Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Frontloading--Dumbest Idea Evar?

Pages: (16) < ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... >

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,00:40    Quote (VMartin @ July 04 2007,00:14) Quote (sniffle)  (sob)  Boo hoo hoo. First try to fart. If it doesn't help read Darwin's Origin of species. It will help you no doubt. Hey V, why did evolution stop? -------------- "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

Darth Robo Posts: 148 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,05:28    "I am not perfect. But haughty darwinists at AtBC reach the point of perfection (in use of abuses instead of  arguments you know)." Gee, and yet you're the one who avoids any arguments instead of giving people answers. First try to think. If it doesn't help read Darwin's Origin of species. It will help you no doubt. -------------- "Commentary: How would you like to be the wholly-owned servant to an organic meatbag? It's demeaning! If, uh, you weren't one yourself, I mean..."

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,08:33    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 04 2007,00:40) Quote (VMartin @ July 04 2007,00:14) Quote (sniffle)  (sob)  Boo hoo hoo. First try to fart. If it doesn't help read Darwin's Origin of species. It will help you no doubt. Hey V, why did evolution stop? And who stopped it? -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,15:15    Biologist Jaroslav Flegr from Charles Uni Prague came to the same conclusion as Broom, Huxley and Davison  - that evolution is somehow frozen (darwinian newspeak for finished you know). Of course Flegr give his brand new - as far as I can judge - theory of the phenomena. It should be due "frozen plasticity" of species. It is also crux of his probably original idea that domesticated animals are "evolutionary" youngest, just developed. The other, older species are so "frozen" that they cannot be domesticated whatever effort you make using selection! An interesting idea. Flegr is heretic and yet he is a kind of evolutionary scientist who don't need God. He wrote monography Evolutionary biology. The english content of his latest book "Frozen Evolution Or, that’s not the way it is, Mr. Darwin" could be found here: http://frozenevolution.com/ I quote him from there: While Darwin’s original theory assumed that the species that are encountered in nature are evolutionarily plastic and more or less willing to respond to the selection pressure of the environment – i.e. usefully adapt to its changes, the new theory 1.4 assumes to the contrary that the vast majority of species does nothing of the sort and, in fact, cannot do so. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,18:22    V, this doesn't answer the question of why evolution stopped or who stopped it. -------------- "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

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,19:10    Quote (VMartin @ July 04 2007,15:15) Biologist Jaroslav Flegr from Charles Uni Prague came to the same conclusion as Broom, Huxley and Davison  - that evolution is somehow frozen That's nice.  (yawn) Who "froze" it.  And why. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,19:58    Re "the vast majority of species does nothing of the sort and, in fact, cannot do so" Given that most species that have ever lived are now extinct, does that statement necessarily contradict the current theory? Otoh, is there any actual reason to think current species aren't accumulating genetic changes over multigeneration time frames? And if so, what is supposedly preventing that from happening? (I.e., that conflicts with my understanding of the subject.) Henry

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,01:07    Quote Otoh, is there any actual reason to think current species aren't accumulating genetic changes over multigeneration time frames? And if so, what is supposedly preventing that from happening? Maybe they are. I quoted Flegr because he came to the same conclusion that Davison proposed in his works. Of course Flegr is so to say mainstream evolutionary biologist even if a peculiar one. He declared that most species are "frozen" - unable further development. Flegr actually contradicts your assertion - the most predisposed species for further evolution are those that accumulated very few genetic variability. Mutation in such species could lead to new development. Species with great genetic variability behave like "rubber". Quoting Flegr:     Quote These species respond to changes in their environment like rubber – initially they give in to the environmental pressure and change somewhat, however, the more their traits differ from the original state, the greater resistance they exert against the pressure until, at a certain point, they cease to react to even the greatest pressure. While, in a Darwinistic world, all the species gladly develop and continuously change in response to ever newer demands from a changing environment, in a world with frozen plasticity, species remain more or less unaltered and mostly only sadly wait until the changes in their environment accumulate to such a degree that they will have no other alternative than to simply pass into extinction. Obviously his thinking explains very well the fact that some species cannot be domesticated whatever you make. I noticed this interesting fact in my previous post but nobody responded (this is typical for this forum). The another question is what mechanism is behind evolution of "non-frozen" species. In this point I disagree with Flegr. But even here (as you can check) he does not put stress on "natural selection" either. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,07:02    That's nice.  (yawn) Who froze evolution, again . . . ? And why . . . . ? -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,12:32    I don't get why undomesticability would imply frozen. As far as I can see, inability to be domesticated only implies a lack of a pathway from where they are to where the domesticators would want them to be. Henry

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,12:37    [WmAD] Is this an ID friendly paper on Front Loading? [/WmAD] -------------- "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

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,12:39    Frontloading - dumbest Idea evar? Folks here are pretty sure that frontloading is impossible because genes that are not expressed would degenerate. Because on such genes allmighty natural selection doesnot make any selective pressure they should be destroyed after some time by deleterious mutations. That's why the idea of frontloading should be dismissed and ridiculed. Oddly enough some scientists try to restore DNA more than 70 millions years old which is preserved in soft tissue or eggs of dinosaurus. So we are to believe that DNA degenerate only in living cells where also repairing mechanisms are present, but somehow DNA is stable in dead tissues.   http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/14/5/589 or Quote "If we have tissues that are not fossilized, then we can potentially extract DNA. It's very exciting." http://www.nytimes.com/2005....ei=5070 -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,12:42    Quote (Richardthughes @ July 05 2007,13:37) [WmAD] Is this an ID friendly paper on Front Loading? [/WmAD] LOL!

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,12:43    Hang on, is it just my ignorance, or are non-expressed genes totally different from DNA in dead material? That IS what VMartin is arguing is the same, right? -------------- 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.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,12:45    Quote (VMartin @ July 05 2007,13:39) Frontloading - dumbest Idea evar? Folks here are pretty sure that frontloading is impossible because genes that are not expressed would degenerate. Because on such genes allmighty natural selection doesnot make any selective pressure they should be destroyed after some time by deleterious mutations. That's why the idea of frontloading should be dismissed and ridiculed. Oddly enough some scientists try to restore DNA more than 70 millions years old which is preserved in soft tissue or eggs of dinosaurus. So we are to believe that DNA degenerate only in living cells where also repairing mechanisms are present, but somehow DNA is stable in dead tissues.   http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/14/5/589 or   Quote "If we have tissues that are not fossilized, then we can potentially extract DNA. It's very exciting." http://www.nytimes.com/2005....ei=5070 Oh my god.

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,13:00    stevestory. Aren't you an atheist darling? You should better use "Oh my natural selection". -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,13:04    "Oh my natural selection" isn't an English colloquialism.

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,13:22    Blasphemy is better for atheists, it gets the message across and we dont have to worry about being punnished for what is effectively a victimless "crime". -------------- 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: July 05 2007,13:41    Quote (VMartin @ July 05 2007,12:39) Frontloading - dumbest Idea evar? Folks here are pretty sure that frontloading is impossible because genes that are not expressed would degenerate. Because on such genes allmighty natural selection doesnot make any selective pressure they should be destroyed after some time by deleterious mutations. That's why the idea of frontloading should be dismissed and ridiculed. Oddly enough some scientists try to restore DNA more than 70 millions years old which is preserved in soft tissue or eggs of dinosaurus. So we are to believe that DNA degenerate only in living cells where also repairing mechanisms are present, but somehow DNA is stable in dead tissues.   http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/14/5/589 or       Quote "If we have tissues that are not fossilized, then we can potentially extract DNA. It's very exciting." http://www.nytimes.com/2005....ei=5070 T-Rex DNA. Nice that VMartin has finally discovered Answers in Genesis. Hey, V, how old do you think the earth is? And who froze evolution, and why . . . . ? What's the matter, don't you KNOW?   Quote Aren't you an atheist darling? You should better use "Oh my natural selection". V tries to be witty. I can't help but wonder if people back in Slovakia find V to be as hopelessly boneheaded and annoying as Anglophones do. -------------- "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: July 05 2007,13:46    Quote Hang on, is it just my ignorance, or are non-expressed genes totally different from DNA in dead material? The example I have given some people use to corroborate claim that dino coexists with humans and that dino extinction should be postponed to the recent time. I am not sure of that but the fact of DNA preserved after 70. milion years is very weird, isn't it? Maybe it is normal that there should be no deleterious changes on information inside DNA after so vast period, but again - is not DNA more stable as scientists presume? -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,13:51    Quote So we are to believe that DNA degenerate only in living cells where also repairing mechanisms are present, but somehow DNA is stable in dead tissues. Hint: dead tissue is not actively making new copies of its DNA.

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,13:53    Arden Arden Chatfield Quote I can't help but wonder if people back in Slovakia find V to be as hopelessly bonheaded and annoying as Anglophones do. My post addressing your and Cristine behaviour has been deleted today. Consequently I will not respond your posts here anymore. You can find my clearly expressed opinion on your little person at ISCID forum. Good luck. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,13:56    Quote (VMartin @ July 05 2007,13:53) Arden Arden Chatfield   Quote I can't help but wonder if people back in Slovakia find V to be as hopelessly bonheaded and annoying as Anglophones do. My post addressing your and Cristine behaviour has been deleted today. Consequently I will not respond your posts here anymore. You can find my clearly expressed opinion on your little person at ISCID forum. Good luck. Genius, your post was moved to the Bathroom wall. See here. PS: Since when did you ever 'respond' to my posts? Endless whining about 'Darwinists' is all I can remember. -------------- "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: July 05 2007,13:58    Quote Hint: dead tissue is not actively making new copies of its DNA. I know. But dead cells do not repair DNA as well. Aren't you surprised that DNA of dino endured intact more than 70. million years? Some scientists didn't believe it is possible. If your point is that deleterious mutation are due copying or processes in nucleus of living cells I have no argument. Yet DNA macromulecule as such is very stable, isn't it? -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,14:01    Quote I know. But dead cells do not repair DNA as well. Aren't you surprised that DNA of dino endured intact more than 70. million years? Some scientists didn't believe it is possible. Hey V, are you hinting at the earth being 6,000 years old here? -------------- "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: July 05 2007,14:03    Quote You can find my clearly expressed opinion on your little person at ISCID forum. Very cowardly, V. You're afraid to answer our questions here, so you run off so that Davison can protect you from the mean Darwinists. -------------- "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

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 06 2007,04:58    Quote (VMartin @ July 05 2007,08:58)   Quote Hint: dead tissue is not actively making new copies of its DNA. I know. But dead cells do not repair DNA as well. Aren't you surprised that DNA of dino endured intact more than 70. million years? Some scientists didn't believe it is possible. If your point is that deleterious mutation are due copying or processes in nucleus of living cells I have no argument. Yet DNA macromulecule as such is very stable, isn't it? (My humble apologies for my part in this débâcle) @VMartin I can't find any primary source in the literature, where anyone has been successful in extracting DNA from dinosaur fossils. Some peptide fragments appear to have been  found in a T. rex fossil bone. I don't know whether that helps or hinders your argument, whatever that might be.

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 07 2007,00:13    Re "I can't find any primary source in the literature, where anyone has been successful in extracting DNA from dinosaur fossils. " Ah, but have they thought to look in the amber for ancient mosquitos... Wait, forget I said that. Henry

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 10 2007,14:46    Jeanot July 1st: Quote It's clear that sexual reproduction uses different mechanisms in distantly related vertebrates, however, it doesn't necessary imply that sexual reproduction appeared independently from a pre-sexual ancestor. One could easily imagine that a lineage can evolve different sexual mechanisms (sexual chromosomes, environmental determinism) without reverting to asexuality between those. For instance, opisthoconta (animals and fungi) share common structures in their spermatozoids, and I'm not even considering these homologies within vertebrates. So it seems that sexual reproduction has a single origin in this phylum. Anyway facts mentioned by Davison are interesting. Germ cells in birds and mammals seem to have their origin in different embryonal structures which serves as source of different body organs. Davison: Quote In birds the cells destined to become the germ cells first appear in the extra-embryonic endoderm (germinal crescent) anterior to the head of the developing embryo. Incidentally, this region has no homologue in the hatched bird as the extra-embryonic endoderm is, by definition, resorbed as nutrient for the developing chick. From there the presumptive germ cells enter the circulatory system and, after a period of time in the bloodstream, penetrate the walls of the venous  circulation and invade the gonad where they differentiate into the definitive gametes. In mammals the presumptive germ cells first appear in the endoderm of the allantois, a structure destined to become the urinary bladder of the adult. From here they migrate in amoeboid fashion anteriorly and laterally to reach the gonad where they complete their differentiation. Thus, there is no way that the reproductive cells of mammals can be homologized with those of birds as they originate from opposite ends of the embryonic axis and reach the gonads by completely different means. I would say his conclusion is more persuasive as hypothetical "One could easily imagine...". Why should I imagine something where facts do not support common ancestors having both sex? Only to prove plausibility of  darwininian explanation? I do not see there any  reason  (inside eggs or embryo and his  development) that should reorganize the source of germ cells or their journey into gonads. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 10 2007,15:56    Okay, new game: every time VMartin says 'Darwin' you still have to drink a beer, but whenever he says 'Davison', you have to drink two. [uh oh] Okay, let's get down to it.   Quote Anyway facts mentioned by Davison gulp gulp   Quote are interesting. Germ cells in birds and mammals seem to have their origin in different embryonal structures which serves as source of different body organs. Davison: gulp gulp   Quote In birds the cells destined to become the germ cells first appear in the extra-embryonic endoderm (germinal crescent) anterior to the head of the developing embryo. Incidentally, this region has no homologue in the hatched bird as the extra-embryonic endoderm is, by definition, resorbed as nutrient for the developing chick. From there the presumptive germ cells enter the circulatory system and, after a period of time in the bloodstream, penetrate the walls of the venous  circulation and invade the gonad where they differentiate into the definitive gametes. In mammals the presumptive germ cells first appear in the endoderm of the allantois, a structure destined to become the urinary bladder of the adult. From here they migrate in amoeboid fashion anteriorly and laterally to reach the gonad where they complete their differentiation. Thus, there is no way that the reproductive cells of mammals can be homologized with those of birds as they originate from opposite ends of the embryonic axis and reach the gonads by completely different means. I would say his conclusion is more persuasive as hypothetical "One could easily imagine...". Why should I imagine something where facts do not support common ancestors having both sex? Only to prove plausibility of  darwininian gulp   Quote explanation? I do not see there any  reason  (inside eggs or embryo and his  development) that should reorganize the source of germ cells or their journey into gonads. Ugh, I'd better rest. I'm afraid I may lose my countenace completely. PS: THREE gulps next time he says 'National Socialist'. -------------- "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

Pages: (16) < ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard