RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

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



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 19 2007,12:07   

Quote (Louis @ June 19 2007,12:00)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 19 2007,18:57)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ June 19 2007,07:19)
Why is JAD's mouthpiece here?

He hasn't done anything bannable yet.

Emphasis on the word yet or the word bannable?

Louis

Good point. I'd say emphasis on 'bannable'.

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

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 19 2007,13:16   

Quote
...It was a rhetorical trick on my part to claim that God or Gods are dead because that is impossible to ascertain with certainty as someone promptly reminded me.


someone reminded him it was a rhetorical trick alrighty, but that's not how he meant it when he first said it.

In fact, when he said it, he proposed it as a "mechanism" to explain why he thought evolution had "stopped".

sorry, but this thread is SUCH a waste of time.

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

-CC

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 19 2007,17:02   

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 19 2007,13:16)
sorry, but this thread is SUCH a waste of time.

Making VMartin uncomfortable is not without its charms.

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

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 19 2007,17:26   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 19 2007,17:02)
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 19 2007,13:16)
sorry, but this thread is SUCH a waste of time.

Making VMartin uncomfortable is not without its charms.

much more interesting flavors of tard out there.

but i take your point that none of them are engaging here at the moment.

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

-CC

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 19 2007,17:57   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 19 2007,11:57)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ June 19 2007,07:19)
Why is JAD's mouthpiece here?

He hasn't done anything bannable yet.

No, that ain't what I meant --- I meant "what thew hell is he possibly hoping to accomplish here?"

Unless, like FTK, he just wants to feed that massive martyr complex he has. . . . .

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 19 2007,18:08   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ June 19 2007,17:57)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 19 2007,11:57)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ June 19 2007,07:19)
Why is JAD's mouthpiece here?

He hasn't done anything bannable yet.

No, that ain't what I meant --- I meant "what the hell is he possibly hoping to accomplish here?"

I think he wants to vanquish all us decadent atheistic Darwinists with his all-powerful intellect. Unfortunately, he's missing one crucially necessary element of this 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

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 19 2007,20:20   

VMartin: could you tell me, what is the point of front-loading? What conceivable reason is there for poofing all the DNA into existence but having most of it inactive for hundreds of millions of years? Why the need to go through stromatolites, trilobites, pterosaurs and all the rest? It seems an unnecessarily long-winded way of going about things to me.

Another worry: how large would the initial genotype need to be if it contains all the variations on DNA that are going to be required? Could it fit into the space available (let's see some figures)?

Why, when asked if you agree with Davison that God has died, do you quote Davison? Do you have no thoughts of your own? (That's probably a stupid question, given the blather you have posted elsewhere.)

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2007,10:26   

Richard Simons.

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.

I repeated Davison's claim that there could have been as many frontloadings as there are animals/plants Orders.

Evolution †also proceeds abruptly, via saltationism (I have given many examples of saltationism in butterfly mimicry where darwinists use newspeak † "mutation with great phenotypical effects"). Of course saltationism need something like frontloading.

Quote

how large would the initial genotype need to be if it contains all the variations on DNA that are going to be required?


There is no common ancestor but many independent ancestors created de novo. Human genome contains more than 90% junk DNA and the Carp as far as I know
has 10 more times DNA as homo sapiens. Function of this unused DNA making majority of DNA is still unknown - maybe it is remnants of some past evolutionary prescriptions.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2007,10:39   

Quote
Of course saltationism need something like frontloading.
Why?

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2007,13:21   

Chris Hyland:

Because in many cases of butterflies mimicry it is hardly †
imaginable that random mutation in mimic hit at once wings pattern and coloration of the model. It must occurs at once by saltus †- otherwise predator wouldn't be deceived. †Such evolutionary process supposed that wing patterns and coloration had been there already as hidden potentiality. †

Dawkins proposed in his Blind Watchmaker his own fancy explanation - mimicry evolved in dusk when visibility was low etc. and predator was unable to distinguish imperfect †resemblance. †
Of course he didn't explain was was consequently selective force that drive mimic to the perfection of mimicry.
He also somehow supposed that predator in semidarkness was still aware of coloration and patterns of unpalatable species.

One have to be hard-core darwinist to believe to such curious gradualistic explanation as Blind Watchmaker offers.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2007,13:27   

Hey, V!

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'?

(Don't worry, it's not off topic.)

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2007,13:27   

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'?

VMartin, did you miss this one?
Quote
Who directs it, and what exactly is the 'scenario'?


--------------
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 Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2007,13:46   

Quote

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


John Davison claims - I fully agree - that evolution is over. So your question should stand like:

Quote

Who directed it, and what exactly was the 'scenario'?


I am not sure you want to know response to such a question. If you want feel free to ask me.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2007,13:49   

Quote (VMartin @ June 20 2007,13:46)
Quote

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


John Davison claims - I fully agree - that evolution is over. So your question should stand like:

 
Quote

Who directed it, and what exactly was the 'scenario'?


I am not sure you want to know response to such a question. If you want feel free to ask me.

We're asking, 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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10059
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2007,13:50   

YES PLEASE VMARTIN! SHARE YOUR DAVIDSON'S THOUGHTS WITH US!!!!!

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

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2007,13:59   

Quote
It must occurs at once by saltus  - otherwise predator wouldn't be deceived.  Such evolutionary process supposed that wing patterns and coloration had been there already as hidden potentiality.
From a previous post:
Quote
In what form was the information stored before it was unfolded? What stopped it being degraded by mutation before it was used? What signals caused the information to be unfolded? What mechanisms recognised the signals and caused the unfolding of information? How do these mecahnisms explain large changes caused by both large scale rearrangements and single point mutations? Answer those questions and I'll take that theory seriously.

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2007,14:57   

Chris Hyland.

I have given  you examples where saltationism is the only explanation that make a sense. It's the butterfly mimicry, e.g. polymorphic mimetism of P. dardanus.

If you are interested of mechanism of saltationism in higher taxa I reccomend you John Davison's Evolutionary Manifesto where he deals with chromosome rearrangements and where he proposed his own contribution of semi-meiotic mechanism of evolutionary changes. It is very interesting and I recommend you to read it.

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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2007,15:08   

Arden Chatfield

Quote

We're asking, V.


And may I ask you what are you asking? You copied my entire post and added this sentence. Because I see no question  I suppose that it is only your off topic comment.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2007,15:10   

V, you're avoiding our questions. It makes a poor impression.

You said this:

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


So we are asking you, allowing for your requested change in verb tenses:

Quote

Who directed it, and what exactly was the 'scenario'?


Have an answer?

--------------
"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 20 2007,15:11   

PS:

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


Given Davison's your beliefs, shouldn't you have put that in past tense?

--------------
"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 20 2007,15:19   

Martin, your prescribed evolution hypothesis sounds less than compelling.
Do you have another fact than the radiation of mammals to convince us?
Particularly: how do you know that evolution is finished, and when did it stop?

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2007,15:58   

Quote
Human genome contains more than 90% junk DNA and the Carp as far as I know has 10 more times DNA as homo sapiens. Function of this unused DNA making majority of DNA is still unknown - maybe it is remnants of some past evolutionary prescriptions.


This story may interest you VMartin. There is a considerable  amount of research being directed to establishing the role of non-coding DNA, which may be a more fruitful approach than mere speculation. A review of the paper in New Scientist ends with a quote by ENCODE researcher John Greally:

"It would now take a very brave person to call non-coding DNA junk."

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2007,17:55   

Quote (VMartin @ June 20 2007,13:46)
Quote

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


John Davison claims - I fully agree - that evolution is over. So your question should stand like:

 
Quote

Who directed it, and what exactly was the 'scenario'?


I am not sure you want to know response to such a question. If you want feel free to ask me.

Um, three different people have ALREADY asked you, moron  . . . .


But we certainly do understand why you don't want to answer.  (snicker)  (giggle)

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2007,17:56   

Quote (VMartin @ June 20 2007,13:46)
John Davison claims - I fully agree - that evolution is over.

What stopped it? The designer die, or something?

(snicker)  (giggle)

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 3998
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2007,17:59   

Quote
What stopped it?


Well, obviously, goddidit! ;)

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2007,18:19   

Quote (Henry J @ June 20 2007,17:59)
Quote
What stopped it?


Well, obviously, goddidit! ;)

Or, more precisely, goddidit, then stopped.  :p

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

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2007,19:40   

Regarding no new orders of mammals: I have been carefully watching some trees outside my house and in the last two years not one has produced a new major branch. Certain evidence that the existing major branches arrived magically.

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2007,19:54   

by jove, i think you have the makings of an ISCID publication there, richard!

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

-CC

  
Henry J



Posts: 3998
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2007,21:26   

Re "I have given you examples where saltationism is the only explanation that make a sense. It's the butterfly mimicry, e.g. polymorphic mimetism of P. dardanus. "

Given the huge number of species in the insect order, why is it all that unlikely that there'd be a few that happen to somewhat resemble an unpalatable species?

Henry

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

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


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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