oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006
|
In a tread titled Practical Biology (Not) DaveScot pokes fun at actual scientists doing actual research Quote | Yet another ancestor to modern whales is hypothesized. It’s hard to believe people get paid to produce stuff like this. |
Somebody then asks DaveScot Quote | Can someone here offer an ID-based hypothesis for the origin of cetaceans with at least as much explanatory power as the comparative anatomical approach described in the article? |
And DaveScot's reply is a classic: Quote | Sure. The genetic code of modern whales existed in a repressed form in the cell line leading to whales. An environmental trigger in the distant past caused a chromosome reorganization to occur which in turn led to a saltation. This is in complete accord with the indisputable testimony of the fossil record which of course is a record of abrupt emergence of radically new phenotypes followed by long periods of stability in the new phenotype and in the vast majority of cases extinction of the new phenotype after an average of 10 million years with all but a small fraction of these leaving no successor species. |
Lets examine that in detail Quote | The genetic code of modern whales existed in a repressed form in the cell line leading to whales. |
Proof = DaveScot said so. Further research = Not applicable Quote | An environmental trigger in the distant past caused a chromosome reorganization to occur which in turn led to a saltation. |
Proof = DaveScot said so. Further research = Not applicable Quote | This is in complete accord with the indisputable testimony of the fossil record |
Proof = DaveScot said so. Further research = Not applicable
Many things are in accord with the indisputable testimony of the fossil record. FTK, please note that DaveScot at least accepts the fossil record as "indisputable" and therefore the earth is not 6000 years old.
The rest of DS's post above simply describes what the fossil record shows, nothing to do with ID or any ID research or evidence for ID. ID cannot explain why the fossil record shows an abrupt emergence of radically new phenotypes as that would require putting motivation's to the designer (it could have just as easily done it gradually as abruptly, who can say). So no info on why it was done that way, it just was
The rest of DaveScot's post is worth a repost Quote | Perhaps when we understand more about genomes we’ll find these hidden potentials in extant genomes, learn how they are stored and conserved for the future, how they are eventually expressed in saltation events, and what external or internal triggers cause the saltations. |
Translation: Perhaps when real working scientists understand more about genomes they'll be able to rule out once and for all these hidden potentials in extant genomes and disprove front loading even to the satisfaction of "people" like DaveScot and JAD.
Quote | This is the front-loaded ID hypothesis. Phylogenesis mirrors ontogenesis in that both are a series of derepressions of existing genomic information. Both occur according to a set plan where chance plays little if any role and the environment supplies cues (triggers) for proceeding (or not) from one phase of the plan to the next. Both are self-terminating when the preprogrammed path of diversification has completed. |
Proof = DaveScot said so. Further research = Not applicable Translation: It’s hard to believe people get paid to produce stuff like this. Lastly Quote | Nothing in the fossil record makes sense except in the light of front-loading. |
Oh Quote | Nothing in the fossil record makes sense except in the light of front-loading evolution. |
There, fixed that for you DaveScot.
It seems that they think if they repeat it enough times it becomes true. Link to latest rich vein in the tard-mine.
-------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK
if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings
|