC was quickly removed and they were no better than UD. The comment was odd and not related to the thread so I disapproved it. The email address used was a freebie from hotmail or yahoo (I forget which) but I checked the IP address of the sender before deleting and it was from berkeley.edu.

Is this correct? Is ATBC arbitrarily deleting comments and keeping it on the QT? Wouldn't surprise me at all."

Oh please,
Stop being such an idiot. You only have to look at the comments that are anti-evolution which are allowed at ATBC to see that is a stupid idea.

Not everyone is scared of criticism you know.

FGS you even have personal experience of the "moderation" over there. You was allowed to post anything you wanted to until you decided to threaten to "hack" the site. Whinge all you want to, we both know that is true. Bloody crybaby.

Now go read. You will see AFDave has the biggest thread over at ATBC and he is most definately anti-evolution. In fact AFDave is a YEC biblical literalist. Maybe you are too busy reading up on "hard" science fiction to bother your ass with finding out facts.

JohnADavison said...

How about all the bannings and deletions at Uncommon Descent? You have banned more posters and deleted more comments than anyone in history. You let them back in so you can get your neurotic rocks off banning them again for, in my case, sending you "an abusive email." You damn right I did because you deleted my comment and never explained why. What a swine you really are! Poor pristine, sensitive David Springer, The Yellow Rose of Texas, poor baby, wa, wa, wa, boo hoo.

"The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away" and "Professor Davison is no longer with us."

You disaapprove of anything that did not originate in the diseased mind of David Springer, the biggest two-faced, yellow-bellied hypocrite in the history of the World Wide Web. I hope your kids read this!

Merry Christmas.

I love it so!

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

Charden Atfield said...

I just got a weird comment in the moderation queue at uncommondescent from someone saying their very first comment at ATBC was quickly removed and they were no better than UD. The comment was odd and not related to the thread so I disapproved it. The email address used was a freebie from hotmail or yahoo (I forget which) but I checked the IP address of the sender before deleting and it was from berkeley.edu.

Sure, Dave. And every day, Dembski gets emails from Real Important Famous Scientists who Totally Support Dembski and who think that Intelligent Design is a Revolutionary Theory and that NeoDarwinism is Totally Dead, yet you can't give their names because they're afraid of persecution by this tiny minority of atheist Darwinians who are holding science hostage, yet believe me, we'd be TOTALLY AMAZED if we heard what scientists were on board with ID.

Like that, right?

JohnADavison said...

Arden Chatfield finally "got it" over at the Slippery Floor Saloon.

"goddidit then he died."
Now climb back up onto your slimy stool, settle in and spin baby spin.

You get an A Arden. The A is for Atheist A**h**e.

It is hard to believe isn't it Martin?

I love it so!

Who is next?

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

DaveScot said...

arden

If want any of your lip I'll ask LouFCD to scrape some off SteveStory's zipper. Write that down, homo.

DaveScot said...

stephen elliot

I asked here because I can't ask on ATBC. I'm banned there doncha know. I can't ask Wesley in email because he has my email address blocked. How very brave.

At any rate, if you aren't an admin on ATBC who can answer my question then if not too much trouble just STFU if you can manage that much control over your man-pleaser.

DaveScot said...

Davison

Congratulations on living another to see another Christmas. It must have been a difficult decision. Like any other self-respecting person would, I'd have offed myself long ago if I were you.

Charden Atfield said...

If want any of your lip I'll ask LouFCD to scrape some off SteveStory's zipper. Write that down, homo.

Dave, Dave, Dave. Now, what would Denyse think of you talking like that?

I know, you and Bill have had kind of a rough month.

So Dave, who did the fart noises on Bill's video? Was it actually Bill himself?

Alan Fox said...

Guys, guys,

Now are we gonna play nice? My mother has flown in for Christmas. I do not want to have to explain words she doesn't understand. Think First World War, the first Christmas, share a cigarette, kick a football, sing a few carols.

I don't have the time to moderate. Please refrain from profanity or I will temporarily suspend comments.

Stephen Elliott said...

"
DaveScot said...
stephen elliot

I asked here because I can't ask on ATBC. I'm banned there doncha know. I can't ask Wesley in email because he has my email address blocked. How very brave.

At any rate, if you aren't an admin on ATBC who can answer my question then if not too much trouble just STFU if you can manage that much control over your man-pleaser.
"
LOL! Your hypocrisy knows no limit. It is remarkable that YOU the biggest most profound banner on the internet can whinge like a girl when somebody bans you to prevent a atack on the site.

Lets see.
You ban people for a simple disagreement.
Wes bans you for threatening the security of his site.
You think that is equal.
What a tosser you realy are.

Anonymous said...

Sorry Fallen,
Dave Springer just anoys me. I will try harder to not post the vitriol I feel towards him.

It will be dificult. The guy just makes me want to puke. Sorry.

Stephen Elliott said...

Aaaagh! That should have been under my name. Stephen Eliott. For some reason my name did not show. I am talking about the comment posted at 1:30

JohnADavison said...

I see the Yellow Rose of Texas is lying again. After he claimed he doesn't read my email he complained that I sent him an "abusive email." Figure that one out boys and girls.

If there was ever a candidate for suicide it is Spravid Dinger. I predict he will succumb to what used to be called "thundering apoplexy," now described as a cerebral hemorrhage, often brought on by uncontrolled fits of pique leading to a rapidly elevated blood pressure. This creep has absolutely no control over his bodily functions. He is a "prescribed" emotional time bomb.
Like "Old Faithful" at Yellowstone, this psycho periodically erupts, sort of like a herpes infection or a periodically emptying pipette washer - gurgle gurgle! It is sure fire and a wonder to behold. He is about due for another "episode."

Don't let us down Sus. I feel so sorry for your family. No wonder you use aliases. I would too if I were so unfortunate as to have drawn your sad fate in the "lottery of life." We are all victims you know and you are one of very unlucky ones.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so.

Wipe your dingleberried rear and slink back into your filthy pup tent you cowering dirt bag. You aren't in charge here. Haven't you noticed?

Who is next?

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

JohnADavison said...

Alan

I have a propostion for you and being in the holiday spirit I feel very generous. I have managed to turn your sad little blog into the hottest one in recent internet history and surely you must realize this. If you promise to completely abandon the Darwimpian fairy tale and embrace the PEH with unbridled enthusiasm, I will see to it that your blog remains what I have made it for you, the best damn forum in recent times. 270 messgaes in short order and more to come I am sure.

Now don't turn me down without giving this some serious consideration. This is an opportunity for you to make a lasting mark on evolutionary science. All you have to do is freely and openly confess that you have wasted your entire life chasing a phantom, something that never even existed. I know you are on the verge anyway. Why else would you have offered me this opportunity? Believe it or not I have always had faith in your judgment and your obvious intellect. I am not kidding!

You will end up having to do this anyway so why not escape the inevitable and make a hero out of yourself by abandoning Darwimpianism before it embarrasses you beyond repair. This is the chance of a lifetime believe me. Don't waste this once in a lifetime opportunity.

Let me know by the first of the year. Don't wait too long as I am very unstable as you and your gallant cronies well know. You won't be sorry.

I love it so!

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

JohnADavison said...

Alan

Six days and counting! Don't come whining to me on January 1, 2007. Consult with your mother. Mothers know best don't you know.

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

JohnADavison said...

Spravid Dinger bans people because he HAS TO. It is integral to his psyche. He wilts when he is denied that pleasure. Look at the poor bastard here. He's a pale shadow of his pontificating, brutal, snotty, condescending, arrogant, tyrannical self at Uncommon Descent. He is helpless like the pig (Sus springeriana) that is the REAL Spravid Dinger. Without Dilliam Wembski, boy mathematical theologian, he instantly becomes a whining, drooling, foul mouthed slime bag.

Look at him, fall on your knees and pray - Please God, don't ever let this happen to me.

Thank your lucky stars.

Speaking of lucky stars and the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis -

"Our actions should be based on the ever-present awareness that human beings in their thinking, feeling, and acting ARE NOT FREE but are just as causally bound as the stars in their motion."
Albert Einstein, my emphasis.

"EVERYTHING is determined... by forces over wich we have no control."
ibid

I love it so!

How do you like them stewed prunes dirtbag?

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

JohnADavison said...

Stephen Elliott

Thanks, you illiterate snotbag for the free advertising over at the Slippery Floors Saloon. You are garbage.

I love it so!

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

Stephen Elliott said...

JohnADavison said...
Stephen Elliott

Thanks, you illiterate snotbag for the free advertising over at the Slippery Floors Saloon. You are garbage.

I love it so!

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison


Lol! Good morning Dr. Jad,
Don't know why, but your comment really amused me. I assume you are talking about my link to you posting on Overwhelming Evidence. The thing is, I can't make out wether you are pleased or angry.

JohnADavison said...

Stephen Eliott

You aren't worth being angry about because you are an illiterate, ignorant, idiotic, imbecile. I am always pleased to see trash like you referring to me wherever you choose. There is no such thing as bad publicity when you know you are in the right. Whatever you do, don't stop.

I wish Esley Welsberry, Dilliam Wembski and Dichard Rawkins were as stupid as you so obviously are. They are all scared fecesless of me and my sources which is why they remain mute. Cowardly, insecure ideologues have always been that way. To my knowledge not one of these losers has ever mentioned my name because the egocentric swine don't dare open up that can of worms. If they did their shabby little self generated worlds would collapse around them in a millisecond and they know it. Instead, betraying their intellectual terror, they rely on ethical and moral trash like you, Charden Atfield and Spravid Dinger to do the denigrating for them. It is gloriously revealing. Dinger claimed that Wembski thinks I am "nuts." I don't believe that for a milisecond and neither do Dinger, Wembksi, Rawkins or Elsberry, etc, etc. If these feckless intellectual lightweights thought I was crazy they would be happy to broadcast it for the world. I don't exist for the same reason that my sources don't. We must not exist but, largely through my efforts, we now once again do! It has been a labor of love for myself and is now a nightmare for those who have demonstrated by their cowardly sience that -

"No sadder proof can be given by a man of his own littleness than disbelief in great men."
Thomas Carlyle

My friend Terry Trainor, a sincere, tolerant and decent Christian, put it this way -

"Davison is the Darwinian's worst nightmare."

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

JohnADavison said...

That should be silence not sience.

Who is next anxious to expose himself as mindless trash?

I love it so!

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

Stephen Elliott said...

JohnADavison said...
Stephen Eliott

You aren't worth being angry about because you are an illiterate, ignorant, idiotic, imbecile. I am always pleased to see trash like you referring to me wherever you choose. There is no such thing as bad publicity when you know you are in the right. Whatever you do, don't stop...


Hello again Dr. JAD,
Would I be correct in assuming that you have had your morning coffee?
Why all the vitriol John?
Have you ever considered that the reason why a lot of educated people refuse to corespond with you is that you are impossible to talk with? Just a thought.
Maybe you could reply to me in pictures from now on, as I am illiterate dontchaknow.
Anyway, off to do my idiotic imbecilic stuff as I can't stop because you said so.
1 quick question first: How do you know you are in the right? Consider your PEH before answering.
1) Nothing happens by chance, everything is planned.
2) Why would the great planner have only you be in the right and everyone else (with credentials in the subject) wrong?

That would be weird. Or cruel.

JohnADavison said...

Stephen Elliott and all the rest of the crew from Panda's Pathetic Pollex.

I am not here to talk with anyone. I made that very clear early on. I am here to expose trash like you wherever I am allowed. Alan invited me here but Alan is not going to dictate what I will say here and neither is anyone else. Of that you all can be certain. You degenerates treat me and Martin with perfect contempt over at the Saloon where we can't respond and then you come over here and expect civility from us. What the hell is the matter with you clowns?

This is Rome and I am doing here as you Romans have always done to me, to Martin or to anyone else who might challenge the most idiotic scheme ever produced by the human imagination. Sus springeriana does the same thing over at his private club. You all make me sick to my stomach. I think I will take a brief break to barf.


____________



Thanks for your patinece. I'm back.

Why don't some of your "professional" cronies like M.P. Zeyers, Pott L. Scage or Esley Welsberry take my science to task in a refereed journal someplace? I'll tell you why. They don't dare that is why. Let me tell you who YOU are and were since some of YOU are now dead. For starters -
Gephen J. Stould, Mernst Ayr, Dichard Rawkins, Dilliam Wembski, Richael Muse, Jillip Phonson, Bichael Mehe, and the whole damn Discovery Institute.

There is not a real scientist in the whole stinking lot, not one. Real scientists recognize their adversaries as well as those with whom they agree and respond to them in rational discourse, something none of these egomaniacal clowns have ever done with me or my sources. Until they do they can all spin on vertical objects of their personal preference. What is especually revealing is the fact that I was publishing hard evidence for Intelligent Design long before johnny-come-latelys like Wembski decided to make that his personal property. My God, the damn fool is still calling it an "inference" and trying to prove it "mathematically." What a jerk. By the way his math sucks. I couldn't even get him to open his trap about Phi during my brief recent stay at Uncommon Descent. He would have had to recognize me for one thing. The creep still doesn't recognize my existence. Don't misunderstand me as nothing pleases me more than to be ignored by phonies like Wembski. Real scientists have never ignored their colleagues. Leo Berg recognized them all only to be treated with contempt or ignored by those who didn't agree with him. So did Goldschmidt, Grasse, Bateson, Broom and Schindewolf. Yellow cowards like Gephen J. Stould and Mernst Ayr waited until they were all dead and then treated them with contempt or worse, not at all. Rawkins continues that disgraceful practice to this very day. He belongs in a cage and if I can I will put him there and throw away the key. A pox on the whole rotten lot of them. I am delighted to stand four square with some of the greatest biologists of two centuries, real scientists all and not a Darwinian mystic or Protestant Fundamentalist in the lot.

I am though screwing with all YOU morons on both sides of this stupid debate, especially the amateur blowhards that infest internet blogs like Uncommon Descent, Panda's Thumb, Pharygula, ARN, EvC and now this one too, the same old unfulfilled subnormal, illiterate malcontents from Panda's Pathetic Pollex, PPP and the Slippery Floors Saloon, Esley Welsberry's inner sanctum. It is gloriously gratifying. Whatever you do, don't stop as it is music to my ancient ears.

SOCKITTOME!

I love it so!

"No sadder proof can be given by a man of his own littleness than disbelief in great men."
Thomas Carlyle

You sure got that right Tom!

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

Stephen Elliott said...

Fare thee well Dr. JAD,

I shall leave you for now. It is becoming increasingly transparent that you are not a well man. Try and get some help. If you are uncertain about that, re-read everything that you have posted here.

Sir, I believe you to be an inteligent person but you are raving right now. In fact you have been doing so for some time. Go get some help.

JohnADavison said...

Ephen Stelliott

Don't leave me "for now" you half wit. If you had any brains at all you would leave me forever. Go peddle your vacuous drivel at the Slippery Floor Saloon with your equally moronic colleagues there. You and your kind pollute everything you touch and have never contributed anything of substance anywhere. Christ, you can't even spell and your grammar is atrocious. Don't try to get any help either as it is much too late for you. Take up shuffleboard or, better yet, moonlight skinny dipping in alligator infested lakes.

I do not rave either. I illuminate, I clarify and I expose trash like you wherever I can find it or wherever it finds me. It has become my favorite past time.

I love it so!

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

JohnADavison said...

I slipped as pastime is one word.

JohnADavison said...

How come I can't register at Telic Thoughts? Does anyone know? Am I on their list too?

"A past evolution is undeniable, a pewsent evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

JohnADavison said...

Who am I to talk about spelling eh? It is present - not pewsent!

A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

Alan Fox said...

Hi Folks (well, maybe just John by now).

Have waved off my mother and daughter at the airport, managed to get my exploding computer repaired while I waited for the princely sum of 43 euros including tax, I have time for a quick peruse. Hmmm.

John, I have to say Stephen makes some very reasonable points. If you feel the need to continue to post in the same vein as your previous comments, then by all means carry on. I just wonder what you think will be achieved. The entertainment value is reduced by the repetition, and as for weighing evidence for and against mainstream evolutionary theory, and backing up assertions about your PEH, well...

It looks to me as if you have lost our attention.

Anyway, Happy New Year.

Anonymous said...

Happy New Year, Alan.

Alan Fox said...

You made my day Kristine!!! Same to you.

JohnADavison said...

Alan

If you find Ephen Stelliotts mindless whining of some value there is no reason for you to consider abandoning your Darwimpian convictions. Stick with the losers over at the Saloon where you all came from anyway. Just remember that I gave you a chance to become famous and you blew it. In case you should change what little mind you have, you have only 4 days in which to do it. Trust me.

What I can't understand it why you offered me this wonderful opportunity to expose you all. Didn't you learn from the experience of the clowns at EvC? Apparently not.

Kristine

There is no mainstream evolutionary theory and there never was. There has only been 147 years of mass hysteria perpetrated by a pair of naive Victorian "naturalists" and then perpetuated by generation after generation by clonal "prescribed" lightweight rabid atheists all congenitally deaf to what Einstein called "the music of the spheres."

Martin and I are the only objective contributors here which is why you all must denigrate us here as elsewhere. Nor a single one of you clowns has ever published a word on the only thing which really matters which is the MECHANISM of a process no longer in progress. Neither Stelliott nor yourself are even scientists let alone biologists. You are just a couple of neurotic, self indulgent imbeciles whose sole joy in life is seeing your shabby names emblazoned in the meaningless vacuum of cyberspace as often as possible. You stain everything you touch with your ignorance and snot and never contribute anything of value. The internet is crawling with the likes of you both.

Frankly I think it is great myself. You are living breathing demonstrations that there is no such thing as free will. You are both nothing but the "born that way" flotsam and jetsam of your predetermined fates. In short you present transparent support for my Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.
It is exactly as Einstein proclaimed 74 years ago when he addressed the Spinoza Society of America -

"Our actions should be based on the ever-present awareness that human beings in their thinking, feeling and acting ARE NOT FREE BUT ARE JUST AS CAUSALLY BOUND AS THE STARS IN THEIR MOTION." my emphasis

I love it so!

It doesn't get any better than this.

Who is next?

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

Stephen Elliott said...

To Kristine and Alan,

Happy new year? Surely I haven't slept that long! Damn, I would have missed a party. Please tell me it is only the 27th and I am not named Rip-Van-Stelliott.

But ya never know. Alcohol can be a cruel master.

Anonymous said...

Prof. Davison reminds me of Andy Kaufman's Tony Clifton, Jay Leno's Braniac, and Jerry Mahoney's Knucklehead Smith all rolled into one! He finally found his niche! Extremely entertaining!
Happy New Year!

Anonymous said...

John--
For your information I was talking to Alan. This is still his blog. But Happy New Year to you anyway.

Stephen, whatever you're drinking, give me a swig. I need it.

*Gulp* What's that I hear? Can it be the "music of the spheres?"

You are just a couple of neurotic, self indulgent imbeciles...meaningless vacuum...everything you touch ...ignorance and snot...crawling...flotsam and jetsam...

Okay, just the lyrics to the music of the spheres. Kind of a tough libretto, but I've had years of music training. I'll try to hum it. Nope, it's not New Year's yet, Stephen. In fact, it seems that time has slowed down.

VMartin said...

Martin.

I do not underestand still why John and I were banned from antievolution.org. Darwinists there used abuses that would not be accepted in any descent forum. Yet it was me who was banned.

Same here - John is molested to be decent, but Arden uses abuses whenever he likes.

Is it possible that darwinists can uses coarse abuses because they originated from apes but for antidarwinists the criteria are much more severe?

Perhaps yes.

You still didnot answer the question why mimicry evolved only in some species, when in the the same area live and thrive non-mimetic butterfly species as well.

Btw. look at Laternaria:
http://www.insectaculture.com/flaternaria.htm

Insect Laternaria has head like aligator. Yet Laternaria is not greater than 5 cm. But according Poulton it is enough to decept predator, hehe.

JohnADavison said...

It gets better all the time.

"Darwimpians of the world unite. You have nothihg to lose but your natural selection."
after that other "prescribed" atheist loser - Karl Marx

SOCKITTOME boys and girls. I thrive on this sort of crap.

Martin

Stand proud Martin. All these phonies know how to do is to ridicule anyone who dares expose the party line for what it really is, the most thoroughly discredited crock of intellectual garbage since the Phlogiston of Chemistry and the Ether of Physics.

Ether (E), Selection (S), Phlogiston (P) - ESP, Extrasensory perception indeed.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

As long as Falan Ox is willing to take this abuse I say -

SOCKITTOTHEMALL There'(s not) a dimes worth of difference between them anyway. speaking of snot -

"I thought my nose was bleeding but its snot"
anonymous

Pristine Kristine snot!

"When all think alike no one thinks very much."
Walter Lippmann

What says Martin?

I love it so! Don't you?

Both Kristine Snot and Ephen Stelliott have already retired over to the Saloon to vent their mindless spleens to the applause of their cheering clonal cronies. Why don't the pair of you stay there where you have no adversaries instead of setting yourself up as targets here? Have you no self respect whatsoever? Of course you don't!

A crone and a cronie, what pair they really make. A hag and a half wit. It is hard to believe isn't it? Neither of them know their blastopore from their proctadeum. It is beautiful I tell you!

I love it so! Don't you Martin? of course you do!

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

JohnADavison said...

This is the hottest thread in town Falan. Thank you and congratulations!

I love it so!

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

JohnADavison said...

Martin

Speaking of apes and Fascists(Darwimps), Josef Goebbels, Hitler's Propaganda Minister, once proclaimed -

"It has not yet been proved that non-Aryans cannot hybridize with apes."

Like Goebbels, Darwimps are propagandists pure amd simple. They have no science whatsoever and never did have. They are trapped in a congenital ideology over which they have absolutely no control. Einstein saw this clearly. Einstein's insight into the human condition was every bit as profound as his physics.

It has become more and more clear that political liberalism and its attendant knee-jerk relativism is closely coupled to Darwinism and may even be a pleiotropic expression of exactly the same congenital genetic condition. They don't believe in anything so they believe devoutly in the only thing that remains after everything else has been eliminated which is chance. It is inconceivable for the Darwimpian mentality firmly to believe in ANYTHING. Ergo chance becomes their God. Gephen J. Stould even incorporated chance into the title of one of his later books - "Full House." That is the one in which he compared evolution to a "drunk reeling back and forth between the gutter and the bar room door." In a more sober but no more rational moment he mumbled about a "random walk." Panda's Thumb is named for another of his fantasy masterpieces. Now with Dichard Rawkins we have blind watchmakers gamely climbing up improbable mountains. Christ almighty how can anybody swallow this maggot-gagging crap?

One of my several unanswered questions which I have posed for these clowns goes this way -

Exactly at what point in the creative process did the Creator(s) transfer the reins over to "Mama" Nature, that which had been hitherto created, so that "Mama" Nature could finish the creative job? My answer is of course never. Yet that is precisely what the Darwimpian fairy tale demands. I call it "operation bootstraps" and we all know how that works out. "Mama" Nature never had anything whatsoever to do with organic evolution. She always was and still is the product not the cause. The whole thing was planned from beginning to end and the end is now.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so!

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

VMartin said...

Martin.

Thank you for your kind words John.

My opinion is is that darwinists should be exposed as liars whenever the opportunity is. And that is what you do excellently.


Conception that evolution is directed or prescribed is a correct one. Russian philosopher Bulgakov and French theologist and scientist Teillhard de Chardin were of same opinion (the latter one having problem with Church due his opinions). The same problem with as I can judge had Robert Broom.


Happy New Year.

JohnADavison said...

Thank you Martin.

"The applause of a single human being is of great consequence."
Samuel Johnson

Now Alan, are you ready to recant all your Darwimpian sins, to abandon the most asinine hypothesis ever generated by the human mind and to endorse an hypothesis that recognizes and incorporates experimental science and the indisputable testimony of the fossil record?

I don't think Esley Welsberry and his loyal legions of isogenic goons are taking kindly to what you have generated here with this thread. Maybe they won't let you back into the Slipper Floor Saloon. Then what will you do?

Think about it Alan. Do you want to be remembered as just one more chance-happy, subnormal loser like Charden Atfield, Pott L. Scage, M.P. Zeyers, Sir Joe Tam, Pristine Kristine or Ephen Stelliott? Lord I hope not! What kind of legacy is that?

Today is the 28th. You have three more days to "straighten up and fly right." Don't miss this chance of a lifetime to become the Judas of Darwimpianism and thereby gain the notoriety for which you have always longed.

I have been uncharacteristically charitable with you because for some reason (which I do not understand), I still retain a glimmer of hope that you might be worthy of salvation.

I also really, and I mean REALLY, appreciate this opportunity that you have offered both Martin and myself to gore your sacred BULL, to kick the bejesus out of it. It has been a real pleasure for me and, I suspect, for Martin as well.

I love it so!

"Ooooooo, how sweet it is!"
Jackie Gleason

It is hard to believe isn't it?

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

HAPPY NEW YEAR

JohnADavison said...

Alan

Just think. Once we have eliminated the Darwimps, we can turn out attention to the Bible Banging Baptist Bigots led by the Wembski/Dinger dynamic duo over at Uncommon Descent. Imagine that title - Uncommon Descent. Just think Alan, man is not an animal and had no animal ancestors. Isn't that precious? What a setup!

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so!

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undeniable."
John A. Davison

VMartin said...

John,

I would not believe at Alan Fox genuine change at all. My opinion is that he is the extra marked person from the darwinian kennel here. He is beyond any possible genuine change. Arden could be converted, even Jeannot could be converted. Anyone except Alan Fox.
There is no hope. Even if he converted he would not really believe in new conception.
He is a kind of transvestite if I could be sincere. Sorry for that.

He could bann me if he like. I do not care.

Martin

VMartin said...

I asked moderators on antievolution.org forum why I have been banned. What rules I have broken that darwinist contributors strictly observe.
Waiting for reply - I will inform you if any arrives.

Martin

JohnADavison said...

Martin

You are a man after my own heart - an honest man. They are scarce as hen's teeth on these shabby blogs. God bless you. I don't think Alan will ban either one of us. What would his precious "neutral venue" look like if he did that? His only hope is to publicly recant and I don't think he has either the courage or the brains to do that. It is wondereful isn't it? He and all his cronies are between the rock and the hard place.

I love it so!

So I say -

SOCKITTOALLTHEMINDLESSSWINE

What say you?

Best regards,

John

A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

Alan Fox said...

Hi John,

If your PEH made testable predictions and was all round a better explanation of the diversity of life than modern evolutionary theory, then I am sure it would be embraced by the scientific community. I am just a layman with an interest in science, and I have abandoned hope of seeing you tackle the many valid (or so they seem to me) criticisms that many people have raised with you on many occasions. I do not find unsupported assertion a very convincing argument and there would need to be some "meat in the sandwich" before beginning to consider the PEH any genuine alternative to MET.

Alan Fox said...

I would not believe at Alan Fox genuine change at all.
Well, you do not need to worry. There has been no change in my assessment of the PEH so far.

My opinion is that he is the extra marked person from the darwinian kennel here. He is beyond any possible genuine change. Arden could be converted, even Jeannot could be converted. Anyone except Alan Fox.
There is no hope. Even if he converted he would not really believe in new conception.
He is a kind of transvestite if I could be sincere. Sorry for that.


"Converted" is normally used in a religious context, Martin. I could be convinced about a new or alternative scientific hypothesis by evidence.

He could bann me if he like. I do not care.

Name calling is allowed here. It is obscenity and spam that is prohibited. Offending posts may be deleted and possibly reinstated minus objectionable content. The whole point of this blog is to permit free expression of ideas. I do not propose to ban you, so you are free to post what you like here. I will start a guest thread for you if you want to write one.

Alan Fox said...

I asked moderators on antievolution.org forum why I have been banned. What rules I have broken that darwinist contributors strictly observe.
Waiting for reply - I will inform you if any arrives.

Martin


I have to agree with you here. Although your posts were trollish and annoying, especially in the way you avoided responding to other posters questions, and that you cut and pasted comments made previously elsewhere, I don't think you broke any rules. I will email the moderator and request he reconsider his decision, although I don't expect my opinion carries much weight.

Anonymous said...

John,

Alan will never recant. He is the last one who will do it from the darwinistic kennel. Darwinism is his only refuge, darwinism is his only hope.

The other darwinists are now commenting this thread on antievolution.org. They feel comfortable as they banned us from there. They have free air there now, nobody cast doubt on their beloved darwinism there.

Anyway I suppose that they have no clear conscience. They are incapable to discuss issue on mimicry and issue on the fact that evolution is finished.
I suspect them that they have no clear conscience believing to such a theory as darwinism. They feel that the true is somewhere else.

After say 200 years our descendats will only laugh on naivity of darwinism.

VMartin said...

Alan,

I would appreciate if you explain me darwinistic opinion on the fact that we observe mimicry of butterflies in areas where live also non-mimetic palatable butterfly species and thrive as well as mimetic ones - even outnumber mimetic species.

Your - or anybody - answer would certainly make me great pleasure. Instead of your "touching" care of my banning at antivelution.org.

Alan Fox said...

I would appreciate if you explain me darwinistic opinion on the fact that we observe mimicry of butterflies in areas where live also non-mimetic palatable butterfly species and thrive as well as mimetic ones - even outnumber mimetic species.

I will do my best to comment, if you can kindly cite the original work that demonstrates "the fact that we observe etc..."

Instead of your "touching" care of my banning at antivelution.org.

Please don't mistake my motive. I don't think it was justified to ban you for the reason given. I found your posts annoying and trollish.

Alan Fox said...

After say 200 years our descendats will only laugh on naivity of darwinism.

Hmmm. That line sounds familiar. You're not a sock puppet of Ted Haggart, are you?

Alan Fox said...

VMartin

The moderator at AtBC seems pretty convinced that you are, in fact, John Davison in disguise. I am sure you could demonstrate that is not the case quite easily if you so wished. If you want any assistance taking up the matter and want to maintain confidentiality, feel free to contact me by email.

JohnADavison said...

Falan Ox

I can't believe that anyone in his right mind would ever think that Martin and I are the same person.

There is only one conceivable explanation for this idiotic situation. Do you want me to tell you what that is? Of course you don't but here it is anyway.

You half-wits are so auto-hypnotically convinced that I am off my rocker that you can't accept the fact that there could be two such poor deranged souls on planet earth.

That is why you keep insisting there is only one of us. Oh, the power of ideology knows no bounds. Christ, it is unbelievable but demonstrated right here with the post preceding this one.

If you could somehow remove your heads from your drawers you would discover that there are lots of others who also agree with me. And do you know who one of them is? Believe it or not it is the Yellow Rose of Texas himself. Why the hell do you think he posted all my papers at Uncommon Descent. Of course after he got the nod from Wembski out they went right along with a lot of lies about me. He forced me to apologize to him before he would condescend to replace them again. This I gladly did just as I promised I would not divulge his real name at EvC. Such preconditions betray a sick, egocentric tyrannical personality with which I am always delighted to conform and thereby expose whenever I have the opportnity. Out my papers went again and the swine said he would return them after my death as a kind of "in memorium." What a pig. in the meantime he believes every word I have ever published and presents them as his own.

I love it so!

Martin

Don't you demonstrate anything fer these "prescribed" losers. It is they that are on trial not you and I. They are committing ethical, moral and intellectual suicide with their mindless tactics and they are so far gone now that they don't even realize it. If you must contact Falan Ox by email use that opportunity to use all the obscene language you can muster, language that isn't permitted here. Copy it to me please as I need a good laugh.

"Science commits suicide when she adopts a creed."
Thomas Henry Huxley

You got that right Tom baby. This blog is the living proof.

I keep sayimg "it doesn't get any better than this" but it DOES, message after message, day after day, week after week and historically, literally century after century.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so!

A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

JohnADavison said...

I am now prepared to make a prediction. This blog will close very soon. That is the only thing that "prescribed" atheist ideologues can do when faced with the truth.

In the meantime I will continue to treat the whole bunch of you with the contempt you have earned. I hope Martin and others from outside this snake pit will join in. It is the best game in town.

Who is next?

I love it so!

Happy New Year.

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

Charden Atfield said...

VMartin said:

Alan Fox molested John repeatedly to be decent here.

Alan! Is this TRUE? Have you molested John repeatedly??? ;-)

Vmartin said...


The moderator at AtBC seems pretty convinced that you are, in fact, John Davison in disguise. I am sure you could demonstrate that is not the case quite easily if you so wished.


Hehe - stupidity of darwinists is extraordinary. So I should convince them that I am not John. What else? Should I convince them that Germany and France are different country too?

Or that the sun and the moon are different planets? Maybe darwinists suspect moon to be disguised sun in the night, what do you mean?

No wonder when for darwinists also a girraffe is in fact disguised ancient fish. Nobody would persuade them that they are different species.
Or would you help me with that too?

VMartin said...

Alan,

anyway thank you. I informed about stupidity of darwinistic ATBC administrators on ISCID and EvC forum.

JohnADavison said...

Good show Martin. What more can I say? These clowns don't know their hypomere from their mesomere, their proctadeum from their stomadeum or their epidermis from their epididymis. As Harry Truman once said about a political opponent -

"He is a living miracle with neither brains or guts."

He also said -

"Never kick a fresh turd on a hot day."

Isn't this fun? Don't you just love it?

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so! Don't you?

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

JohnADavison said...

Well Martin, it looks like we have them on the ropes with not a peep out of them for quite some time now.

I love it so, don't you?

Alan

You have one more day to abandon H.M.S. Darwin. After that you and your blog are history and I recommend you fold your tent and stick to your day job.

"A past evolution is undeniable. a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

Alan Fox said...

Charden Atfield said...

VMartin said:

Alan Fox molested John repeatedly to be decent here.

Alan! Is this TRUE? Have you molested John repeatedly??? ;-)

9:31 PM, December 28, 2006


Not in the Biblical sense, obviously...

JohnADavison said...

Charden Atfield, Falan Ox, pristine Kristine, Occam's After Shave and all the rest of you cowardly low class morons.

Martin has made monkeys out of all of you both here and at ATBC. That is why you had to ban him over at Esley Welsberry's Last Stand, the Alamo of Darwimpianism. You are nothing but a bunch of "prescribed" yellow bellied cowards just like the Yellow Rose of Texas, Spravid Dinger, who runs Uncommon Descent with his tyrannical egomaniacal sociopathy. Ban, ban, ban, insult, insult, insult, denigrate and deprecate - that is all you know what to do. You are all the same wherever one looks, pure double distilled full strength chicken dung and the dregs of human decency. It is gloriously revealing.

SOCKITTOME

I love it so!

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

Charden Atfield said...

VMartin molested you to be decent too, didn't he, John?

JohnADavison said...

Go back to the cesspool where you came from you sniveling snot bag. This flame pit is nothing but a subsidiary of The Slippery Floor Saloon.

"A past evolution is undenable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

Arden Chatfield said...

Aw, geez, John, you didn't answer my question!

JohnADavison said...

Of course I didn't. You are beneath my notice. In the exact words of Harry Truman -

Arden Chatfield (Charden Atfield) "is a living miracle with neither brains nor guts."

Charden Atfield is also the turd that Truman reminded us never to kick on a hot day.

A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

Arden Chatfield said...

Well, at least you've patched things up with DaveScot now, right?

JohnADavison said...

Oh sure! Just ask him.

JohnADavison said...

You are running out of time Alan.

I love it so!

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

Arden Chatfield said...

John:

For some reason Dave Scot seems not to want to talk to me. He banned from from his website a long time ago, for instance. And earlier this month he called me a 'homo', which I think is supposed to be a bad thing.

But Dave agreed to 'publish' your papers at Dembski's creationist website, right, John? Are they there now?

JohnADavison said...

Of course not although I haven't looked lately. He reintroduced them after removing them only so he could have the pleasure of deleting them again, the same reason I was readmitted to Uncommon Descent by the swine so he could have the joy of banning me once again. He is garbage and so are you. There is not a dimes worth of difference between Spravid Dinger, Dilliam Wembski, Jillip Phonson, Esley Welsberry, Pott L. Scage, M.P. Zeyers and any or all of you retards from the Slippery Floor Saloon. You are all the same, just a herd of self-centered blowhards doing your best to dominate anyone that might disagree with you. You are miserable failures all of you. You are laughable.

"Oooooooh, how sweet it is."
Jackie Gleason

I love it so!

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

Charden Atfield said...

But John, I'm confused: why do you want your papers 'published' at some cheesy creationist website? Isn't the thing that scientists normally do to publish their papers in some prestigious peer-reviewed journal, where they know what they're doing?

JohnADavison said...

Charden Atfield

Your first sentence is right on - "But John, I'm confised." You should have stopped while you were ahead.

My papers are no longer at Uncommon Descent because the Yellow Rose of Texas has removed them for the last time. That suits me just fine. I believe in letting one's enemies expose themselves freely by whatever means they find necessary. I don't have anything to hide. I wouldn't dream of banning anyone and never did at my blogs. Those, like yourself and your pathetic cronies, who can't engage in civil discourse with their adversaries have every right to demonstrate their shallowness, their bigotry and their fear. That is all that they do when they ban those who differ with their mindless ideologies. I am very proud of my record on bannishments. I've been banned from all the right blogs.

I'll give you creeps all the rope you want. You all know what you can do with it. Hang yourself with it. So far you are all doing just fine. Don't stop!

Got that? Write that down.

My papers have been published in peer rviewed journals which you would know if you bothered to inquire.

Incidentally, Rivista di Biologia no longer accepts manuscripts from me. That suits me just fine too. I must be doing something right.

I love it so!

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

Alan Fox said...

Incidentally, Rivista di Biologia no longer accepts manuscripts from me. That suits me just fine too. I must be doing something right.

Has Guiseppe Sermonti retired then John?

You are running out of time Alan.

Did you not read my earlier comment?

If your PEH made testable predictions and was all round a better explanation of the diversity of life than modern evolutionary theory, then I am sure it would be embraced by the scientific community. I am just a layman with an interest in science, and I have abandoned hope of seeing you tackle the many valid (or so they seem to me) criticisms that many people have raised with you on many occasions. I do not find unsupported assertion a very convincing argument and there would need to be some "meat in the sandwich" before beginning to consider the PEH any genuine alternative to MET.

1:44 PM, December 28, 2006

JohnADavison said...

Sermonti has not retired. He has just had enough of me and my science apparently. I am crushed of course. Can't you tell? Like my prececessors, I do not exist even for anti-Darwinians like Siuseppe Germonti, Dilliam Wembski, Jillip Phonson and Bichael Mehe not to mention the whole damn "Discovery Institute - A Christian Institution." There is no place for Christianity in science. There never was and there never will be.

"The mains source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and science lies in the concept of a personal God."
Albert Einstein

There is no place for knee-jerk atheism either.

"Then we have the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs form the same source.... They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres."
ibid

As for the MET, which I presume means Modern Theory of Evolution, it does not even exist yet. Theories are verified hypotheses and Darwimpianism does not qualify. It never did and it never will. I thought everybody knew that by now. It is the biggest and most long lived hoax in the history of science.

As for you Falan Ox, you illiterate, brain damaged fart, try reading my earlier posts where I listed a whole slew of predictions based on the PEH, most of which are already verified and not one of which can ever be reconciled with the Darwimpian fairy tale.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so!

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

VMartin said...


As for you Falan Ox, you illiterate, brain damaged fart, try reading my earlier posts where I listed a whole slew of predictions based on the PEH, most of which are already verified and not one of which can ever be reconciled with the Darwimpian fairy tale.


Thats right John. Its hardly to believe that life is directed by chance which is than somehow refined by allmighty selection.

Alan Fox apparently has never been at a meadow yet. Otherwise he would not ask me to prove that in same area live mimetic and non-mimetic or palatable and unpalatable butterflies together.

Btw. on atbc they devised some procedure to find out if we are the same person. I suspect them they have in US Embassy in Bratislava some Darwinist who will personally interrogate me using question like "So are you Davison or not?".

JohnADavison said...

Go get 'em Martin. Falan Ox is obviously a masochist. Let's be sadists, shall we? Of course we shall!

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so!

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

Alan Fox said...

Alan Fox apparently has never been at a meadow yet. Otherwise he would not ask me to prove that in same area live mimetic and non-mimetic or palatable and unpalatable butterflies together.

That wasn't the question? It was:

I would appreciate if you explain me darwinistic opinion on the fact that we observe mimicry of butterflies in areas where live also non-mimetic palatable butterfly species and thrive as well as mimetic ones - even outnumber mimetic species.

I will do my best to comment, if you can kindly cite the original work that demonstrates "the fact that we observe etc..."

VMartin said...

John,

I thought on your conception and it occurs to me that it could have something common - just my opinion of course - with expression of alleles. Because as recessive alleles might be expressed only when there are both of them in a chromosome same should be true for "repressed" genes. They can be expressed in the right moment but as with recessive alleles they might be "repressed" for a long time. Same as with rare recessive alleles that are always hidden because of dominant ones. Yet they still exists even if they have no effect. I see here something common.

Same with some hidden inclinations and tendencies of a man. It can present themselves abruptly and yet there were present long before.

Happy New Year to you.

JohnADavison said...

Well the same to you Martin.

The Darwimps don't know what to do with you. That is why they banned you.

EVERYTHING is determined... by forces over which we have no control,
Albert Einstein, my emphasis.

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

Arden Chatfield said...

VMartin, has John molested you to be decent?

You illiterate, brain damaged fart!

Alan Fox said...

As for you Falan Ox, you illiterate, brain damaged fart, try reading my earlier posts where I listed a whole slew of predictions based on the PEH, most of which are already verified and not one of which can ever be reconciled with the Darwimpian fairy tale.

I had a quick look through the thread and all I could find were the following assertions:

JohnADavison said...

Some half-wit named ichthyic over at the Slippery Floor Saloon claims that I can make no predictions based on my work and that of my predecessors. Here are are just a few.

1. All the selection in the world of allelic mutations will never produce even a new species let alone any higher category. How is that for a prediction?

2. Evolution is finished and will never resume. All that is currently in progress is extinction. How is that for a prediction?

3. Sexual reproduction never had anything to do with speciation or any other significant evolutionary event. It never will. How is that for a prediction?

4. Natural selection now, as in the past prevented evolution. It always will. How is that for a prediction?

5. The environment has never played a direct role in any evolutionary event beyond providing a milieu for it to take place.

6. There is absolutely no merit in the Darwinian model beyond its capacity to generate in some, but by no means all, forms intraspecific varieties and subspecies none of which are incipient species anyway.

In short the Darwinian model is a delusion.

How do you like them tangerines ichthyic you homozygous "prescribed" moron?

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable,"
John A. Davison

5:08 PM, December 10, 2006

Here are some of the predictions that are inherent in the PEH. Most of them are already established facts.

1. Evolution is a self-limiting phenomenon like ontogeny and is now finished.
2. Mendelism never had anything to do with phylogeny.
3. Allelic mutation never did either.
4. Natural selection prevents rather than facilitates evolution.
5. Sexual reproduction, which has evolved separately many times, stabilizes the species and is quite incompetent to do anything more than generate intraspecific varieties. That is all that it can do today and all that it ever did in the past.
6. Subspecies and varieties are not incipient species. They are evolutionary dead ends doomed to ultimate extinction.
7. The vast majority of all past species never became anything new but disappeared in the same form as they appeared.
8. Evolution, past tense, has involved the progressive loss of potential exactly as takes place during the differentiation of cells during ontogeny.
9. Extinction is the phylogenetic counterpart to the death of the individual.
10. A new genus has not appeared in two million years and a new true species not in historical times, during which times there have been thousands of extinctions.
11. Organic evolution is finished with Homo sapiens the terminal mammalian product.
12. The entire scenario was planned from beginning to end by one or more creators who are no longer with us.
13. The end is now.

It is hard to believe isn't it?


Have I missed anything?

the guy who delivers John Davison's pizzas said...

Alan:

I think John also said "I love it so!" several times.

JohnADavison said...

No you found it all. Thank you for being stupid enough to reprint it.

What is remarkable is that you regard that list as mere assertions. Why don't you demonstrate a single one of them that can be shown to be inaccurate? You can't and you know it which is why you call them assertions. EVERYTHING in Darwimpian mythology is an assertion, absolutely EVERYTHING! There is NOTHING in the Darwimpian paradigm that can be demonstrated in the laboratory except the production of intraspecific varieties none of which are incipient species anyway.

I love it so!

It is hard to believe isn't it Martin?

How much more abuse do you think this jerk can absorb before he bans us? I am doing my best and so are you. I can't believe this blog. Can you? Can anyone?

Who or what is next? I can't imagine! Can you Martin? Can anyone anywhere in all of cyberspace? Speak up if you have the spine that is. I predict a silence pregnant with significance.

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

JanieBelle said...

Happy New Year, Alan!

Here is our wish for you and your wife this year.

Kisses!

Alan Fox said...

John asks:
Why don't you demonstrate a single one of them that can be shown to be inaccurate?

OK, John, let's take:

5. The environment has never played a direct role in any evolutionary event beyond providing a milieu for it to take place.

So how did Riftia tube worms arrive at precisely the only place on this planet where they can survive, supremely well adapted to it, if the environment playe no part in species development?

Alan Fox said...

Excuse typo:

Playe should be plays

JohnADavison said...

You have not answered my challenge. Instead you have posed an unanswerable question. We have no idea how any organism got to be where it is do we? You have also used the present tense with respect to evolution, an assumption for which no evidence exists. If any organism displays an adaptation to the environment in which it is found it is because that capacity was innate in that organism's ancestor. In other words the adaptation was "prescribed." According to the PEH EVERYTHING was "prescribed." I am quite comfortable with that myself which is why I published it.

Perhaps you would like to explain in Darwinian terms how your tube worm became adapted to its present environment. How many random mutations and selections did it take before it became "perfectly adapted" and where were its ancestors during this period?

Incidentally, your question suggests a Lamarckian perspective which I thought you Darwimpians had rejected. Darwin, your God, became more and more Lamarckian with time. You seem to be making the same mistake.

I love it so!

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable,"
John A. Davison

JohnADavison said...

Who, or more likely what, is next? I can hardly wait.

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.
John A. Davison

Alan Fox said...

Prefacing my remarks by reminding you that I am a layman WRT to biology, and there are many much better qualified than me to explain the ToE, and that I have been curious about any positive prediction that your PEH may make,

We have no idea how any organism got to be where it is do we?

I find the whole concept of organisms passively drawn along evolutionary paths by environmental pressures, such as climate change, continental drift, symbiosis, predation, parasitism, mass extinction, etc., very plausible. That such events as mass extinction happened is well documented in geology and fossils. There is a convincing mechanism, that, given some allele variability arising from mutations, etc. will consolidate adaptations that allow populations of organisms to better exploit the niches they occupy or are able to exploit.

You have also used the present tense with respect to evolution, an assumption for which no evidence exists.

Evolution proceeds at a slow rate. Selective breeding practised since the Bronze Age has produced rapid change over time in domestic animals.

Perhaps you would like to explain in Darwinian terms how your tube worm became adapted to its present environment. How many random mutations and selections did it take before it became "perfectly adapted" and where were its ancestors during this period?

The adaptations cannot have preceded or anticipated the niche environment of a Hydrothermal vent, so the ancestors to Riftia must have been less specialised, and the symbiotic relationship with sulphur-metabolising bacteria developed subsequently to colonising the vents. The ancestors may have initially merely fed on the bacteria.

Incidentally, your question suggests a Lamarckian perspective which I thought you Darwimpians had rejected. Darwin, your God, became more and more Lamarckian with time. You seem to be making the same mistake.

I don't see any goal or guidance in evolutionary processes. I strongly doubt Homo sapiens is the final goal of evolution. There was never a target.

VMartin said...

Alan Fox let his darwinian phantasy out:

The adaptations cannot have preceded or anticipated the niche environment of a Hydrothermal vent, so the ancestors to Riftia must have been less specialised, and the symbiotic relationship with sulphur-metabolising bacteria developed subsequently to colonising the vents. The ancestors may have initially merely fed on the bacteria.


Why should they? Ancestor may have been more specialized but then exploiting symbiosis they became what they are. And "symbiotic relationship with sulphur-metabolising bacteria developed subsequently to colonising the vents." So they made some agreement before they colonized vents?

Alan Fox said...

So they made some agreement before they colonized vents?

Martin, your comprehension of English must be worse than it appears. I was careful to stress the "unguidedness" of evolutionary processes.

Alan Fox said...

(From Telic Thoughts)


22. John A. Davison Says:
January 1st, 2007 at 6:37 am |

Salvador

When are you folks over at Uncommon Descent going to rise up, show some guts and demand the removal of David Springer as blog czar? The man is a one man reign of terrror, a transparent sociopath, banning anyone who dares question his absolute authority. You should all be ashamed of yourselves, especially Dembski and O'leary.

"The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh way."

"Doctor Davison is no longer with us."

"You're outta here"

etc, etc.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

Comment by John A. Davison — January 1, 2007 @ 6:37 am


Sock it to 'em, john!

JohnADavison said...

Falan Ox (it is permanent now).

"unguideness" is not a word and besides - all of evolution was "guided" in advance by being "prescribed." What the hell do you think the PEH is all about? I am not the first to realize what has been obvious to others long before me.

"Everything is determined... by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein

"Hence it may be seen that evolution is to a considerable degree PREDETERMINED, that it is in the same degree an UNFOLDING OR MANIFESTATION OF PRE-EXISTING RUDIMENTS.
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 403, his emphasis.

Get it dummy? probably not. I will stick wth Einstein and Berg myself, not with some illiterate Darwimpian errand boy like yourself. Go read some more Dawkins while taking a "random walk" across the Los Angelos throughway at rush hour.

"I read as little of Dawkins as possible."
Cyrus Noe

Incidentally, I have already published my acceptance of the possibility that Lamarckian mechanisms may have existed in the distant past when evolution was still in progress. There is no evidence now in favor of either Darwinian or Lamarckian evolution and the Darwinian fairy tale never was anything but a delusion. It has no credibility whatsover and never did have. I thought everybody knew that by now. Some poor souls, especially all the inmates of Esley Welsberry's "groupthinktank" are "prescribed" slow learners. I am not one of them and neither is Martin.

"When all think alike no one thinks very much."
Walter Lippmann

I love it so!

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

VMartin said...

O.K. Alan. You wrote

I don't see any goal or guidance in evolutionary processes.


Neverthenless it does not mean that such goal or guidance does not exist. You do not see it because you dont want to see it.
You deliberately avoid to see it.
Anyway I would say that many noble people see such goal and see such guidance. Only people like folks from ATBC do not see any reason of the life and might be that they even consider their own lives occur by pure chance without any sense.

JohnADavison said...

Bravo Martin!

Alan Fox said...

"unguide(d)ness" is not a word

Which is why I put it in quotes, John. You never know, it might catch on, like Darwimpian.

Get it dummy? probably not.

Well, I hear what you say. And it still seems to consist of unsupported assertions, non-sequiturs and arguments from authority. But as a layman, I could be just missing your points where you introduce evidence.

Alan Fox said...

Anyway I would say that many noble people see such goal and see such guidance.

I am sure it does them no harm to believe in Divine guidance. I have no need of that hypothesis. As John has pointed out many timed, Science cannot ask why. I am more interested in the how of Science than the why of metaphysics and philosophy.

Charden Atfield said...

Well, I hear what you say. And it still seems to consist of unsupported assertions, non-sequiturs and arguments from authority.

Don't forget the insults.

Only people like folks from ATBC do not see any reason of the life and might be that they even consider their own lives occur by pure chance without any sense.

VMartin, I molest you to be decent!

JohnADavison said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Alan Fox said...

JohnADavison said...

Martin

I see NO evidence for guidance at present and never did see a need for it to be Divine. Quite the contrary, there are very good reasons to assume both malevolent and benevolent Big Front Loaders (BFL's) in the distant past. Otherwise the present world makes no sense whatsoever. Unknown are when, where, how many times and especially how they acted to prime and possibly reprime the evolutionary pump. That such gods (with a small impersonal g) once existed is no longer in doubt at least in this investigator's mind. I agree with Einstein that the notion of a personal God is the primary source of the tensions that still plague science, especially evolutionary science.

Furthermore, there is not a scintilla of evidence that creative evolution is still in progress. Those that believe it is are fools.

I presented my case over at Dawkin's fan club with my single thread which lasted less than ten days but resulted in far more views than all the other threads combined. I recomend all visit that demonstration of mindless hero worship and intellectual bigotry. Now I am not allowed to even observe that pathetic little joke at least from this computer. What better proof could a man want that he has "reached out and touched someone." I managed the same response at ARN. All in all I'm as happy as a clam with my internet experience. I have been treated like garbage by all the right people. It hasn't been easy but I have managed somehow.

It is pretty hard to surpass the idiocy displayed by this blog however. Here they still think Martin and I are the same person!

It is hard to believe isn't it?

As for my insults, I plead guilty as charged. You have to realize that this is Rome folks. While I am nominally a Roman Catholic, the only cheeks I am turning here and elsewhere ... and admire to your precious little heart's content.

I love it so!

Oooooh, how sweet it is!
Jackie Gleason

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

3:45 AM, January 03, 2007

Alan Fox said...

Furthermore, there is not a scintilla of evidence that creative evolution is still in progress. Those that believe it is are fools.

Absence of evidence (assuming that were the case, here) is not evidence of absence. You say evolution occurred, but has now ceased, having produced its ultimate product, human-kind. What evidence, other than perceived lack of evidence that evolutionary processes are currently unobservable, do you have for your belief, John?

Alan Fox said...

Excuse typo:
...perceived lack of evidence that evolutionary processes are currently unobservable...
should read:
...perceived lack of evidence that evolutionary processes are currently observable...

JohnADavison said...

Falan Ox you cowardy little wimp. I see you edited out what I recommnended you could do with my lower pair of cheeks which was to kiss them to a purple blister. If you are going to start editing my comments you can go to hell. If I stop posting here your pathetic little blog will collapse in a millisecomd. What will you ever do then?

Don't let that happen again as I don't care for it.

Remember what Archie Bunker once said about Italians?

"You don't want to call them Wops because the Dagos don't like it."

Try this one on you warped little fart.

"You don't want to call them Darwimps because the chance-happy retards don't like it."

or this one for the Wembski crowd.

"You don't want to call them Fundies because the seat-hurdling Bible-bangers don't like it."

I love it so!

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

VMartin said...

Our poor Arden/Charden came here from ATBC to ventilate his ego:

VMartin, I molest you to be decent!


I suppose you were molested by an old woman teacher of darwinism at secondary school. You liked it very and thats why you have remained hard-core darwinst till today.

Charden Atfield said...

I see you edited out what I recommnended you could do with my lower pair of cheeks which was to kiss them to a purple blister

Yeah, stuff like that easily ranks right up there with John's best science writing.

I suppose you were molested by an old woman teacher of darwinism at secondary school. You liked it very and thats why you have remained hard-core darwinst till today.

VMartin, have you molested John to be decent lately, or ventilated him?

Alan Fox said...

Don't let that happen again as I don't care for it.

As Charden has referred to your remark I won't delete it, but please try and restrain yourself, John. I will delete any remarks by anyone that I deem my mother would find offensive.

What about the substance of my post?

Furthermore, there is not a scintilla of evidence that creative evolution is still in progress. Those that believe it is are fools.

Absence of evidence (assuming that were the case, here) is not evidence of absence. You say evolution occurred, but has now ceased, having produced its ultimate product, human-kind. What evidence, other than perceived lack of evidence that evolutionary processes are currently observable, do you have for your belief, John?

Alan Fox said...

John wrote

Martin

I see NO evidence for guidance at present and never did see a need for it to be Divine. Quite the contrary, there are very good reasons to assume both malevolent and benevolent Big Front Loaders (BFL's) in the distant past. Otherwise the present world makes no sense whatsoever. Unknown are when, where, how many times and especially how they acted to prime and possibly reprime the evolutionary pump. That such gods (with a small impersonal g) once existed is no longer in doubt at least in this investigator's mind. I agree with Einstein that the notion of a personal God is the primary source of the tensions that still plague science, especially evolutionary science.


Well, VMartin, it seems John does not have the same quasi-religious agenda that you have. Have you lost interest in butterfly mimicry and the Riftia tube worm?

VMartin said...


Well, VMartin, it seems John does not have the same quasi-religious agenda that you have. Have you lost interest in butterfly mimicry and the Riftia tube worm?


Not at all. Johns Manifesto is best conception I have ever read on evolution. I agree with John that evolution occured and was driven by no way RM/NS. My point only is that in some point spirit was given to a man (thats Bulgakoff opinion too).
As to the origin of animals I suppose that Johns idea came from Robert Broom conception (many gods, evil and good ones).

As to mimicry - you can maybe explain us how birds have driven mimicry coloration to take place when it is dubious that birds are main predators of butterflies. McAtee had dispute about this with Poulton long ago. McAtee performed large research on food habit of birds and he found that birds eat the same proportion of aposematics and mimics as are their proportion among insects in general. Might be that darwinists can such facts explain ad hoc from armchair, dont they?


The 186 stomachs of the tufted titmouse examined by Professor Beal (Beal, McAtee, and Kalmbach, 1916) were irregularly distributed throughout the year and were considered by him too few "to afford more than an approximation of the bird's economic worth." However, the results show that, so far as his investigation goes, the bird is beneficial and has no bad food habits to offset the good it does.

The food consisted of 66.57 percent animal matter and 33.43 percent vegetable. He says that the food "includes one item, caterpillars, which form more than half the animal food, and two items, caterpillars and wasps, which are more than half of the whole food." Beetles make up 7.06 percent, of which only one-tenth of 1 percent are useful species; the cotton-boll weevil was found in four stomachs. Ants are eaten occasionally, and other hymenopterous food, bees, wasps, and sawfly larvae, amounted to 12.5 percent. Other items include stink bugs, treehoppers, scales, only one fly, eggs of katydids, egg cases of cockroaches, spiders (found in 40 stomachs examined in May, 12.67 percent, only a trace in June, and in 3 stomachs in July, 16.33 percent, evidently a makeshift food), and a few snails. Caterpillars are the largest item, 38.31 percent of the whole food for the year. No grasshoppers or crickets were found.


As you see birds eat even wasps but no one butterfly. I would say it somehow contradict darwinistic fairy-tale about aposematic warning and mimetic cryptic coloration.

Charden Atfield said...

I agree with John that evolution occured and was driven by no way RM/NS.

Do you also agree with John's contention (see above) that "God did it, then he died"?

Or do you lean more towards the side of "Darwin's imaginary common ancestor is a parody of Christ" and "the theory of creation from Christ's body satisfies rational requirements"?

VMartin said...


Or do you lean more towards the side of "Darwin's imaginary common ancestor is a parody of Christ" and "the theory of creation from Christ's body satisfies rational requirements"?


Reading New testament first sentence seems to me to be correct in spiritual point of view. The second one - I am not sure. About "rational requirements" - we should have on mind also words of the first epistle of apostle Paul to the Corinthians:


27 But God hath chosen the afoolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

JohnADavison said...

Martin

Don't pay any attention to these fools. There is no reason why we should agree about everything anyway. Our possible differences are trivial compared to our shared certainties. These half-wits are just engaging in the time worn "divide and conquer" tactics that have always characterized intellectual losers wherever you find them.

God it is so gloriously satisfying to see such a demonstration of "prescribed" irreversible stupidity.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

As far as "God did it and then he died," I don't want anyone else to agree with me on that one because I want that to be a Davison original to the extent that is possible. Of course Nietzche said as much with his "God is dead" didn't he? Of course he did. You cannot die until you have lived. I thought everyone knew that but not Charden Atfield, snot bag extraordinaire. What a jerk.

I love it so!

I defy anyone anywhere to produce a scrap of evidence for a living God of any sort. You can't and you all know you can't. That does not mean that God does not exist. What it does mean is that there is no need for God or Gods to any longer exist and that is all that is required to proceed with our study of evolution. It is unthinkable that one or more Gods did not once exist, absolutely unthinkable.

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

Alan Fox said...

As you see birds eat even wasps but no one butterfly.

So, are you saying that butterflies have no predators and that mimicry is just a whim of the Intelligent designer?

Alan Fox said...

Our possible differences are trivial compared to our shared certainties.

Exactly. Certainty without evidence is not a convincing argument.

JohnADavison said...

I for one have never seen a bird eat a butterfly. Has anyone else? It is well documented that some birds occasionally do eat butterflies but it is not a common occurence by any means.

Falan

If you want evidence, both indirect and direct, try reading my papers and the works I have cited. It is perfectly obvious that you haven't. The things that Martin and I are mutually certain about are that every aspect of the Darwinian pipe dream is a monumental joke. If not chance then what? I say the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis is the only conceivable alternative.

I love it so!

It is easy to believe isn't it?

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

John's neighbor who keeps stealing his newspapers said...

VMartin:

So, what DO you think of John's whole "God did it, then he died" hypothesis?

Alan Fox said...

Denyse O'Leary, the well-known butterfly expert, has written an article on butterfly mimicry.


VMartin, I am surprised you don't quote this paper as evidence against the mainstream theories about how mimicry works.

VMartin asks:

As to mimicry - you can maybe explain us how birds have driven mimicry coloration to take place when it is dubious that birds are main predators of butterflies.

Are you sure you are not just assuming that birds are perceived to be the main predators of butterflies? "The list of butterfly predators is long. Suffice it to mention just ants, spiders, wasps, parasitic wasps, parasitic flies, birds, rats, toads, lizards, praying mantis, snakes and monkeys." I suspect all these predators use visual information when catching prey. (Orb-web spiders must be an exception, I guess.)

JohnADavison said...

Mimicry in butterflies may very well have been a whim of the designer or of course designers. So may have been many other beautiful expressions like the peacock's tale. Absolutely! Why not?

You Darwimps see adaptation everywhere you look yet you are unable to demonstrate it anywhere. You live in a fantasy world.

All through the past organisms have come, thrived and disappeared. The primary reason for their disappearance was predetermined and intrinsic in their nature and not the result of the environment in any way. Berg called these "autonomic" factors and they have been completely ignored by the Darwinians. The dinosaurs would have all disappeared even if there had been no catastrophic events. I agree with Robert Broom that the ancient flora and fauna were there as necessary intermediates in the evolution of the final definitive and irreversible forms which we see today. While all of evolution was saltational, the extent of the jumps was of course limited. It is inconceivable to directly transform an amphibian into a mammal or a bird. Those intermediate reptilian taxa were necessary not only to make the transformations possible but to maintain the balance of nature in the interim. It is certainly not inconceivable to transform a reptile into a bird which is what allowed Schindewolf to state with assurance -

"The first bird hatched from a reptilian egg,"

a position I support without reservation because it is in perfect accord with the fossil record.

There are now and never were any intermediates between the scale and the feather. The feathers of Archaeopteryx are indistinguishable from those of a pigeon. The next time you see a chicken examine his leg and look at the place where the scales give way to the feathers and try to find some transitional structures. Good luck! The scale and the feather are homologous nevertheless as proved by those chicken varieties with fully feathered feet (FFF), for those of you with IQs in the room temperature range.

Darwimpian gradualism is the most ridiculous aspect of a totally failed hypothesis, the biggest hoax in the history of science.

By the way Falan, at the very outset of this thread you claimed that I wanted to engage the folks from After The Bar Closes. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is typical of the sort of lies that you Darwimps are so expert at. I am here because I was invited all right but my purpose is only to expose all you retards as the losers that you really are. It is impossible to reason with any of you just as it is impossible to reason with religious fanatics. You are all stone deaf to Einstein's music of the spheres, music that I hear loud and clear.

I am getting bored gratifying your perpetually chronic masochism. The whole bunch of you are nothing but "precribed" intellectual lemmings deliberately, even gleefully, sacrificing yourselves on the Altar of Chance. It is a beautiful thing to provoke, witness and enjoy. Neverteless is does get tiresome!

I love it so!

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

JohnADavison said...

Martin

Don't you just love a bargain like this blog?

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

Alan Fox said...

John writes:

All through the past organisms have come, thrived and disappeared. The primary reason for their disappearance was predetermined and intrinsic in their nature and not the result of the environment in any way.

Yes, that does seem to sum up the difference of view between what I understand as the Darwinian view and yours. I just wonder, if the environment is irrelevant, how organisms find themselves in particular environments where they are able to survive because of their design and function. How would front-loading be able to ensure new species "unfolded" where they were "predestined" to survive? Selection seems a much simpler answer, to me at least.

JohnADavison said...

Natural selection is no more competent than artificial selection. Both are anti-evolutionary, serving only to maintain the status quo. They can't even do that indefinitely which is why the vast majority of all species become extinct looking just like the did the day they appeared. There were others that started looking pretty bad toward the end possibly due to the accumulation of deleterious genes.

You said it all Falan with your four last words - "to me at least."

Try this on for size -

"The struggle for existence and natural selection are not progressive agencies, but being, on the contrary, conservative, maintain the standard."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 406

and

"Evolution is in a great measure an unfolding of pre-existing rudiments."
ibid

Now stop making a fool of yourself and close up this disgraceful Darwimpian debacle (DDD). Have you no pride whatsoever? Apparently not.

"Mr. Fox, tear down this blog."
after Ronald Reagan

I love it so!

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

Alan Fox said...

Natural selection is no more competent than artificial selection. Both are anti-evolutionary, serving only to maintain the status quo.

Plant and animal husbandry has produced huge amounts of variety in cattle, horses, sheep, dogs, wheat etc., etc. Wheat, for instance is unrecognisable from its wild ancestor. Your statement that selective breeding is anti-evolutionary flies in the face of all the evidence.

Now stop making a fool of yourself and close up this disgraceful Darwimpian debacle

As you say, John, you are the star attraction here. If you wanted to write a topic for a new thread, by my own rules, I am duty-bound to post it. I would be sorry to see you go, but on the other hand, nobody is holding a gun to your head. Whatever you decide, I wish you well.

VMartin said...


Mimicry in butterflies may very well have been a whim of the designer or of course designers. So may have been many other beautiful expressions like the peacock's tale. Absolutely! Why not?

You Darwimps see adaptation everywhere you look yet you are unable to demonstrate it anywhere. You live in a fantasy world.


As far as I know there was not a serious research yet as to effetiveness of butterfly mimicry.
Its only claimed ad hoc that advantage of mimicry exist.
When darwinists make a photo of a bird having butterfly in beak they put it on inet with victorious hurah.

Yet research I mentioned previously showed that birds eats bees and aposematic wasps.

John, I am aware very well of darwinistc tactic to put us against each other. They intentions are clear as they pick up some sentences and focused attention on them.

VMartin said...

There is also an interesting case of Samurai crab that resembles samurais.

http://www.docbug.com/blog/archives/000701.html

Fisher tried to explain such resemblance by selection performed by fishermen!

So selection must be whatever it cost.

JohnADavison said...

Why would I want to introduce a topic here? I am here for one purpose only which is to expose Darwinism for what it has always been, a fiction, a lie, a hoax and a blight upon the face of reason.

I am engaged in a war with the Darwinians and the Fundamentalists alike. They are both dead wrong. Let me quote General George S. Patton -

"God help me, I do love it so. I love it more than my life.....I am going to be allowed to fulfill my destiny."

My destiny is to resurrrect my sources from the oblivion you cowardly,"prescribed" atheists have cynically and deliberately tried to bury them. You have gotten away with it far too long. You are all through, finished and like the Ether of Physics and the Phlogiston of Chemistry it is now Godless Darwinism that has become nothing but a pathetic footnote in the history of biological science. That is all that it ever was!

I love it so!

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

JohnADavison said...

I'm bored.

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable"
John A. Davison

Alan Fox said...

I you're bored, you could have a go at answering Mark Chu-Carroll's questions

John Davidson:

How about some *evidence* for any of that? That's an argument that I've heard numerous times before, but I've yet to see anyone actually *defend it* by showing actual evidence.

It's easy to talk and claim something like that, but it's a whole lot harder to actual turn that claim into a real scientific argument.

Just for example: there are a number of places where we've observed new genes, or new mutations of old genes - that is,
information or structure in the genes that is demonstrably
new.

For example, we've seen bacteria formed from a single clone
line develop penicillin resistance by way of a modified
cell-wall production pathway; that capability was *not* in the original genes of the bacteria that formed the cell line; but it wound up being produced after prolonged exposure to penicillin with clavulanic acid. (Clavulanic acid blocks the actions of penicillinase, which is the common mode of penicillin resistance.)

Studies of the resultant line of resistant bacteria show modifications of the gene that codes for the production
of the cell-wall component normally interfered with by
penicillin. That is, we can sequence the specific genes of a normal bacterial strain, and the same genes in a resistant
strain, and identify the differences. That difference was *not* originally in the gene; and it is not the case that
an old gene was switched off and a new one switched on - it's the same gene, but modified. How can you explain that in terms of your theory?

VMartin said...

John:

I am engaged in a war with the Darwinians and the Fundamentalists alike. They are both dead wrong.


Anyway that does not mean that idea you represents should be denigrated by them. At least you influenced me very.

It was Konfucius opinion: when all dismiss any person be carefull. Do not agree with them and do not agree with them when they celebrate somebody too. But think deeply whats the reason of it instead.

It was also fate one of the greatest philosoph of modern era from 19 century Soren Kierkegaard -he was openly ridiculed and denigrated on streets of Kodane by mobs.

And yet you are not alone. There are many anti-darwinist scientists neglected by science community nowadays. These great men dismissed darwinism and yet nobody can prove them to be wrong. I cited German contemporary scientist Suchantke and prominent Czech biologist professor of Charles University Neubauer. He turned to be antidarwinist and he create his own conception of evolution based on Goethes and Nietzsches legacy.

Your Manifesto continued in best tradition of independent scientific thinking and it gives lot of interesting facts and ideas for persons who need some explanations of forces behind evolution process in era of neo-darwinism.

VMartin said...

Alan cited:

Studies of the resultant line of resistant bacteria show modifications of the gene that codes for the production
of the cell-wall component normally interfered with by
penicillin.


As far as I know from professor Neubauer there is still no clear scientific explanation how penicillin function or take effect.


Theories trying to clearly explain penicilline effects changes like my socks every day. Whats the latest one?

Alan Fox said...

VMartin wrote:

Theories trying to clearly explain penicilline effects changes like my socks every day. Whats the latest one?

On the contrary, the action of penicillin on gram-positive bacteria seems well understood, preventing the cross-linking of peptidoglycan (the main cell wall component) making them susceptible to lysis.

VMartin said...

Neubauer vs. neodarwinian supporter scientist Grygar in Czech state radio:

Mechanismy účinku, antibiotik nebo analogů, neurotransmitorů se už mnohokrát měnily a typické účinky ukazují, že asi vo ty molekulární mechanismy a vo ty modely in vitro pravděpodobně v terapeutických účincích i alopatických léků vůbec nejde.

http://www.phil.muni.cz/fil/ruzne/grygarvsneubauer.html

my poor translation:
"Mechanisms of effects of antiboitics, analogs and neurotransmiters have changed many times and typical effects show that moleculars mechanisms and models in vitro probably are not the explanation of it in therapeutic outcomes."

VMartin said...

Have a look on Neubauer research published all around the world in prominent scientific sources.
Neubauer works

Alan Fox said...

"Mechanisms of effects of antiboitics, analogs and neurotransmiters have changed many times and typical effects show that moleculars mechanisms and models in vitro probably are not the explanation of it in therapeutic outcomes."

Unfortunately, I do not understand Czech. You originally claimed theories of how penicillin works have come and gone rapidly. I point out that the action of penicillin is well understood. Your latest translated statement does not seem to support your claim.

VMartin said...

Is penicillin not antibiotic any more?

Alan Fox said...

You originally claimed theories of how penicillin works have come and gone rapidly. A translated remark from a Czech radio program is hardly supporting evidence for your claim.

Alan Fox said...

Your claim would be supported if you could find scientific articles giving different explanations for the antibiotic effect of penicillin. Your claim would be well supported if these articles occurred as often as you change your socks.

JohnADavison said...

Falan Ox you miserable little two-faced hypocrite. You kept me from posting all day long and only relented when I exposed you once more at "brainstorms." How many times did I have to do that? I can't remember.

Do yourself a favor and close this blog down. You are an embarrassment to yourself, your moronic cronies at Welsberry's Last Stand and most of all to your family. Martin has exposed the whole rotten lot of you as intellectual trailer trash, subnormal masochistic losers and the dregs of a dead hypothesis. Darwimpianism isn't even an hypothesis because it makes no predictions. "Random walks" are not predictable don't you know. I gave you every opportunity to rescue yourself from yourself and you turned me down flat. Now live with it for the rest of your useless life you degenerate creep. Now go right ahead and deny that the blocked message didn't descend on me for the umteenth time. I'm fed up with your hypocrisy and mendacity.

Imagine folks, if you can, a thread specifically for me on which I cannot contribute without having to expose its sponsor every time he blocks me. Isn't that the bottom of the barrel? Of course it is!

It is no wonder that -

I love it so!

It is hard to believe isn't it?

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

Alan Fox said...

359. John A. Davison Says:
January 6th, 2007 at 3:27 pm |

That cowardly, uneducated twerp Alan Fox has now made it impossible for me to post at the very thread he set up just for me - "John Davison, this is for you."

How low can a Darwimp stoop?

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so!

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

Comment by John A. Davison — January 6, 2007 @ 3:27 pm
360. John A. Davison Says:
January 6th, 2007 at 4:37 pm |

That cowardly little twerp Fox has now made it impossible for me to post at the thread he presented just for me - "John Davison, this is for you."

How low can that Darwimpian creep stoop?

It is hard to believe isn't it?

Not for me it isn't.

I love it so!'

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

Comment by John A. Davison — January 6, 2007 @ 4:37 pm

Telic Thoughts is proudly powered by WordPress

How many more times do I need to say this John. I am not blocking you. I have never blocked you. I will never* block you.

*usual caveats apply.

JohnADavison said...

It is hard to believe isn't it?

VMartin said...

Alan

The list of butterfly predators is long. Suffice it to mention just ants, spiders, wasps, parasitic wasps, parasitic flies, birds, rats, toads, lizards, praying mantis, snakes and monkeys." I suspect all these predators use visual information when catching prey. (Orb-web spiders must be an exception, I guess.)


This list is a curious one. I have never heard about rats preying butterflies on the meadow. I am also not convinced that snakes whose eyes are able detect mainly movement will appreciate perfect mimicry of some butterfly species resting on the ground. Same for the wasps - btw range of vision of mentioned species go from infra red (wasps) to ultraviolet (birds). We should not forget that wings of butterflies are closed when butterfles rest (unlike moths) and bottom side of them are unconspicuous.

And if toads can even distinguish between palatable, unpalatable and mimic species is very dubious on my opinion.

In one of your post you put link that proved inefficiency of eye spots of butterflies against predators.

So we can seen that darwinistic explanation of mimicry has more to do with blind belief of omnipotence of selection as with real knowledge of evolution forces behind it.

JohnADavison said...

Martin

I already described the pet toad that I used to roll bbs at in lecture. He would lap them up until he couldn't move. Then I would take him by the hindlegs, hold him head down and shake the bbs out again. He would then repeat the performance.

The Darwimps see adaptation everywhere when it may not even exist. The patterns of butterflies may be only for self recognition or may even have no significance whatsover, although I suspect the former.

Why do otters love to spend hours mud sliding? What is its adaptive significance? Isn't it obvious that they are just having fun? Aren't squirrels just having fun chasing one another around? My goldfish do the same thing. Darwimps are such jerks don't you know.

"Animals are not always struggling for existence. Most of the time they are sitting around doing nothing at all."
anonymous

A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

JohnADavison said...

Would you please remind your cronies over at the Slippery Floor Saloon that none of the following ever had anything whatever to do with any aspect of the evolutionary scenario beyond the establishment of intraspecific varieties or subspecies, none of which are incipient species anyway.
1. Chance.
2. Selection, natural or artificial.
3. Sexual reproduction.
4. Mendelian Genetics.
5. Population Genetics.
6. Founder effect.
7. Allelic mutations.
8. Time constants greater than minutes.

Please transmit this message for me. I want to watch the reaction.Thank you very much.

"A past evolution undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

Alan Fox said...

John and Martin

This thread is getting rather long. John has said he is not interested in initiating a thread, so, perhaps Martin would like to. You could, for instance, develop your theory of butterfly mimcry, or any other subject you prefer. If you email me the text, I will post it as a thread subject.

Alan Fox said...

Please transmit this message for me. I want to watch the reaction.Thank you very much.

Somebody will soon notice if you have anything new or interesting to say, John.

VMartin said...

John,

I dont know what the bbs is. You have mentioned it in the first post of this interesting experiment.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 400 of 403   Newer› Newest»