Notices
Results 1 to 35 of 35

Thread: Metamorphoses and insect flight; How bugs got their wings.

  1. #1 Metamorphoses and insect flight; How bugs got their wings. 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    Darwinian evolutionary models have yet to explain how this abrupt transitional phases could develop in a liner way.
    The following is probable non linear explanation of how the pupa stage of insect development could be compressed into and adaptive evolutionary stage toward flight.

    One mechanism needed, is for the flightless
    ancestors of the insects to develop a morphological feature that could accumulate information toward flight.

    But that still can not explain the whole metamorphoses process.

    How would this developmental leap of the pupa stage be compressed in this way?

    I believe the key steps to build this new body plan lies in the molting stage.
    In the pupa stage the wings appear to form from the outer skin. This then must be the morphological feature that collected the Information needed over generations to develop flight. Just as the bird developed the capability of flight though the tail feathers.
    But how?


    Here is a scenario; eggs hatch in the ground, the caterpillar climbs into the trees and feeds and grows. It goes though a molting stage during this stage it climbs to the high part of the tree and uses the still connected, but light weight skin to catch the wind and disperse though the air.

    This cyclical adaptation will not only form wings but will simultaneously become compressed and combined into the molting stage.



    But, prior to that [millions of years ago] the skin would be retained just long enough to catch the wind and disperse the caterpillar though the environment. As soon as the caterpillar landed it would finish molting and discard the "sail" of light skin and remain a caterpillar.
    After millions of generations of this process it will transform the temporary sail into a permanent set of wings.


    This cyclical adaptation will not only form wings but will simultaneously become compressed and combined into the molting stage .


    The pupa is nothing more than a complex adaptive molt, That has developed over time by compressing information of past complex molting behavior.

    Its quite simple.


    The partially molted skin is the morphological feature needed to collect information to create wings, they became the wings.


     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Metamorphoses and insect flight; How bugs got their wing 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Metatron
    Darwinian evolutionary models have yet to explain how these abrupt transitional phases could develop in a linear way.
    That's why we use neo-Darwinian models.


     

  4. #3 Re: Metamorphoses and insect flight; How bugs got their wing 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Metatron
    Darwinian evolutionary models have yet to explain how these abrupt transitional phases could develop in a linear way.
    That's why we use neo-Darwinian models.

    I see you are still utilizing your egocentric we are the many, you are the stupid debate tactic. Ho-hum.
    OK, what is the neo-Darwinian approch to metamorphoses.
     

  5. #4  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Absolutely no idea. Just trying to encourage you to be scientifically precise in your pronouncements.
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    Metatron wrote:
    Darwinian evolutionary models have yet to explain how these abrupt transitional phases could develop in a linear way.
    That's why we use neo-Darwinian models.

    Metatron
    OK, what is the neo-Darwinian approch to metamorphoses.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Absolutely no idea. Just trying to encourage you to be scientifically precise in your pronouncements.


    Don't be a snake now, when you said: "That's why we use neo-Darwinian models."


    This statement implies that Neo-Darwinian models have answered these questions. If they haven’t my use of "Darwinian models" remains perfectly applicable. Unless you believe RM and NS no longer apply in the neo-Darwinian models.


    Neo-Darwinism as modified by the findings of modern genetics can only account for a genetically driven morphological transformation that is an end product of adaptive behavior.
    The model I just presented is a possible adaptive scenario that is needed to produce new genetic info to build new morphological features.
    Also a cyclical process that can compress this genetic information though successive generations.


    Neo-Darwinian models do not apply to these types of adaptive models. However The old Darwinian models of RM,NS combined with chaos merge beautifully.
     

  7. #6  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by MetaTron
    I have put my money up front on this forum.
    Two evolutionary models, one on bird flight, one on insect flight.
    I have answered both of your comments on these threads, so actually you have to address the answers that are posed, not run away from them.
    I'm waiting.
    Extracted from another thread
    Wait no more.

    You postulate insect wings developing from the pupa stage.

    How do you account for the fact that metamorphosis that included a pupal stage followed, and did not precede, the development of flight in insects.

    This single fact appears to be a fatal flaw in your speculation. It does not seem possible that wings could evolve from a stage in insect development that did not exist at a time when those wings developed. I see no logical twist by which this could be possible. Would you agree?
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by MetaTron
    I have put my money up front on this forum.
    Two evolutionary models, one on bird flight, one on insect flight.
    I have answered both of your comments on these threads, so actually you have to address the answers that are posed, not run away from them.
    I'm waiting.
    Extracted from another thread
    Wait no more.

    You postulate insect wings developing from the pupa stage.

    How do you account for the fact that metamorphosis that included a pupal stage followed, and did not precede, the development of flight in insects.

    This single fact appears to be a fatal flaw in your speculation. It does not seem possible that wings could evolve from a stage in insect development that did not exist at a time when those wings developed. I see no logical twist by which this could be possible. Would you agree?
    No !
    Let me make sure I understand you, Are you saying because their are insects that have wings before the pupa stage this invalidates my model?



    Also,
    Am I to assume since you are choosing to ignoring my rebuttal on your previous post cocerning the use of the term neo-Darwinism, that you concede that my usage in the context is correct.
     

  9. #8  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Metatron
    No !
    Let me make sure I understand you, Are you saying because their are insects that have wings before the pupa stage this invalidates my model?
    You don't understand me. Let me lay it out in a different way.

    1. You speculate that wings evolved from processes occuring during the pupa stage. This speculation you express very clearly with these words:
    eggs hatch in the ground, the caterpillar climbs into the trees and feeds and grows. It goes though a molting stage during this stage it climbs to the high part of the tree and uses the still connected, but light weight skin to catch the wind and disperse though the air.
    2. Therefore, for your speculation to be true, the insects which are to evolve wings must pass through a pupa stage.
    3. Not all insects pass through all the stages of metamorphosis.
    4. Full metamorphosis, including the pupa stage, was not present in early insects.
    5. Before the insects evolved such metamorphoses they had already evolved wings.
    6. Therefore, the evolution of wings cannot be associated with the pupa stage, as you have speculated.
    7. i.e. your speculation is fatally flawed.

    Am I to assume since you are choosing to ignoring my rebuttal on your previous post cocerning the use of the term neo-Darwinism, that you concede that my usage in the context is correct.
    Do not assume this. It would be an incorrect assumption.
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    Metatron wrote
    1. You speculate that wings evolved from processes occuring during the pupa stage. This speculation you express very clearly with these words:
    eggs hatch in the ground, the caterpillar climbs into the trees and feeds and grows. It goes though a molting stage during this stage it climbs to the high part of the tree and uses the still connected, but light weight skin to catch the wind and disperse though the air.
    Ophiolite
    2. Therefore, for your speculation to be true, the insects which are to evolve wings must pass through a pupa stage.

    Molting stage, not pupa your being deceptive as usual, naughty, naughty.
     

  11. #10  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Then you need to define what you mean by the molting stage. I am not trying to trip you up. It is clear in your post that the change occurs when the caterpillar metamorphoses into a butterfly. Does that, or does that not occur during pupation?
    As posted, it clearly does. You need to explain exactly what you mean, because from here it appears that you are attempting to wriggle out of a no-win situation.
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    Then you need to define what you mean by the molting stage. I am not trying to trip you up. It is clear in your post that the change occurs when the caterpillar metamorphoses into a butterfly. Does that, or does that not occur during pupation?
    Yea it does but their are about 8 bazillion arthropods going though stages of development all occurring around molting cycles some are just more compressed than others. Here or just a few.




    1. Continuous molting from juvenile to adult without marked metamorphosis. Adults continue to molt throughout life. Example: Silverfish.

    2. Continuous molting from juvenile to adult, with a morphological change of varying degrees between juvenile and adult- no quiescent (pupal) stage. Example: Mayflies (two adult stages). Dragonflies (1 adult stage), Orthopteroid insects.

    3. Continuous molting from juvenile to adult, with a morphological change between juvenile and adult, transition with a single non-feeding and relatively queiscent final larval instar. Example: Thrips, some Scale.

    4. Continuous molting from juvenile to adult, with a morphological change between juvenile and adult, transition with two non-feeding and relatively queiscent final larval instar. Example: Some other Thrips.

    5. Compression of final quiescent instars into a single pupal stage and corresponding enlargement of first larval stage. Example: Holometabola.


    This information is originally attributed to "Myrmecos (Member # 239)" at http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultim...;f=13;t=002318 Post #000033 dated 06-09-2005 08:55 PM |

    --edit by SkinWalker


    The metamorphic pupa is just what I said, nothing more than a complex molt compressed from past complex molting behavior.


    Now tell me how any of this contradicts;Metamorphoses and insect flight; How bugs got their wings.
     

  13. #12  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Metatron
    Yea it does but their are about 8 bazillion arthropods going though stages of development all occurring around molting cycles some are just more compressed than others. Here or just a few.
    This is simply wrong. It has the appearance of truth. It hels to support your position, but it is incorrect.
    This is a clear example of what has enraged me (enraged is the correct word) in many of your previous posts in other forums. Your error is either:
    a) Intended to deceive, in which case you are being dishonest.
    b) Careless use of terminology, in which case you have no business posting idle speculations with such an accompanying measure of certainty.
    c) Ignorance of the truth, in which case you have no business posting idle speculations with such an accompanying measure of certainty.

    Oh, what was wrong with it? The molting cycles, by which I take you to mean the stages of metamorphosis, are not compressed, but expanded. I trust you can see the immense difference this makes.
    I cannot reply to your further points until I understand where you are positioned on this.
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    This is simply wrong. It has the appearance of truth. It hels to support your position, but it is incorrect.
    This is a clear example of what has enraged me (enraged is the correct word) in many of your previous posts in other forums. Your error is either:
    a) Intended to deceive, in which case you are being dishonest.
    b) Careless use of terminology, in which case you have no business posting idle speculations with such an accompanying measure of certainty.
    c) Ignorance of the truth, in which case you have no business posting idle speculations with such an accompanying measure of certainty.

    All of these acusations of, ingnorance,deception, Careless use of terminology,ect are based on this..

    are not compressed, but expanded. I trust you can see the immense difference this makes.
    Kind of anticlimactic don’t you think.


    5. Compression of final quiescent instars into a single pupal stage and corresponding enlargement of first larval stage. Example: Holometabola

    So your argunent is based now on this word Compression ?

    This is not my word it is an entomologist,

    Anything else ?


    Oh and by the way, the same entomologist said this about my model;

    From another forum and thread

    Metatron definitely nails one aspect of this issue: molting is a prerequisite for nearly all major organizational changes in insects. These are animals that periodically grow entirely new skin under the old one. Opens up all sorts of possibilities, while closing others.
    [Entomology Grad Student Interests: Insect systematics]

    from the same forum


    Hi, I never really looked into the evolution of the pupa, but your proposal seems simple aqnd straightforward, especially when you take evolution in the larva to adult scenario (which is from an engineering point the only solution I guess). Have you detailed your 'complex adaptive molt' scenario.
    Albert DeRoos Amsterdam
    Occupation: Consultant, Scientist
     

  15. #14  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Metatron
    kind of anticlimactic don’t you think.
    Not at all.
    5. Compression of final quiescent instars into a single pupal stage and corresponding enlargement of first larval stage. Example: Holometabola

    So your argunent is based now on this word Compression

    This is not my word it is an entomologist

    Anything else ?
    I believe you are being deliberately provocative.
    Where is the quote from? Journal, volume and page number.
    Who is the entomologist?
    What is the context of the quote?
    When was it made?
    (Where do your words begin, and theirs end?)

    Do you seriously intend the above to be a proper reply to my query? You say you wish a proper discussion on your speculations, then please behave in a proper manner and provide adequate references for your quotations. As it is I have from you a disconnected paragraph, a taxonomic term, and an alleged assignment to an entomologist. And that is meant to be a refutation of my point! Remarkable. So yes, very definitely there is an 'anything else' - a proper reply, please.
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    Seek counseling, your the one constanlty being deseptive not I.

    I believe you are being deliberately provocative.
    Its your hole not mine :wink:
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    Ophiolite
    You must realise that they sit out there at their keyboards and monitors waiting with the patience of experienced predators. Waiting for the game to come into view, but not pouncing. Waiting.
    Waiting, while they study their movements, their style, deducing the nature of their psyche, looking for the weakness.
    They see a weakness and then they pounce. The less experienced predators strike too early, allowing the game to jump adroitly out of the way. The prey feels momentary elation and relaxes, for the moment safe. But the seasoned predator is still out there, waiting, waiting for the fatal strike.
    This is your alter ego as you said.


    And this is mine


    Metatron
    But he warned his apprentice, as you follow these behaviors and set your snares every day in the same way, you also make yourself venerable because you too are being observed.
    He said there were predators even more attuned to theses circular patterns of the dessert, so some day something could be waiting for you along one of your well worn paths.

    He went on to say that there existed in nature an ultimate balance between awareness of these cyclical movements in the world and a spontaneity of action in ones self, an unpredictability that wells up from the spirit.
    Once this balance is achieved the hunter becomes a “magical warrior.”
    “A magical warrior can never be trapped” don Juan said or “be caught without an escape route,” because he can never be reduced to behaviors .
     

  18. #17  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Metatron
    Seek counseling, your the one constanlty being deseptive not I.

    Its your hole not mine :wink:
    Metatron, cut the crap. You know perfectly well that in a scientific discussion, when the work of others is specifically mentioned or quoted, that it is correct to give a full reference for the cited material or concept.
    Please provide that for your alleged quotation from an entomologist. If you fail to do so I can only presume that it does not exist and your house of cards must necessarily collapse.

    In one sense it is decidedly academic (in the most perjorative sense of the word). You have quite altered your proposition from:

    the caterpillar climbs into the trees and feeds and grows. It goes though a molting stage during this stage it climbs to the high part of the tree and uses the still connected, but light weight skin to catch the wind and disperse though the air.


    This was how you outline your thesis? Yes? I certainly copied it directly from your original. The emphasis (bold) is mine. You clearly stipulate that it is a caterpillar that is involved. The caterpillar then pupates. So regardless of the role you now claim for pupation within your thesis you are basing the thesis upon a creature that pupates.
    This form of metamorphosis was not present until after wings had evolved.
    Therefore, I ask again, how do you reconcile these two?

    Set aside the fact that I think you are a bit of an asshole - I am sure you hold me in the same high regard. You wanted a discussion about your speculation. Since this is a science forum I have to believe you were looking for critical discussion, not gasps of awe and wonder. That is what I am giving you.
    Your thesis, as so far presented, is simply illogical. Either it is flawed, or you have explained it very badly. I don't care too much which it is, but I should think you would. Anyone with any reasonable science education reading this will be able to reach two conclusions:
    a) I am a rude arrogant bastard.
    b) You are talking rubbish, or talking the truth very, very badly.

    I am quite happy to pay the price of a) to demonstrate the veracity of b).
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    Everthing I'v presented is clear and true, you have presented confusion, deseption, false innuendo.
    You cut the crap.
    Let me be clear you are full of everthing you accuse everyone else of. seek counseling, heal thy self.

    A deciever cannot be a defender of the truth.

    You never really grasped the very core of what most people love about science, truth.

    You approach this subject like a shyster layer trying to win a case and your only client is a chip on your shoulder and your wounded ego.

    You will never understand science until you can love truth.
     

  20. #19  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Please provide the reference for the citation you have made.
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultim...3;t=002318;p=0

    I suggest anyone reading this thread also read the thread I am referencing above.
    It is an excellent example how a scientific discussion can bring about new ways of seeing and solving a problem.
     

  22. #21  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Metatron
    Everthing I'v presented is clear and true,
    If your presentations possess such clarity and truth can you explain why they have not been embraced by any part of the scientific community? I don't believe you can, for your concepts appear to be derived from fanciful speculation.

    Now, fanciful speculation is no bad thing. I indulge in it myself on a daily if not hourly basis. Fanciful speculation has led to some of the major breakthroughs in science. However, in each of those instances the fanciful speculation has then been subject to rigorous self criticism and comparison of the new hypothesis with established fact.

    This you do not appear to have done. Worse, when I raise what seems to be a major flaw in your thesis, your refutation lacks any of the marks of an academic response. When I pursue you on the issue you resort to increasingly vindicitive ad hominem attacks.

    [I have no issue whatsover with you attacking me personally. I am quite immune to such trivia. Please do continue if it helps you sort your thoughts out.]

    Quote Originally Posted by Metatron
    you presented confusion, deseption, false innuendo.
    You cut the crap. Let me be clear you are full of everthing you accuse everyone else of. .
    If I have presented confusion I apologise. I value clear communucation as highly as I value anything. If I have failed to the point where I have created confusion, then I this concerns me greatly.

    Please indicate, as far as you are able, where I have confused. In mitigation I would say it is difficult not to deliver a confused reply when responding to your poorly presented concepts.

    I do not practice deseption. I do not even practice deception. I cannot think of why I should wish to engage in deception in this, or in any other thread on this forum.

    Deception has its place in life. It is not always a bad thing: many speak favourably of using 'little white lies' to protect people's feelings; deception surrounding the code breaking of the German ciphers in WWII doubtless saved thousands of allied lives and arguably won the war.
    That said, I use it rarely; I find its value over-rated; it is to often transparent. I have not used deception in this forum and am at a loss to see where you feel I have done so. It seems to me much more likely it a matter of you misunderstanding me: I have all ready offered my apologies for failing to be clear.

    I have used innuendo. I have thought it more polite and gentlemanly to imply you had crackpot ideas than to come right out and say it. If you prefer I will avoid all innuendo in future, calling a spade a spade, and a nutcase a nutcase. Ooops. Was that a bit of innuendo slipping in at the last moment? I do apologise.

    You note that I am full of everything I accuse everyone else of.

    Let's see: I am arrogant, opinionated, direct (and capable of innuendo), argumentative, intolerant (of sloppy thinking, prejudice and closed minds), provocative, eccentric, intense, pragmatic, egotistical, enthusiastic, mercurial, eclectic, moody, ethical, maniacal, effervescent, dedicated, imaginative.

    There's a lot more. But I'm also easily bored, so I'll stop there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Metatron
    A deciever cannot be a defender of the truth.
    I have already explained that, while there are many things you can accuse me of, this one will not stick. I am not a deceiver.

    Quote Originally Posted by Metatron
    You never really grasped the very core of what most people love about science, truth.
    You can see into my heart can you Metatron, and into the hearts of others?

    I'm not sure what most people love about science. I know what I love about it: the knowledge; the revelation of complexity and inter-relationships; the sense of discovery; the sense of suprise; the uncertainty; the paradigm shifts; the drama; the struggles; the expansion of understanding; the corresponding growth of ignorance.

    Well, I didn't see truth in there, did you? I would say science is not about truth, it is about the journey towards truth. And if science tells us anything it tells us we are probably never going to arrive there - certainly not in our lifetimes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Metatron
    You approuch this subject like a shister layer trying to win a case and your only client is a chip on your shoulder and your wounded ego.
    I share Dicken's view of the legal profession so that's quite a wounding statement.

    Yes, I am trying to win a case: in this instance the case is that your thesis is flawed, probably fatally. Where I differ from a 'shister' is that I only need to take the cases in which I believe.

    I take it from your further ad hominem remarks that you are a well balanced personality: a chip on each shoulder.

    My ego is not wounded. It doesn't even have a touch of hay fever. I haven't seen anything in your thoughtful posts to generate a wound, nor anything in my prior life to inflict such an injury. Rather the reverse: my philosophy is that failure is simply deferred success.

    Finally, you suggested I should seek counselling. May I ask if it did much for you?
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    Finally, you suggested I should seek counselling. May I ask if it did much for you?


    Yes, I find that it is a invaluable tool to gain perspective in difficult times and helps me restore my faith in myself and my fellow man. After all, it is science.
     

  24. #23  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Thank you for the link Metatron (http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultim...3;t=002318;p=0
    ) . It was unexpectedly revealing. I do feel as if I have moved much closer to the truth.

    I was reading it with interest when I came upon this:

    1. Continuous molting from juvenile to adult without marked metamorphosis. Adults continue to molt throughout life. Example: Silverfish.
    2. Continuous molting from juvenile to adult, with a morphological change of varying degrees between juvenile and adult- no quiescent (pupal) stage. Example: Mayflies (two adult stages). Dragonflies (1 adult stage), Orthopteroid insects.
    3. Continuous molting from juvenile to adult, with a morphological change between juvenile and adult, transition with a single non-feeding and relatively queiscent final larval instar. Example: Thrips, some Scale.
    4. Continuous molting from juvenile to adult, with a morphological change between juvenile and adult, transition with two non-feeding and relatively queiscent final larval instar. Example: Some other Thrips.
    5. Compression of final quiescent instars into a single pupal stage and corresponding enlargement of first larval stage. Example: Holometabola.


    It is, word for word, a duplicate of the item posted by yourself on Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:25 am.

    There are two relevant points about this post:

    Point 1:
    These are not Metatron's words. He has lifted these from another post on the linked forum by an individual known as myrmecos. This is a process called plagiarism. It is also called stealing. It is deceitful.

    The proper behaviour when copying and pasting a body of text like that is to credit the original writer and , preferably, to provide references to where it has been sourced. (And Metatron, that has to be done in the orginal use of the material, not accidentally several posts later.)

    Point 2: He is using item 5. from the quoted material to defend his thesis.
    mrymecos, we are told is an entomologist. We do not know what his qualifications are precisely. It probably doesn't matter. What does matter is that his opinion is not peer reviewed and is therefore of little value in defending Metatron's thesis. Metatron's argument is now reduced to "Well myrmecos said it's true". On top of all that mrymecos even opens this list with the remark that his points are 'off the top of my head'.

    Metatron, I thought you were a guy with a few whacky ideas, that might be worth taking a closer look at if they could stand up to some probing.
    I was wrong.

    Enjoy your delusions, but, you'll be glad to know, you can enjoy them without me. [In the interests of protecting the innocent and gullible I reserve the right to point our further flaws in your thinking: I just wont debate them with you.]
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    Point 1: These are not Metatron's words. He has lifted these from another post on the linked forum by an individual known as myrmecos. This is a process called plagiarism. It is also called stealing. It is deceitful.


    From earleir in this thread

    5. Compression of final quiescent instars into a single pupal stage and corresponding enlargement of first larval stage. Example: Holometabola

    So your argunent is based now on this word Compression ?

    This is not my word it is an entomologist,

    Anything else ?
    Who's being deceitfull.
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,376
    Don's mod hat

    I'll thank you gentlemen (making an assumption here, but if lady applies anywhere feel free to substitute) to remain civil and refrain from thread that resorts to flames.


    Having said that, I must agree with Ophiolite, Metatron. You did indeed plagerize someone's work in the post of this thread with date/time of Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:25 am. In that post you failed to properly cite the alleged entomologist at all and only fleetingly mentioned that your words were of another source in a separate post.

    The deception may not have been deliberate, but it did, indeed, exist.

    Please refrain from such activity in the future. I have updated the offending post to include the citation.

    Gives hat back to Don.
     

  27. #26  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Sorry SkinWalker, this was written while you were posting your admonition. For me Metatron has simply gone too far. I provide a practical solution to halting my incivility in the second half of the post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Metatron
    Who's being deceitfull.
    You are being deceitful.. It is there for all to see. The first time you posted the entire list you made no reference to anyone else. It was only on the second post that you made some half hearted, obscure attempt to credit it.

    Further, stating "this is not my word it is (sic) an entomologist." is not giving proper credit. It is certainly not providing proper reference.
    It is unprofessional. It is deceitful. It is unacceptable.

    The first instance was at best ill-manners, at worst plagiarism.

    To come in now and try to claim that second post as though it was the first is simply dishonest.


    Mods and Admins, would you be good enough to ban my sorry ass from this forum. Not his ass. My ass. Such banning to be permanent or until Metatron is but a dim memory, the choice between the two, obviously, to be yours.
    Because if this self serving little parcel of sanctimonious crap continues to peddle his obnoxious pseudo-science, wrapped up in infantile illiteracy any further I'll make this diatribe sound like a recommendation to the Nobel Prize committee on his behalf, and I really don't want to lower myself that far, nor can I exercise the necessary restraint when faced with this putrefying asshole. Nor do I have any intention of infringing my own strong belief in freedom of speech to ask you to ban him. Banning me becomes the only logical option.
    Thank you for your attention.
    I've enjoyed my four hundred odd posts (I liked the even ones too.)
    Goodnight.
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    I am sorry Sorry SkinWalkerfor not sighting the reference a more this timely manner this was not intentional but this has little to do with legitimacy of my work it is merely a general list of insects and their molting behavior and does not reflect any original work however I will try to post more carefully in the future.
     

  29. #28 Re: Metamorphoses and insect flight; How bugs got their wing 
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,376
    Quote Originally Posted by Metatron
    Darwinian evolutionary models have yet to explain how this abrupt transitional phases could develop in a liner way.
    My area of interest lies more in primate evolution than insect or avian, but I remembered an article in a copy of Nature that I have on my shelf.

    Averof, M., and Cohen, S.M. (1997) Evolutionary origin of insect wings from ancestral gills. Nature, 385, 627-630

    With regard to insect wings, Averof and Cohen write in their introduction, "[t]wo hypotheses have been proposed for the origin of insect wings. One holds that wings evolved by modification of limb branches that were already present in multibranched ancestral appendages and probably served as gills. The second proposes that wings arose as novel outgrowths of the body wall, not from dorsal structures of multibranched appendages."

    These authors make the case that insect wings evolved from the gills of aquatic ancestors and have the genetic data to show it in their paper cited above.

    I would also point out that there is some evidence that bats and primates originated from a common ancestor based on morphological similarities in dentition and mandibular/maxillary shape. Perhaps a species diverged that gradually increased it's vertical clinging and leaping ability to the point that it was able to take flight. Birds may have shared a similar ancestory with reptiles that had some leaping ability. The leaping would have allowed a species (primate or reptillian) to radiate into niches where it could out compete other species or take advantage of competitive release of a niche. The best & lightest leapers -the more efficient- may have found foraging to be more successful and would have had increased abilities to avoid predators.
     

  30. #29 Flight is developed by adaptive behavior 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    From Metamorphoses and insect flight; How bugs got their wings
    Metatron wrote:
    Darwinian evolutionary models have yet to explain how this abrupt transitional phases could develop in a liner way.
    Skin waker wrote:
    My area of interest lies more in primate evolution than insect or avian, but I remembered an article in a copy of Nature that I have on my shelf.

    Averof, M., and Cohen, S.M. (1997) Evolutionary origin of insect wings from ancestral gills. Nature, 385, 627-630

    With regard to insect wings, Averof and Cohen write in their introduction, "[t]wo hypotheses have been proposed for the origin of insect wings. One holds that wings evolved by modification of limb branches that were already present in multibranched ancestral appendages and probably served as gills. The second proposes that wings arose as novel outgrowths of the body wall, not from dorsal structures of multibranched appendages."

    These authors make the case that insect wings evolved from the gills of aquatic ancestors and have the genetic data to show it in their paper cited above.

    I would also point out that there is some evidence that bats and primates originated from a common ancestor based on morphological similarities in dentition and mandibular/maxillary shape. Perhaps a species diverged that gradually increased it's vertical clinging and leaping ability to the point that it was able to take flight. Birds may have shared a similar ancestory with reptiles that had some leaping ability. The leaping would have allowed a species (primate or reptillian) to radiate into niches where it could out compete other species or take advantage of competitive release of a niche. The best & lightest leapers -the more efficient- may have found foraging to be more successful and would have had increased abilities to avoid predators




    Flight is developed by adaptive behavior. The wings formed in the scenario that I described. They formed around existing morphological features that allowed for powered flight from either gills or appendages. But flight is formed around adaptive behavior this dives morphological change. This is the side of the equation your leaving out.

    Insects are not going to grow wings out their gills or out their appendages to acquire flight, anymore than a theropod is going to start growing flight feathers on their arms.
    Flight developed elsewhere in existing features that could compress information found in the surrounding air currents, and then found existing mechanics to attach itself to, either gills and extra appendages. Just as the flight feathers found their way to the arms for powered flight in the bird. My scenario fits it all together morphologically metamorphicly and dynamically.

    Again;
    I am filling in the gaps on how the wings development and got compressed in the metamorphic stage.
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    I have reopened the thread. Beyond this post the discussion about plagiarism will seize, and I will consider this matter closed. Further discussion here will deal with the original topic of the thread.

    Though my knowledge of law is most specifically concentrated on that of Dutch law, the problem lies much in "how one properly defines another text to be that of another". An attempt was made (put in bold), but this was clearly not understood by others. Is this plagiarism? I will not choose sides in this conflict, but the error has been corrected by SkinWalker, who included the source in the thread. I suggest Metatron takes better heed in the future when quoting/citing other people. There are various websites that can be found giving good tips on how to accomplish this. For both parties, after all, such an experience is not a pleasurable one, and it is best when such matters are avoided.

    Ophiolite, I will not ban a member because of the personal preference of another. You are free to leave, but such a leaving I would severely regret. You are more than welcome, and I hope you will remain here a lot longer.

    For further discussion of this topic (regarding plagiarism, that is), please contact me through PM, and we can deal with this more privately.

    Mr U
     

  32. #31 ARN 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    130
    The 'purported" scientific reference which Meta gave was from ARN, which is a creationist/ID website, NOT a scientific one. There were No scientific references there at the link. Thus it's bogus and irrelevant.

    To state that the whole of evolutionary biology will fall because of 'his' perceived problems with the proven evolutionary model, viz. metamorphosis, is ludicrous in the extreme. Almost as silly as his inability to provide ANY kind of scientific references for his position.

    But as we know, there ARE none for ID, because it's demonstrable NOT science. There is not a single, peer reviewed scientific article in the massive body of scientific literature in favor, unequivocally, of ID. That same vast body of good science, does, however, support the evolutionary model.

    That demands by these imposters for all the fossil evidence be complete in every case for the evolution of every species, is of course, a disingenuous demand for impossible proof. In other words, in order to know that someone is a Christian, we do NOT have to have a reasonable, scientific sampling of his behaviors. INstead we MUST have ALL the detailed exhibit of the dates, times, and places and composition of his prayers, church going, tithing, of ALL of it, etc. And if we are missing these data, then one cannot be sure he's a X-tian! That's the logical absurdity of his empty argument.

    One need NOT prove in every case that the bodies in the universe follow Newton's equations. Nor that in every case chemical reactions here on earth will be the same as chemcial reactions in the rest of the universe. One needs only a reasonable, scientific, statistically significant sample.

    A reasonable sampling is all that's required, not a fallacious demand for the impossible, showing that in all places in the universe, in every case, that water is composed of 2 parts H and one part oxygen, before we can conclude that here it is.

    He cannot support his position, scientifically, because there is in ID/creationist belief, innately, NO science there.

    That's why he considers 'evidence' as meaningless references to unnamed persons, and documents, as well as makes the ARN reference. He knows he has nothing. But he's trying within all his verbiage to hide that basic fact. And I believe he knows it.

    As far as a lay person making a demand that someone seek counseling, this is the mere ad hominem, for which he is not in the slightest qualified to do.

    Frankly, he's been caught in the net of bad logic and no science. See how he wriggles!! :-D

    "When you have no case, abuse the plaintiff." Cicero, 1st C BCE Roma
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    Do not use my thread as a soap box on politics, science and religion this thread is about my original views on morphogenesis and insect flight.

    I never claimed any scientific reference just someone else’s views on my model. Which you obviously have none, so I ask you to please remove your post.

    If you had bothered to read any of my post on ARN you would see that I am not a proponent of intelligent design. I do appreciate however that they do facilitate reasonable debate on the subject of evolution from diverse viewpoints of system science, chaos, Neo-Darwinist, and even the intuitive and the spiritual, and do not tolerate such behavior as I am witnessing here.
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    171
    He cannot support his position, scientifically, because there is in ID/creationist belief, innately, NO science there.
    As far as a lay person making a demand that someone seek counseling, this is the mere ad hominem, for which he is not in the slightest qualified to do.
    Frankly, he's been caught in the net of bad logic and no science. See how he wriggles!!

    "When you have no case, abuse the plaintiff." Cicero, 1st C BCE Roma



    ad hominem means dismissing someone’s point of view because of unrelated facts. Your accusing me of this ?

    When Ophiolite was caught in an the open with no logic escape route he falsely accused me of plagiarism now when your caught you falsely accuse me of creationism. This is ad hominem based on prevarications.

    Prevarication:
    deliberately ambiguous or evasive behavior: the attempt to avoid giving a direct and honest answer or opinion, or a clear and truthful account of a situation, often by telling a lie
    ad hominem:
    appealing to emotions: appealing to people’s emotions and beliefs rather than their ability to think.

    ad hom·i·nem (hŏm'ə-nĕm', -nəm)
    adj.
    Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.
    --------------------------
    ---------------
    ----
    -
    -
     

  35. #34  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Metatron
    When Ophiolite was caught in an the open with no logic escape route he falsely accused me of plagiarism now when your caught you falsely accuse me of creationism. This is ad hominem based on prevarications.
    This really is unacceptable behaviour Metatron.
    Point 1: A debating point. Please identify where exactly I was 'caught in the open with no logic escape route'. I'm afraid my small primate mind quite missed that event.
    Point 2: I did not falsely accuse you of plagiarism. You had posted a large chunk of text, written by another author, without any reference or credit provided whatsoever. You then repeated the offence with an extract of the original quote, where you 'mentioned' it had been written by another. Yet still no proper reference was provided.
    If you tell me that is not plagiarism, I shall accept your word and immediately purchase a new dictionary. It must, however, at the very least be incompetence, or indifference.
    I would welcome a retraction of your remarks on this matter, please.
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,376
    I'm going to tentatively lock the thread. HomoUniversalis had requested that any further discussion of plagerism be directed to him via PM. Locking the thread is to avoid a flame war & should the original, biological, topic continue to be of interest, please start a new thread unless this one is reopened.
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •