Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::Frontloading--Dumbest Idea Evar?

REC

Posts: 638
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: Feb. 25 2010,19:47

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 25 2010,19:32)

Quote (Richard Simons @ Feb. 25 2010,19:23)

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,10:31)

And as a matter of fact all observations and experiments support the Creation position of baraminology.

To qualify as science, there must be conceivable results that would refute the Creation position on baraminology. Please give us an example of possible data that would make you reconsider the Creationist position (equivalent to the Pre-Cambrian rabbit).

1- The pre-cambrian rabbit is pure bullshit

But you don't have to take my word for that just ask David Heddle

2- I don't buy the Creation position. I am just saying that that is what the evidence supports.

But what would refute it? Something that supports the premise that mutations can accumulate in such a way as to give ris eto novel protein machienery AND novel body parts and novel body plans.

I don't buy the position, its just what the evidence supports?

What? �That doesn't make sense! �Your beliefs are independent from evidence?

I think you should read up on hox gene evolution. �Their evolution has been traced, and the molecular mechanisms leading to distinct body plans are fairly tractable.

"Biological diversity is driven mainly by gene duplication followed by mutation and selection. This divergence in either regulatory or protein-coding sequences can result in quite different biological functions for even closely related genes. This concept is exemplified by the mammalian Hox gene complex..."

Link
"In this chapter, we consider the question of how the ordered clusters of Hox genes arose during evolution"
Evolution of the Hox genes complex from an evolutionary ground state
Link

REC

Posts: 638
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: Feb. 25 2010,19:52

Hey Joe-

How bout if a scientist meddles with a Chicken embryo such that it re-acquires the ancestral (reptilian) ability to produce teeth?

M.P. Harris, S.M. Hasso, M.W. J. Ferguson, and J.F. Fallon (February 2006). The Development of Archosaurian First-Generation Teeth in a Chicken Mutant. Current Biology, 16:371-377.

Here's a pop-culture summary, if you don't understand the ref:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5230538

Richard Simons

Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: Feb. 25 2010,20:21

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 25 2010,19:32)

�

Quote (Richard Simons @ Feb. 25 2010,19:23)

�

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,10:31)

And as a matter of fact all observations and experiments support the Creation position of baraminology.

To qualify as science, there must be conceivable results that would refute the Creation position on baraminology. Please give us an example of possible data that would make you reconsider the Creationist position (equivalent to the Pre-Cambrian rabbit).

1- The pre-cambrian rabbit is pure bullshit

In what way is it bullshit? You need to explain.

Quote

2- I don't buy the Creation position. I am just saying that that is what the evidence supports.

But what would refute it? Something that supports the premise that mutations can accumulate in such a way as to give ris eto novel protein machienery AND novel body parts and novel body plans.

No. That is not how science works. Only people who have not done science think that you propose a theory then look for evidence to support it. A scientist proposes a theory, then looks for evidence that refutes it. No-one has ever found evidence that refutes the theory of evolution. On the other hand, no-one has ever suggested a possible way to refute Intelligent Design.

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

ppb

Posts: 325
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: Feb. 26 2010,09:47

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 25 2010,20:35)

Quote (ppb @ Feb. 24 2010,12:13)

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,12:45)

Great, then why can't you find some data that supoorts your position?

One of my favorite examples of evolution is the mammalian inner ear. �It's development from the bones in the jaws of reptiles is supported by transitional fossils as well as evidence from embryology.

Now, where is that research by baraminologists?

That example exists only in your minds.

There isn't any genetic data that supports the transformation.

It isn't supported by embryology- just because the structures come from the same area doesn't mean squat.

When some scientist goes into a lab, manipulates a reptilian embryo such that it develops a mammaliam middle ear then you will have support.

Until then all you have is imagination.

Which, so far, is more than I have seen from you concerning baraminology. Who is doing research in this area? Where is the data that supports it? I haven't seen anything from you or from anyone.

--------------
"[A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd."
- Richard P. Feynman

Albatrossity2

Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: Feb. 26 2010,10:07

Quote (ppb @ Feb. 26 2010,09:47)

Which, so far, is more than I have seen from you concerning baraminology. �Who is doing research in this area? �Where is the data that supports it? �I haven't seen anything from you or from anyone.

The reason Joe/tough guy won't link to it is that it is even more ridiculous than he is, and he wants to remain king of this molehill.

But the Creation Science Quarterly is good for lulz. Here's a recent article by the inimitable Jerry Bergman on "Why the inverted retina of the human eye is a good design"!

--------------
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

ppb

Posts: 325
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: Feb. 26 2010,10:46

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 26 2010,11:07)

�

Quote (ppb @ Feb. 26 2010,09:47)

Which, so far, is more than I have seen from you concerning baraminology. �Who is doing research in this area? �Where is the data that supports it? �I haven't seen anything from you or from anyone.

The reason Joe/tough guy won't link to it is that it is even more ridiculous than he is, and he wants to remain king of this molehill.

But the Creation Science Quarterly is good for lulz. Here's a recent article by the inimitable Jerry Bergman on "Why the inverted retina of the human eye is a good design"!

Thanks for the link Albie. �That's more information than I ever got out of Joey boy. �

I found this article on the current state of Baraminology to be pretty enlightening. �As far as I can tell, they use various arbitrary methods to lump things together to try and guess what the original "kinds" were. �I didn't see any attempt to understand what sort of barrier would prevent one "kind" from evolving into another "kind", which is what I would really like from Joe. �So far all I see is a lot of guess work, grounded on the belief in the Genesis creation account(s). �As we like to say, all science so far! �

Is that really the current state of Baraminology? �Pretty pitiful.

--------------
"[A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd."
- Richard P. Feynman

Steverino

Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: Feb. 26 2010,11:02

De-cloaking here for a comment.....

From I can tell, Joe G�s. complex criteria for discerning the validity of research and data is.....Joe G. and his ability to �hand wave�

Correct me if I�m wrong Joe.

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

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