RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (16) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... >   
  Topic: Frontloading--Dumbest Idea Evar?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,15:28   

Quote

In both cases, you've been unable to demonstrate how this disproves the current theory and how your hypothesis would explain the data better.


Both cases are important because both cases shows that random mutation and natural selection are not forces causing them.

Darwinists seeing polar bear consider white color to be cryptic color of bear. Maybe right, maybe not in the case. Anyway they boldly extrapolate such case to the whole Nature. They consider white color on white swan to have some cryptic (or aposematic) meaning too. Obviously it is not the case. Maybe 90% of coloration of animals have no cryptic/aposematic meaning. It means that  coloration is not caused by Natural selection but by other force - Adolf Portmann called it "Selbestdarstellung". Another case are mushrooms - coloration is spectacular and no way explainable by natural selection (even another darwinian mantra of sexual selection is inapplicable) .

Many cases of mimicry, end of mammalian evolution, unexplainable coloration of many species clearly shows that  darwinian explanations  sounds absurd in these cases at least.

Natural selection - even if true in some cases -cannot be extrapolated ad hoc on the whole Nature as darwinists would like to do.

John Davison addressed some of these problems, Adolf Portmann others.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,15:29   

Quote (VMartin @ June 24 2007,14:52)
Quote

C'mon, Borat VMartin, you can do it! SHOW us how superior your outlook is!


Yes, Borat, a beautiful film. It's pity he didn't make some interview with a neo-darwinist like you. You would have explained him how man originated from fish. It would have been the most funny part of the film, don't you think so?

VMartin, why are you so afraid to explain your own statements? Are you ashamed or something?

--------------
"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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,15:31   

Quote (jeannot @ June 24 2007,15:21)
Quote (VMartin @ June 24 2007,14:52)
Yes, Borat, a beautiful film. It's pity he didn't make some interview with a neo-darwinist like you. You would have explained him how man originated from fish.

You do know, Martin, that your mentor supports common descent, don't you?

This is another excellent question, VMartin. Davison supports common descent. Do you reject it, nonetheless? If so, why?

--------------
"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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,15:33   

Here's your question again, V. Show us how smart you are and explain your own words:

 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 20 2007,10:30)
 
Quote (VMartin @ June 20 2007,10:26)
The Evolution is directed process. It is following a scenario. Because Natural selection and sexual selection are conservative forces which have nothing to do with creative evolution - they only removes extremities - possible explanation of evolution is front-loading.

Who directs it, and what exactly is the 'scenario'?


--------------
"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: June 24 2007,15:41   

Arden Chatfield:
Quote

This is another excellent question, VMartin. Davison supports common descent. Do you reject it, nonetheless? If so, why?


Does he? Really? I quoted him in the post Nr.90 here. Do you have any problem with your memory - some kind of Alzheimer? It's a pity, but do you see any reason why to answer your question if you forget the answer at the moment you read it?

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

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,15:43   

Quote (VMartin @ June 24 2007,15:28)
 
Quote

In both cases, you've been unable to demonstrate how this disproves the current theory and how your hypothesis would explain the data better.


Both cases are important because both cases shows that random mutation and natural selection are not forces causing them.

Well, in the case of mammals, you haven't proved this. Let's see mimicry...

 
Quote

Darwinists seeing polar bear consider white color to be cryptic color of bear. Maybe right, maybe not in the case. Anyway they boldly extrapolate such case to the whole Nature. They consider white color on white swan to have some cryptic (or aposematic) meaning too. Obviously it is not the case. Maybe 90% of coloration of animals have no cryptic/aposematic meaning. It means that  coloration is not caused by Natural selection but by other force.

Because of course, natural selection on color could only act via mimicry/aposematism...
I shall repeat a question you've never clearly answered. What would control the frequency of an heritable trait (allele) in a species if not its reproduction rate (fitness)?
Let me help you regarding the alternative hypothesis
- individuals with the said trait regularly pop up
-...?

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,15:46   

Quote (VMartin @ June 24 2007,15:41)
Arden Chatfield:
 
Quote

This is another excellent question, VMartin. Davison supports common descent. Do you reject it, nonetheless? If so, why?


Does he? Really? I quoted him in the post Nr.90 here. Do you have any problem with your memory - some kind of Alzheimer? It's a pity, but do you see any reason why to answer your question if you forget the answer at the moment you read it?

Post number 90? No such thing. Prove it.

And answer the other questions while you're at it, coward.

--------------
"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

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,15:48   

Quote (VMartin @ June 24 2007,15:41)
Arden Chatfield:
   
Quote

This is another excellent question, VMartin. Davison supports common descent. Do you reject it, nonetheless? If so, why?


Does he?

He does. It shouldn't be hard to find a blog where he insults a random YEC for not seeing the obvious in common descent.

What about you, Martin? Do you support common descent? It's a yes/no question.

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,15:57   

jeannot
Quote

Because of course, natural selection on color could only act via mimicry/aposematism...


The problem is that darwinists see aposematism/mimicry also there where it is not. But let us assume you are correct. If there is no aposematism/mimicry in the given case detected, what is the reason of coloration? Please consider mushrooms to avoid mantra of "sexual selection".  


Quote

I would repeat a question you've never clearly answered. What would control the frequency of an heritable trait (allele) in a species if not its reproduction rate (fitness)?


This question has anything to do with macroevolution. Macroevolution and origin of Orders are not caused by these mechanisms. You cannot so boldly extrapolate without any experiment that would prove it that change of frequency of existing alleles in one species lead to new species. Obviously you need new genes and new alleles. Or do you believe also in frontloading?

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,15:59   

Quote (VMartin @ June 24 2007,15:57)
jeannot
Quote

Because of course, natural selection on color could only act via mimicry/aposematism...


The problem is that darwinists see aposematism/mimicry also there where it is not. But let us assume you are correct. If there is no aposematism/mimicry in the given case detected, what is the reason of coloration? Please consider mushrooms to avoid mantra of "sexual selection".  


Quote

I would repeat a question you've never clearly answered. What would control the frequency of an heritable trait (allele) in a species if not its reproduction rate (fitness)?


This question has anything to do with macroevolution. Macroevolution and origin of Orders are not caused by these mechanisms. You cannot so boldly extrapolate without any experiment that would prove it that change of frequency of existing alleles in one species lead to new species. Obviously you need new genes and new alleles. Or do you believe also in frontloading?

Martin, why are you ignoring Jeannot's and my questions?

--------------
"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

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,16:05   

Quote (VMartin @ June 24 2007,15:57)
jeannot
 
Quote

Because of course, natural selection on color could only act via mimicry/aposematism...


The problem is that darwinists see aposematism/mimicry also there where it is not. But let us assume you are correct. If there is no aposematism/mimicry in the given case detected, what is the reason of coloration? Please consider mushrooms to avoid mantra of "sexual selection".  


 
Quote

I would repeat a question you've never clearly answered. What would control the frequency of an heritable trait (allele) in a species if not its reproduction rate (fitness)?


This question has anything to do with macroevolution.

Well, since we were not discussing "macroevolution", I am inclined to conclude that you are dodging the question.
Let me rephrase : what would explain the frequency of a heritable color in a species, if not the reproduction rate of the allele coding for said color?

I'm waiting.

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,16:05   

Arden Chatfield:
Quote

Post number 90? No such thing. Prove it.



Sorry, posts are not numbered here. It was my post from June 16 2007,02:20 where I quoted John. But you didn't answered me why you are asking on the same thing only few days after the question has been answered?

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,16:10   

Quote (VMartin @ June 24 2007,16:05)
Arden Chatfield:
Quote

Post number 90? No such thing. Prove it.



Sorry, posts are not numbered here. It was my post from June 16 2007,02:20 where I quoted John. But you didn't answered me why you are asking on the same thing only few days after the question has been answered?

Jeannot says there's other quotes where JAD supports common descent. Is he wrong?

And also, why are you afraid to answer Jeannot's and my other questions?

--------------
"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: June 24 2007,16:15   

Quote

Let me rephrase : what would explain the frequency of a heritable color in a species, if not the reproduction rate of the allele coding for said color?


Obviously I am not here on a trial. You didn't answered my questions and you didn't discussed my posts. The only things you are able to do is giving new and new questions in very arrogant way. This is not discussion.

Quote

I'm waiting.


Feel free to wait however long you like.

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

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,16:17   

Quote (VMartin @ June 24 2007,16:15)
Quote

Let me rephrase : what would explain the frequency of a heritable color in a species, if not the reproduction rate of the allele coding for said color?


Obviously I am not here on a trial. You didn't answered my questions and you didn't discussed my posts. The only things you are able to do is giving new and new questions in very arrogant way. This is not discussion.

Quote

I'm waiting.


Feel free to wait however long you like.

What do you want answering?

--------------
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.

   
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,16:17   

Here's JAD's position:
Quote
There is absolutely no evidence to refute common descent, just as certain as there is absolutely no evidence to support the most failed hypothesis in the history of science, Darwinian evolution.

We still do not know how many times, where, when or especially how life was created and subsequently evolved. How can anyone, armed with all that wonderful information, refute anything? We have yet to scratch the surface of the secrets of ontogeny and phylogeny. Refutation is for philosophers and logicians. Demonstration is for scientists.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evoluti....t-22490
He makes himself clearer about common descent in some other blog (maybe Alan's). However, he doesn't deny the possibility for life to have appeared and evolved several times, but in the case of man and fish, both being vertebrates, my bet is that he believes in a common ancestor.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,16:18   

Quote (VMartin @ June 24 2007,16:15)
Feel free to wait however long you like.

That's what I was thinking. You've got nothing. It seems that your example regarding colors is not going very well.

 
Quote
Obviously I am not here on a trial. You didn't answered my questions and you didn't discussed my posts. The only things you are able to do is giving new and new questions in very arrogant way. This is not discussion.

That question wasn't arrogant. At least not more than many of your posts.
Regarding colors, your question was not relevant, that's why I didn't answer it first. Color could be governed by crypsis, mimicry, aposematism, sexual selection, predators' learning, advantage of the rare type, nothing (neutral)... The facts remains, if the survival of its bearer is not random, color is controlled by natural selection. The reason is, as I said, totally irrelevant to our discussion. Unless you suggest that some supernatural cause controls the mortality and fecundity of individuals having a particular color?

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,16:23   

Okay, V, here are the questions you are afraid to answer:

 
Quote
The Evolution is directed process. It is following a scenario.


a) What is the scenario and who directed it?

b) Do you disagree with Davison's statement "There is absolutely no evidence to refute common descent"?

c) Do you believe in common descent yourself?

a) simply involves you backing up your own words. b) and c) simply require yes/no answers.

Very simple process. Show us you're not afraid.

--------------
"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

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,16:57   

Quote (VMartin @ June 24 2007,16:15)
Obviously I am not here on a trial.

You put yourself into this situation Martin, for not answering simple questions.
You pretend having some scientific evidence that support your position.
We think that, like any creationist, you are motivated by religious/theological reasons. JAD falls in this category. He claims not to be a christian - he certainly isn't - he nonetheless cannot admit that man could be the result of materialistic/undirected processes. He believes in his own God/designer.

My bet is that you are in the same position as Davison. It's fine with me, as long as you are honest with yourself and others.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,17:06   

Quote
as long as you are honest with yourself and others.


seriously, you are asking more than he is capable of.

It's like asking him to set himself on fire.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,17:59   

Quote (VMartin @ June 24 2007,14:08)
We are all here atheists

Um, I'm not an atheist . . .

Now then, if you're finished doing, uh, whatever the hell it is you think you're doing, would you mind answering the question and telling us (1) what directs evolution? and (2) what is the scenario that it is following?


And (3) how do you know?, would be helpful, too.

Put up or shut up.

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,18:03   

Hey Martin, why aren't polar bears fluorescent pink in color?


Think real hard about it . . . . . . .



(snicker)  (giggle)

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

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,18:35   

Quote
We are all here atheists
I'm not an atheist.

Quote
If there is no aposematism/mimicry in the given case detected, what is the reason of coloration? Please consider mushrooms to avoid mantra of "sexual selection".
Andy why exactly does the colour of mushrooms have to be a selectable trait?

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,18:40   

Quote

We are all here atheists


Wrong.

Quote
and ignorants


um, 'ignorants' isn't a word.

Quote
par excellence
we love chance and random mutation
we ban everyone


Pay closer attention. You're not banned. Remember?

Answer the questions, 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: 4048
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,18:50   

Re "If it's only about the way it happened, would *you* explain how man originated from fish?"

I'll take a stab at that: one lineage of fish evolved some new stuff which allowed it to scale to new heights on land.

Also, another lineage evolved into a square shape, which explains the fish sandwiches that get served at some fast food places. :p

Henry

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 25 2007,13:38   

Chris Hyland

 
Quote

Andy why exactly does the colour of mushrooms have to be a selectable trait?


It's exactly my point. Striking coloration of mushrooms is not outcome of Natural selection because there are only few - if not only one - vision oriented mushroom eaters (squirrels). Whats more interesting is that mushrooms do not follow darwinian rule of thumb - poisonous are not aposematic and edible are not cryptic. Very often the opposite is the case. So going into the forest do not follow darwinian mantras on cryptic coloration - do not pick up green Amanita phalloide (Death cap).  


Poisonous mushrooms do not tend to be more colorful or aggregated than edible mushrooms, but they are more likely to exhibit distinctive odors even when phylogenetic relationships are accounted for.



http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/resolve?id=doi:10.1086/497399

Also it might be of interest that effects of some poisonous mushrooms are very curious - their effects shows up sometimes after many days or even weeks.  The poison of Lethal webcaps kills sometimes after three weeks. Obviously even if an animal survive it will be unable to make connection between the mushroom and it's nuissance.

So I presented here mushrooms as part of Nature where their coloration and sometimes their lethal effects are almost impossible to explain using Natural or Sexual selection. Maybe it is only free play of life to present itself, something that is hidden under veil of Natural selection before eyes of darwinists.

Btw if something is not selectable trait as you claim shouldn't have it been according darwinism already extinct? Somebody here claimed that genes that are not under selective pressure would degenerate and perish. So it is like contra-evidence against front-loading. But coloration of mushrooms not under "selectable" pressure are sometimes very vivid!   

 
Quote

I'm not an atheist.


I don't underestand how one can be a darwinist and believe in some supernatural power as well.  It would mean that he believe life and man arouse by chance and yet some Higher power did not care of such process (but for what process such Supernatural power takes care of?). This  Power would exist independently even if human didn't arise by chance obviously.
So I suppose you to be some kind of budhist or something like that.

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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 25 2007,13:50   

Arden Chatfield
Quote

Wrong.


And you are not atheist and you believe in darwinism, right? In that case see my previous post.

Quote

um, 'ignorants' isn't a word.


According urbandictionary it is a noun:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ignorants

Quote

Pay closer attention. You're not banned. Remember?

Answer the questions, V.


I am not banned. I remember. Thank you for a question. Any other questions? I will not answer to any questions that you copy and paste from my own posts. I am not here to discuss and answer my own questions from my own posts you copy-paste you know. Btw. try to write some sentences yourself concerning ongoing discussion.
Something that make sense you know, not only copy-pasted questions.

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10094
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 25 2007,13:59   

Quote (VMartin @ June 25 2007,13:50)
Quote

um, 'ignorants' isn't a word.


According urbandictionary it is a noun:

Bwahahahahahahah....

*remembers to breathe*


Ahhh.. whatever next, conservapedia?

According to the highly reputable and in no way "enter your own definitions, children" urbandictionary:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=jad

JAD:

Quote
JAD  

It's the abbreviated form of Just Another Dick.

The dude thinks he's hot shit, but he's JAD to me.




--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 25 2007,14:22   

Quote

And you are not atheist and you believe in darwinism, right? In that case see my previous post.


The point is that your generalization was wrong, big surprise.

   
Quote
   
Quote

um, 'ignorants' isn't a word.


According urbandictionary it is a noun:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ignorants


It's slang, and very few people use it.

I don't really think YOU are in a position to be correcting anyone's English, V.

   
Quote
Quote

Pay closer attention. You're not banned. Remember?

Answer the questions, V.


I am not banned. I remember. Thank you for a question. Any other questions? I will not answer to any questions that you copy and paste from my own posts.  


Figures. Worthless coward. Afraid to back up your own statements.

--------------
"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

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 25 2007,14:28   

Quote
So I presented here mushrooms as part of Nature where their coloration and sometimes their lethal effects are almost impossible to explain using Natural or Sexual selection. Maybe it is only free play of life to present itself, something that is hidden under veil of Natural selection before eyes of darwinists.

Btw if something is not selectable trait as you claim shouldn't have it been according darwinism already extinct? Somebody here claimed that genes that are not under selective pressure would degenerate and perish. So it is like contra-evidence against front-loading. But coloration of mushrooms not under "selectable" pressure are sometimes very vivid!  

A trait can be neutral Martin, and in no way neutrality implies that a trait should "perish" (if that means anything). Where did you get that idea from?
And the fact that we don't know what advantage may be conferred by a particular trait doesn't mean there is none. What advantage does dark skin in black people confers? You should look for the answer yourself, and you'll see that natural selection explains perfectly the pattern of skin colors in humans. And it's not due to aposematism or sexual selection.
Anyway, that's not how science works, Martin. You can't come up with that kind of objection "coloration in mushroom can't be explained by (cripsis or various stuff), therefore natural selection is wrong. You provided no alternative to natural selection or drift, as I have asked you.

I'm trying to decode you reasoning. According to you, front-loading would explain the sudden appearance of a trait in a lineage, and it seems logical once you accept this hypothesis, which I don't. But what would explain the the maintenance of a trait? Your are confusing maintenance (natural selection vs. drift) with appearance (random mutations vs. front loading).

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

Pages: (16) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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