RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (16) < ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 >   
  Topic: Frontloading--Dumbest Idea Evar?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Henry J



Posts: 4015
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,22:40   

VMartin,

Re "Human pre-existed before evolution started as a "Typus", "Archetype"."

What's the evidence for that made-up claim?

Henry

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,15:16   

Wesley R. Elsberry

   
Quote

PE is by no means either synonymous with "saltationism", nor did Gould's essay on Richard Goldschmidt "link" PE with Goldschmidt's "hopeful monster" conjecture. Gould wrote an article that has caused much confusion. "Return of the hopeful monsters" sought to point out that a hatchet job had been done on some of the concepts that Richard Goldschmidt had formulated. The discussion of systemic mutations as mutations which affect rate or timing of development has caused many people to assume that Gould was somehow linking PE to this concept. A close reading of the article shows this to not be the case.


I didn't read the article. I hit on Gould's observation in Pandas Thumb (he mentioned Goldschmidt there too). Gould wrote there that new forms shows up in geological columns abruptly and it should be explained. Geological columns shows according Gould  stasis and no way gradual development. Frankly speaking I was surprised by this observation when I read it first many years ago.It is the part of Pandas Thumb I thought about.  Gould supported his explanation of this phenomenon somehow with soviet science. He probably thought that marxistic law of change of quantity into quality could be helpful. As far as I can judge it is not correct, because such a rule would prove more saltationism than gradual development. Btw. in that time many marxists adopted structuralism and they tried to explain biological evolution also via contradiction of parts and structures inside living organisms.

As far as I can judge the sudden change of morphology in geological columns is sometimes explained by alopatric speciation. On my opinion it is only hypothesis because nobody can prove it showing transitional fossils.


Gould prominent predecessors like paleontologists Dacque and Schindewolf also noticed the fact of stasis in fossil record and of abrupt change of it. They supported idea of saltationism with the same fossil record that led Gould and Eldredge to PE.

Schindewolf:
   
Quote

"We might as well stop looking for the missing links as they never existed."


As I noticed before once very popular German idealistic morphology is nowadays almost forgotten theory and Gould appreciated work of great paleotologist Schindewolf as "spectacularly flawed". Probably Gould was quite sure that his opinions are correct.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,15:43   

Go one page back, Martin.

Several people have questions for you that need answering.

Quote
Gould supported his explanation of this phenomenon somehow with soviet science.


What did Gould say that you consider 'soviet science'?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,15:53   

German scientist Theodor Eimer was a proponet of a directed evolution or orthogenesis. His works are somehow unaccessible via internet even though reading them would be very intresting I suppose. I hit on the page describing his concept of "undulatory development". Especially noticeable is the last sentence about Eimer's law of posterior-anterior development which has obviously nothing common with darwinism:


http://links.jstor.org/sici?si....rgePage

Because he is decribing the color patterns of common European lizard the issue is connected with coloration of animals discussed in the thread "coloration of fungi". Obviously Eimer's explanation of development of coloration of lizards is independent from natural selection  and is due to some "internal forces" - it would help if somebody has access to the all article btw. It could provide an explanation to your questions what is behind coloration of animals if (neo)darwinism is unable to explain it in many cases .



Anyway orthogenesis as theory is more related to this thread so I put it here.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,17:33   

Is Martin ******STILL******  blithering?


Geez.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,02:17   

Quote

Is Martin ******STILL******  blithering?


You know, it was Gadow's "blithering" about Theodor Eimer, the prominent scientist and the founder of Orthogenesis. We are having fun at ISCID reading your stupid responses.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,04:02   

Quote
We are having fun at ISCID reading your stupid responses.


Yes, I am sure both of you are!

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2007,14:20   

Doctor Meyeres published (or random ejaculated?) an article few days ago:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....evo.php

The name of the article: Cephalopod development and evolution. Doctor argues that primitive apes evolved into man and oysters are related to squids. If origin of oysters and squids is due to saltus/frontloading/gradual evolution is of course no problem for him.

But transitional forms are many times impossible. Anatomy of soft parts (of snails for instance, speaking about molluscs) corresponds with the form of the shells. Mantle should have evolved only after the appearance of the shell, but the shell can appear only in one saltation, because it only makes sense as a whole. Thus, many molluscs could appear only as a result of saltation.

But such triffles are no problem for the doctor.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2007,14:30   

Quote (VMartin @ Aug. 07 2007,14:20)
Doctor Meyeres published (or random ejaculated?) an article few days ago:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....evo.php

The name of the article: Cephalopod development and evolution. Doctor argues that primitive apes evolved into man and oysters are related to squids. If origin of oysters and squids is due to saltus/frontloading/gradual evolution is of course no problem for him.

But transitional forms are many times impossible. Anatomy of soft parts (of snails for instance, speaking about molluscs) corresponds with the form of the shells. Mantle should have evolved only after the appearance of the shell, but the shell can appear only in one saltation, because it only makes sense as a whole. Thus, many molluscs could appear only as a result of saltation.

But such triffles are no problem for the doctor.

So where do mollusk shells come from, V?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Henry J



Posts: 4015
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2007,14:32   

Re "but the shell can appear only in one saltation, because it only makes sense as a whole."

It doesn't have to make sense to you, it only has to reduce the amount of predation on the species. A partial shell would most likely do that.

Henry

  
Henry J



Posts: 4015
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2007,14:34   

Re "So where do mollusk shells come from"

Most of them come from the ocean.  :p

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4465
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2007,16:33   

VMartin:

Quote

I didn't read the article.


We get that.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 554
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2007,16:38   

Quote
such triffles are no problem for the doctor

However, they did kick Kirk's ass:



Oh, you said triffles.  Nevermind.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2007,17:02   

Jeez, is Martin ***STILL*** gibbering?

He just doesn't give up, does he . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2007,17:58   

Quote (VMartin @ Aug. 07 2007,14:20)
Doctor Meyeres published (or random ejaculated?) an article few days ago:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....evo.php

The name of the article: Cephalopod development and evolution. Doctor argues that primitive apes evolved into man and oysters are related to squids. If origin of oysters and squids is due to saltus/frontloading/gradual evolution is of course no problem for him.

But transitional forms are many times impossible. Anatomy of soft parts (of snails for instance, speaking about molluscs) corresponds with the form of the shells. Mantle should have evolved only after the appearance of the shell, but the shell can appear only in one saltation, because it only makes sense as a whole. Thus, many molluscs could appear only as a result of saltation.

But such triffles are no problem for the doctor.

I'm wondering how long it'll take for VMartin call him Meeeeyeeereeeeesseeess at this rate. You'd think, for someone so obsessed, he could manage to spell the name correctly.

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2007,18:03   

Quote (Nerull @ Aug. 07 2007,17:58)
Quote (VMartin @ Aug. 07 2007,14:20)
Doctor Meyeres published (or random ejaculated?) an article few days ago:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....evo.php

The name of the article: Cephalopod development and evolution. Doctor argues that primitive apes evolved into man and oysters are related to squids. If origin of oysters and squids is due to saltus/frontloading/gradual evolution is of course no problem for him.

But transitional forms are many times impossible. Anatomy of soft parts (of snails for instance, speaking about molluscs) corresponds with the form of the shells. Mantle should have evolved only after the appearance of the shell, but the shell can appear only in one saltation, because it only makes sense as a whole. Thus, many molluscs could appear only as a result of saltation.

But such triffles are no problem for the doctor.

I'm wondering how long it'll take for VMartin call him Meeeeyeeereeeeesseeess at this rate. You'd think, for someone so obsessed, he could manage to spell the name correctly.

Maybe he thinks if you spell his name 3 times he comes into your house and steals your bible?

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 10 2007,14:01   

Henry on my claim that snail shells probably evolved (and vanished) via saltation:

             
Quote

Re "but the shell can appear only in one saltation, because it only makes sense as a whole."

It doesn't have to make sense to you, it only has to reduce the amount of predation on the species. A partial shell would most likely do that.


So the shell developed in snails because it reduces the amount of predation. Shell protects the vital organs like heart, stomach, and kidneys.

Slugs can be find often at same places as snails. But obviously they do not need shells anymore. So they get rid of them - having them only as "rudimentary organs". Selective pressure or natural selection  is an  interesting force, isn't it?

The mantle cavity,also called the visceral sac,contains the heart,kidney and the other organs.It is closed in pulmonate snails except for the breathing pore,the pneumostome.

The roof is covered with a network of blood vessels and forms a lung.



Snail -I need to protect myself, you know:




Slug from the same graden - Because there was not selective pressure on me I don't need to protect heart and kidney anymore and I got rid of the shell and  transformed complicated structre of mantle cavity. I have the shell only as a rudimentary organ, you know:
 





--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 10 2007,14:03   

Your point being?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 10 2007,14:07   

Isn't it obvious Arden?

This means the darwinian religion is dead, and VMartin and JAD can skip through fields and so on, laughing at all the silly darwinist, marxist, communist, nazis as we weep at our pathetic nature!!!!11!1!

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 10 2007,14:09   

Quote (VMartin @ Aug. 10 2007,14:01)
Slug from the same graden - Because there was not selective pressure on me I don't need to protect heart and kidney anymore and I got rid of the shell and  transformed complicated structre of mantle cavity. I have the shell only as a rudimentary organ, you know:

V

Nice pictures. But perhaps you could also ask those snails (or JAD) the real question:

When did God die?

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 10 2007,14:12   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 10 2007,14:09)
Quote (VMartin @ Aug. 10 2007,14:01)
Slug from the same graden - Because there was not selective pressure on me I don't need to protect heart and kidney anymore and I got rid of the shell and  transformed complicated structre of mantle cavity. I have the shell only as a rudimentary organ, you know:

V

Nice pictures. But perhaps you could also ask those snails (or JAD) the real question:

When did God die?

Or has god died, in your opinion?

NOT JAD's opinion. YOURS.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Henry J



Posts: 4015
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 10 2007,14:24   

Re "Slugs can be find often at same places as snails."

Conclusion: the two groups found two different ways of surviving and propagating. Nothing in the ToE implies that everything would develop identical strategies, even if they happen to be in similar environments. (Side question - were snails and slugs in a similar environement when they developed their current strategies?)

Henry

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 10 2007,14:41   

Henry,


discussing mimicry I have often heard darwinian explanation, that even a smallest resemblance of a mimic to a model would give a small advantage for surviving - 0,00001% should have be enough to lead to perfect mimicry (Fisher used similar math  btw. to refute Punnett claim that mimicry must evolved via saltus).

Don't you think that having shell would give a small survival advantage (0,00001%) as not having shell? Eh? Or is this case somehow different?  

Obviously "natural selection" is very flexible explanation, there is nothing that could escape it's omnipotence (but only in heads of hard-core believers I suppose).

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 10 2007,14:43   

Quote (VMartin @ Aug. 10 2007,14:41)
Don't you think that having shell would give a small survival advantage (0,00001%) as not having shell? Eh? Or is this case somehow different?

Why can't it be different?

why is it so hard to believe the slug had some other form of survival trait?

Even if they don't, if they survive perfectly well, having a shell would make no difference.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 10 2007,15:04   

Quote

Obviously "natural selection" is very flexible explanation, there is nothing that could escape it's omnipotence (but only in heads of hard-core believers I suppose).


What exactly is your alternate explanation?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 11 2007,02:03   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 10 2007,14:43)
 
Quote (VMartin @ Aug. 10 2007,14:41)
Don't you think that having shell would give a small survival advantage (0,00001%) as not having shell? Eh? Or is this case somehow different?

Why can't it be different?

why is it so hard to believe the slug had some other form of survival trait?

Even if they don't, if they survive perfectly well, having a shell would make no difference.

So you somehow concede that shells don't have protective function. But it is common darwinistic explanation, that shells serve as protective shield and that is the reason they evolved.

Snails need protect themselves and slugs do not. One would think that they live in different geographical areas or that they have different predators. Which is obviously not the case.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 11 2007,05:11   

Quote (VMartin @ Aug. 11 2007,02:03)
 
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 10 2007,14:43)
     
Quote (VMartin @ Aug. 10 2007,14:41)
Don't you think that having shell would give a small survival advantage (0,00001%) as not having shell? Eh? Or is this case somehow different?

Why can't it be different?

why is it so hard to believe the slug had some other form of survival trait?

Even if they don't, if they survive perfectly well, having a shell would make no difference.

So you somehow concede that shells don't have protective function.

Do I?

Wow V, you're a fucking mind reader, even I didn't know I was thinking that.

Jesus christ you're mental.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 11 2007,06:54   

Quote

Wow V, you're a fucking mind reader, even I didn't know I was thinking that.


So you don't think that snail shell has protective function. But you also don't think that it hasn't.
Your head is empty.  That's why you became a darwinist.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 11 2007,08:25   

Quote (VMartin @ Aug. 11 2007,06:54)
Quote

Wow V, you're a fucking mind reader, even I didn't know I was thinking that.


So you don't think that snail shell has protective function. But you also don't think that it hasn't.
Your head is empty.  That's why you became a darwinist.

VMartin, if you think 'Darwinism' can't explain snail shells, what DO you think the explanation is?

DO YOU HAVE AN EXPLANATION?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 11 2007,08:54   

Quote (VMartin @ Aug. 11 2007,06:54)
Quote

Wow V, you're a fucking mind reader, even I didn't know I was thinking that.


So you don't think that snail shell has protective function. But you also don't think that it hasn't.
Your head is empty.  That's why you became a darwinist.

You misunderstood me, oh captain genius.

I didn't say it had no protective function, but that it didn't have that function for the slug, because the slug might have other measures, or might simply not need it.

The insult, by the way, is amusing to me.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
  456 replies since June 10 2007,22:48 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (16) < ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]