home

Nuptializing quarks

Joe wrote:
By a word-spell below, cult-leader Khuno thinks he made Darwin's "male ornaments" (which drive evolution in sexually reproducing species) blast-out of the portal of reality into non-being - as "metaphors"!

Khuno wrote:
Joe wrote:
Has sexual selection been observed to occur in P. cognata, where transfers of "nuptial gifts" from males to females influence the low-level biological process, known as reproduction? Answer this question without your characteristic dissembling.

Nuptials? Once again, these are metaphors that are useful in describing observed behavior. They don't have marriage ceremonies or wedding showers, either. Do they do what they do intentionally and with forethought? No, I'd argue that that's false.

Following Khuno's noxious rule that by monkeying-around with the meanings of standard science-terms, we can de-objectify scientific phenomena, and - in the process refute scientific theories!

The physics term "quark" was introduced by Murray Gell-Mann. Initially - to him, it was the sound made by ducks! Quarks, however, lack the where-with-all to be calls emitted by ducks. Since quarks cannot be: "The characteristic sound uttered by ducks.", then applying Khuno's rule that "nuptial gifts" cannot exist in reality because scorpionflies do not hold "marriage ceremonies or wedding showers", our friend the quark leaves reality - too.

The application of Khuno's rule to physics makes much of particle physics cease to be physics. The Standard Model of particle physics goes wobbly, and the theory of Quantum Chromodynamics is refuted!

Under Khuno's science-term banishment-diktat, a referential contradiction will be produced - when Murray Gell-Mann is ordered to say while pointing in the direction of a quark:

gell-man

Gell-Mann: "That quark does not exist!"

However, Khuno has as much jurisdiction over what the terminology of physics and biology is - as I have over what foods the peoples of the Yucatan eat. Evidence is required to demonstrate that sexual selection (involving preferences for ornaments displayed by members of the opposite sex) cannot occur in the scorpionfly species, P. cognata. This evidence would refute the theory of sexual selection (and hence evolution). Evidence is, also, required to show that quarks do not exist in our universe. According to physics - if quarks were not sub-atomic constituents, then the atoms in your body would not exist.

How the world is arranged, not the reformulation of science-terms into semantic voo-doo ultimately matters in science. From Darwin's experiment forward, preferences for "male ornaments" (one of which is the "nuptial gift") have been shown to trigger non-random reproductive outcomes. If - as Khuno insists - that "nuptial gifts" are unreal "metaphors" and "false", then a logical recourse for him is Creationism to help explain what exists in nature.

note
Some of the quacks emitted by male ducks are Darwin's "male ornaments". Female ducks have mate preferences for very specific male, quack frequencies. It has been shown by another evolutionist devil, Sir Julien Huxley, that the mate preferences of female ducks are so precisely calibrated in sub-populations (clines) of duck populations, that even a Hertz or 2 poorer in "female discimination" for the male quacks, the number of duck species in nature would be less than observed. Sexual selection is known to drive species-diversity in non-human populations. However - according the garbage-heads crudding up this dump, evolution, sexual selection, Darwin, species-diversity, nature, reality, etc. are but products of sheer fantasy.