Materialism (championed by Darwinists) makes reason Impossible.

Enough of this merry jesting,good Knights and Ladies of noble stock. Tell me,prithee and by my oath,wherefore cometh the idea that the heathen Darwinists must needs be Materialists? Sorry,I'm watching The Tudors.
 
dafydd said:
Enough of this merry jesting,good Knights and Ladies of noble stock. Tell me,prithee and by my oath,wherefore cometh the idea that the heathen Darwinists must needs be Materialists? Sorry,I'm watching The Tudors.
Click to expand...


An it please thee, m'lord, the answer to thy query must needs wait upon the return of our erstwhile OP who hath, methinks, scarpered.
 
Last edited:
Gadzooks! The instigator of this confabulation hath resorted to Shank's pony. Wherefore art thou,Physician? Another stoop of wine over here! Let us be merry for verily on the morrow we have to go to work.

What is Life but Trial and Toil,
And on my Bum I have a Boil..............exeunt,pursued by a Bigfoot.


(Note to mods,that's the last one)
 
Last edited:
Akhenaten said:
This is quite simply not true.
Click to expand...

I've seen in in my own fish tank and found some articles on the subjects to back me up so that I am not dreaming.

Why is your first reaction to something you do not know alway "this is not true"-?


Moreover, we showed that Nile tilapia is able to visually identify and distinguish a predator from a heterospecific non-predator allopatric fish, an evidence of a possible innate basis, because fish used herein were naıve.
¨
Another possibility to consider is that fish may avoid a predator not by fleeing but by staying and hiding with a concomitant decrease in activity, along with a decline in ventilation and heart rate,as reported by Holopainen et al. (1997).

Discriminant function analysis showed that two cues, the distance between the eyes and the size of the mouth, were sufficient for good predator recognition.

sources
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1439-0310.1981.tb01277.x/abstract
http://geefaa.com/painel/pdf/Ventil...allopatric predator in naïve Nile tilapia.pdf
 
lemurien said:
Moreover, we showed that Nile tilapia is able to visually identify and distinguish a predator from a heterospecific non-predator allopatric fish, an evidence of a possible innate basis, because fish used herein were naıve.
Click to expand...

Ick. Theology.
 
lemurien said:
Akhenaten said:
This is quite simply not true.
Click to expand...


I've seen in in my own fish tank and found some articles on the subjects to back me up so that I am not dreaming.
Click to expand...


Your anecdotes and dream prevention strategy fail to impress.

Got anything else?


lemurien said:
Why is your first reaction to something you do not know alway "this is not true"-?
Click to expand...


It's not.


lemurien said:
Moreover, we showed that Nile tilapia is able to visually identify and distinguish a predator from a heterospecific non-predator allopatric fish, an evidence of a possible innate basis, because fish used herein were naıve.
¨
Another possibility to consider is that fish may avoid a predator not by fleeing but by staying and hiding with a concomitant decrease in activity, along with a decline in ventilation and heart rate,as reported by Holopainen et al. (1997).

Discriminant function analysis showed that two cues, the distance between the eyes and the size of the mouth, were sufficient for good predator recognition.


sources
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1439-0310.1981.tb01277.x/abstract
http://geefaa.com/painel/pdf/Ventil...allopatric predator in naïve Nile tilapia.pdf
Click to expand...


If this is the best job you can do of presenting source material to support your contentions then you've got a real job of work ahead of you. What a mess.

Let's have a closer look anyway:


From your first source:


Abstract

A morphometric analysis of 20 different facial features of reef fishes was carried out in order to assess cues which could serve for predator recognition. 105 different species of 35 different families were included in this study. The main features of potential discriminatory value were head width, head shape, the size of the mouth and its shape, the shape of the eyes, their diameter, and the distance between the eyes. Color and pattern were of no potential discriminatory value. Discriminant function analysis showed that two cues, the distance between the eyes and the size of the mouth, were sufficient for good predator recognition.​
Click to expand...
Linky​

Akhenaten's summary:

A study of reef fish reveals that they are generally able to tell that another fish that's a foot wide and all mouth probably doesn't want to be their new bff.​


From your second source:


Abstract

Perceiving a possible predator may promote physiological changes to support prey ‘fight or flight’. In this case, an
increase in ventilatory frequency (VF) may be expected, because this is a way to improve oxygen uptake for escape
tasks. Therefore, changes in VF may be used as a behavioral tool to evaluate visual recognition of a predator threat.​
Click to expand...
Linky​

Akhenaten's summary:

A study of Nile tilapia reveals that one possible way to tell they've spotted a predator is that they start to breathe faster.​


Now let's have a look at your original claim(s) in response to which my above-quoted words wers offered:


lemurien said:
A gold fish hides behind the sea plants if you stare at him. As if he knew that you were staring at him. Does he know he is a fish? Or is it just an automatism triggered by a symmetrical face which means 'looking directly at me'. In the animal kingdom this signal has the universal meaning that somebody is trying to eat me or copulate with me.
In the fish's case, somebody that size, probably eat.
Click to expand...



See them flee!









​



:goldfish: :goldfish: :goldfish: :goldfish: :goldfish:​


In summary:


lemurien said:
A gold fish hides behind the sea plants if you stare at him.
Click to expand...

Akhenaten said:
This is quite simply not true.
Click to expand...



:clownfish :clownfish :clownfish :clownfish :clownfish​



marplots said:
Ick. Theology.
Click to expand...


Yup.



lemurien said:
Not quite. Ichtyology.
Click to expand...


You can't even spell it.
 
marplots said:
lemurien said:
Not quite. Ichtyology.
Click to expand...


Ich bin ein fish.
Click to expand...


Sushi.jpg

I wonder which part self-identifies​
 
lemurien said:
I've seen in in my own fish tank and found some articles on the subjects to back me up so that I am not dreaming.
Click to expand...

I can read those if you want, but how do they control to rule out movement? Do they use time and motion, do they use objects that are not faces.

I doubt the whole bilateral symmetry thing. :)

ETA: My dog used to be scared of sofas and garbage bags when we went for walks, although the headless concrete donkey was amusing...
 
Last edited:
dafydd said:
He didn't lose a hand. The index and middle fingers of his left hand were burned and damaged but he could use them for partial barre chords. The melody was played with the other two fingers.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the point is he was severely injured in his hand and unable to play until he figured out how to re-manipulate his digits to play the music that was in his brain.
 
I prefer pointing out frank mistakes that I made to the dull 'cannot be true because I do not know about it' murmur.

I have to try to find some references on the symmetrical stare.
Sushi I hate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom