Printable Version of Topic

-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: Frontloading--Dumbest Idea Evar? started by stevestory


Posted by: stevestory on June 10 2007,22:48

This might not deserve its own thread. < Ed Brayton has a new post on Exaptation vs Frontloading > which is crossposted to PT, and it got me thinking. I've only known about this 'frontloading' nonsense for about a year. The moment I was exposed to the idea, I had the thought I've since had every time it's come up, which is pretty frequent on UD: Is frontloading the dumbest idea ever, or merely extremely stupid?
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 10 2007,22:54

well, IIRC, the strict concept of frontloading has been around for quite a while, in one form or another; it just shifted mechanisms as the field of genetics was fleshed out.

is it the dumbest idea ever?

naww.  not by a longshot; without knowing any better, you could easily be fooled into thinking it makes sense.

example:

the immune system.

without knowing any better, one might conclude that antibodies to all infectious agents that ever existed are front-loaded into a genome.

hence, the idea persists, even into the present, maintained just like the idea of a 6k year earth by people who have somehow decided for themselves that it is more parsimonious with their religious fantasies.

I have only ever seen ONE real frontloading supporter around PT, though, and that was Blast-from-the-past.

if you want to see how frontloaders think, you might try searching on the thread about the evolution of snake venom, and check out his "arguments".  They are pretty representative of how front loaders think.

ah, that wasn't too hard.

check out the threads on snake venom (Fry's work) on this page:

< http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/shoptalk/ >

IIRC, Blast did a decent job of expanding on his ideas for how snake venom is a front-loaded trait, and was of course shredded by no less than the author of the paper himself, lenny, myself, and several others piled on.
Posted by: someotherguy on June 10 2007,22:58

You could peruse Telic Thoughts too.  IIRC, frontloading is the main game in town for them.
Posted by: stevestory on June 10 2007,22:59

As Ed points out, mutations would render front-loaded information so worthless so fast I just can't understand how anyone could believe it.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 10 2007,23:01

Quote (stevestory @ June 10 2007,22:59)
As Ed points out, mutations would render front-loaded information so worthless so fast I just can't understand how anyone could believe it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


holy crap.  you can watch FTK post here on a daily basis, can recall the "creator god" thread from Airhead Dave, and you can't understand THIS one?

I think it's time you troll telic thoughts and invite a front-loader on by.

you'll understand, if be sickened by, their "logic" soon enough.

*evil grin*

btw, IIRC, blast used to explain the "mutation" issue by saying that most of these "genes" were placed in non-encoding regions of the DNA, and so were somehow exempt from mutation.  then, as they are needed, they are "called" to "active duty".

please, don't ask me to explain that.

please.

I just ate.
Posted by: stevestory on June 10 2007,23:04

It's very hard to get creationists to come by here anymore. We've got a reputation. When I invite them, they react as if I'm inviting them to inspect our new Troy-Bilt Chipper Shredder up close and personal.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 10 2007,23:05

MUHAHAHAHA!!

I feel like quoting a line from Fargo, but I'm just not sure which one.
Posted by: stevestory on June 10 2007,23:08



"He was kinda funny-lookin..."
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 10 2007,23:13

Quote (stevestory @ June 10 2007,23:08)


"He was kinda funny-lookin..."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"The heck do ya mean? "
Posted by: stevestory on June 10 2007,23:14

"You know...just kinda funny-lookin"
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 10 2007,23:14

Quote (stevestory @ June 10 2007,23:04)
It's very hard to get creationists to come by here anymore. We've got a reputation. When I invite them, they react as if I'm inviting them to inspect our new Troy-Bilt Chipper Shredder up close and personal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So that was Mrs. Lundegaard on the floor in there. And I guess that was your accomplice in the wood chipper. And those three people in Brainerd. And for what? For a little bit of money. There's more to life than a little money, you know. Don't you know that? And here ya are, and it's a beautiful day. Well, I just don't understand it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Jim_Wynne on June 10 2007,23:14

Quote (stevestory @ June 10 2007,23:04)
It's very hard to get creationists to come by here anymore. We've got a reputation. When I invite them, they react as if I'm inviting them to inspect our new Troy-Bilt Chipper Shredder up close and personal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Demise by Troy-Bilt is a process known as < morselization >.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 10 2007,23:17

Quote (stevestory @ June 10 2007,23:14)
"You know...just kinda funny-lookin"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Can you be any more specific? "
Posted by: stevestory on June 10 2007,23:18

Yikes. How horrible.

Everyone speculates on what the best death would be like, though I doubt anyone has concluded Death by Troy-Bilt Chipper Shredder.
Posted by: stevestory on June 10 2007,23:20

FYI, I think the best death would be the one described by Hunter Thompson, where you put a case of Wild Turkey on the passenger seat of the convertible, turn the radio way up and the lights etc, and start taking those dangerous Kentucky curves way too fast.

(that's a vague memory. Read it years ago. But anyone who's been on those dangerous Kentucky curves knows what I'm talking about)
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 10 2007,23:26

I wish he could have decided at least to experiment with the idea, rather than taking a gun to his head.

I miss that guy.
Posted by: someotherguy on June 10 2007,23:26

Quote (stevestory @ June 10 2007,23:20)
FYI, I think the best death would be the one described by Hunter Thompson, where you put a case of Wild Turkey on the passenger seat of the convertible, turn the radio way up and the lights etc, and start taking those dangerous Kentucky curves way too fast.

(that's a vague memory. Read it years ago. But anyone who's been on those dangerous Kentucky curves knows what I'm talking about)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As it turned out, Thompson's real death was--how to say it?--less than ideal.

Sigh. . . :(

ETA: Oops, I cross-posted with Ichthyic.
Posted by: guthrie on June 11 2007,06:19

Quote (stevestory @ June 10 2007,23:04)
It's very hard to get creationists to come by here anymore. We've got a reputation. When I invite them, they react as if I'm inviting them to inspect our new Troy-Bilt Chipper Shredder up close and personal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We seem to be getting some cranks in the ID forum.  I'm seeing if I can have some fun.  
Lenny has already told one of them that ID is dead, and Arden is joining in the fun.
Posted by: Kristine on June 11 2007,12:22

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 10 2007,22:05)
MUHAHAHAHA!!

I feel like quoting a line from Fargo, but I'm just not sure which one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Two more months." :)

ID is brain-dead, but I suppose they'll just keep the front-loading on life-support and remain in denial.
Posted by: VMartin on June 11 2007,13:23

Front-loading is also an idea proposed by John Davison in his extraordinary anti-darwinian work Evolutionary Manifesto. Such an idea of front-loading seems to better explain evolution as darwinian mantras of random mutation and natural selection does.

I would say that the Nature itself gives us some examples when the same DNA  contains information for different morphological structures - larvae, pupa, butterfly - as is the case of metamorphosis. That these three different morphological structures of the same indivudal evolved gradually via random mutation&natural selection is probably another darwinian fancy.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 11 2007,13:28

interestingly, I think the arguments over Black Box were what caused the front-loading concept to be folded into the big-tent of ID.

going back 7 years, for example, you can check out the responses to Miller's trashing of the book on Disco's own website:

< http://www.discovery.org/scripts....&id=287 >

my point is, that just like most of the concepts creobots use, they endlessly produce MUS (made up shit) to cover the reasons why these concepts are not viable, nor applicable.

which ends up making the front-loading argument not quite as simple to dismiss as the mutation point would suggest.

I guess I'm just trying to point out why it sticks around.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp on June 11 2007,13:29

Quote (VMartin @ June 11 2007,13:23)
Front-loading is also an idea proposed by John Davison in his extraordinary anti-darwinian work Evolutionary Manifesto. Such an idea of front-loading seems to better explain evolution as darwinian mantras of random mutation and natural selection does.

I would say that the Nature itself gives us some examples when the same DNA  contains information for different morphological structures - larvae, pupa, butterfly - as is the case of metamorphosis. That these three different morphological structures of the same indivudal evolved gradually via random mutation&natural selection is probably another darwinian fancy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh boy look who's joined the party. JA Davison's personal patter-of-the-back, VMartin.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 11 2007,13:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Such an idea of front-loading seems to better explain evolution as darwinian mantras of random mutation and natural selection does.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Can you give us an example?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That these three different morphological structures of the same indivudal evolved gradually via random mutation&natural selection is probably another darwinian fancy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You say probably. Is there some doubt in your mind then? What experiments could be conducted to remove that doubt?
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 11 2007,13:31

Quote (VMartin @ June 11 2007,13:23)
Front-loading is also an idea proposed by John Davison in his extraordinary anti-darwinian work Evolutionary Manifesto. Such an idea of front-loading seems to better explain evolution as darwinian mantras of random mutation and natural selection does.

I would say that the Nature itself gives us some examples when the same DNA  contains information for different morphological structures - larvae, pupa, butterfly - as is the case of metamorphosis. That these three different morphological structures of the same indivudal evolved gradually via random mutation&natural selection is probably another darwinian fancy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


that's funny, Martin.

when DaveScott brought up the idea of front-loading as applying to JAD's PEH, JAD specifically said it had nothing to do with it.  the resulting argument lead to the first time JAD was banned from UD.

I think you'd best go back and coordinate with your idol again.

Indeed, JAD is very fond of saying that he didn't disagree with the accepted mechanisms of the ToE, but only that evolution stopped long ago.

or haven't you noticed the line he uses as a sig for every post he makes?

I've actually read his PEH (still listed as the crankiest evolutionary concept EVER on crank.net, btw), and I don't recall any mention of front-loading.

care to point it out for us?

strike that.

encouraging any contribution from yourself is like asking for a migrane.
Posted by: VMartin on June 13 2007,12:45

From the article:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The bottom line is that the evolutionary hypothesis, exaptation, predicts the evidence perfectly; the ID hypothesis is flatly contradicted by it and can only try to explain it away or invent mystical and unknown processes to circumvent the evidence.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yet I somehow missed information for what these genes in the sea sponge serve for. Are we really witnessing "exaptation"?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So it seems to be with the genes for synapses.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Aha, so it just only "seems". Yet the readers are expected to blindly believe it.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The sea sponge did not use them for their current purpose, but that doesn’t mean the genes had no use.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So the sea sponge did not use these genes for current purpose. Yet according "selfish gene" conception genes use organisms as their vehicle for their survival. So sometimes the genes use organisms and sometimes an organism uses the genes. It depends what darwinists want to explain. So or so. Darwinism is very flexible and dialectical theory.
Posted by: Chris Hyland on June 13 2007,12:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet I somehow missed information for what these genes in the sea sponge serve for. Are we really witnessing "exaptation"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Well if they serve no purpose and are the result of frontloading then I suggest that you write a grant to perform some experiments to confirm this.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So sometimes the genes use organisms and sometimes an organism uses the genes
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

There is no reason why both cannot be true at the same time.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 13 2007,13:34

hey v-

I'm wondering....

do you and JAD share a prescription?
Posted by: VMartin on June 13 2007,14:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Well if they serve no purpose and are the result of frontloading then I suggest that you write a grant to perform some experiments to confirm this.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's your conviction they have some purpose. I've only asked what.

You know it reminds me little to mushroom coloration. There should be some cryptic or aposematic function of  mushroom coloration according darwinism - and yet nobody know to explain it.
Posted by: VMartin on June 13 2007,14:22



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

...do you and JAD share a prescription?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Let's call it using Bateson words: '...an unpacking of an original complex which contained within itself the whole range of diversity which living things present'.

More on John Davison opinion on the topic at:

< http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000370-p-44.html >
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 13 2007,14:37

*whoosh*

yup, you guys must share a perscription alrighty.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 13 2007,14:38

btw, Steve:

how is what Vmartin does any different, functionaly, from him being a sockpuppet of JAD?

perhaps THAT was the real reason he got the boot originally?
Posted by: Chris Hyland on June 13 2007,16:40



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's your conviction they have some purpose. I've only asked what.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I'm basing my assumption on the fact that the functional regions of the proteins have been conserved and they are expressed in the sponge, most noticably in cells that perform a sensory function. Similar to the way certain sensory proteins involved in vision and hearing in humans are used in different sensory capacities in sea urchins.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You know it reminds me little to mushroom coloration. There should be some cryptic or aposematic function of  mushroom coloration according darwinism - and yet nobody know to explain it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Why should there be?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 13 2007,20:36

Quote (VMartin @ June 13 2007,14:22)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

...do you and JAD share a prescription?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Let's call it using Bateson words: '...an unpacking of an original complex which contained within itself the whole range of diversity which living things present'.

More on John Davison opinion on the topic at:

< http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000370-p-44.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


VMartin, how do you feel about Davison's belief that God has died?
Posted by: stevestory on June 13 2007,20:42

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 13 2007,15:38)
btw, Steve:

how is what Vmartin does any different, functionaly, from him being a sockpuppet of JAD?

perhaps THAT was the real reason he got the boot originally?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmm, that's a good question. VMartin gets the same allowances everyone else gets. He might parrot JAD's ideas, but it's JAD's behavior which got him banned, not his ideas, and if VMartin wants to persue JAD's ideas that's not a strike against him. If he exhibits JAD's crazy behaviors, he'll be banned after a few months, but if he just wants to support JAD's ideas, we're pretty content-neutral, as the SCOTUS would say.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 13 2007,20:46

but doesn't that violate what was said about banning those that essentially say:

"well, JAD said this..."

so far, I have yet to see Vmartin actually espouse even a correct version of JAD's PEH, he merely talks about him much like Sal speaks of Dembski.

see where I'm going?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 13 2007,20:58

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 13 2007,20:46)
but doesn't that violate what was said about banning those that essentially say:

"well, JAD said this..."

so far, I have yet to see Vmartin actually espouse even a correct version of JAD's PEH, he merely talks about him much like Sal speaks of Dembski.

see where I'm going?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can't imagine what you mean.





Posted by: Ichthyic on June 13 2007,21:02

exxxxcellent, Smithers.

btw, I can't recall where this:

Die. Twerp. Die. Before the cat gets you. -DO'L

came from.

did you really get Densye to say that?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 13 2007,21:32

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 13 2007,21:02)
exxxxcellent, Smithers.

btw, I can't recall where this:

Die. Twerp. Die. Before the cat gets you. -DO'L

came from.

did you really get Densye to say that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< She said it with no prompting from me at all. > :O
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 13 2007,21:46

well, she did say she was overreacting...

ROFLMAO!

what a nutbag.

wtf does "before the cat gets you" mean?

speculations?

some Canadian saying of some kind?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 13 2007,22:31



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

some Canadian saying of some kind?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



DOL seems to be fond of regional idiomatic speech... like "Er hat einen Vogel", perhaps.

Of course, I'm fond of that one, since it is literally true in my case.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 13 2007,22:36

My german's a bit rusty, but AFAICT, that translates to:

He has a bird.

so...

what's the slang usage?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 13 2007,22:45

Diane ran into that one in college when she took one of those intensive language courses in German. Students were encouraged to bring props and talk about their interests, so one day Diane comes into class with her cockatiel, points to it, and says, "Ich haba einen Vogel" (sp.? I didn't take the German class...). The instructor fell off his chair laughing, and went out of the room. He fetched another instructor back and asked her to repeat what she said, she did, and the other guy busted out laughing, too. Finally they revealed that in parts of Germany that's slang (in the third person) for "She/he is crazy". Diane having essentially said "I'm crazy" tickled those guys.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 13 2007,23:02

ahhh, something like calling someone a bird-brain, i would wager.

yes, that is exactly the kind of thing I am thinking explains the "before the cat gets you" phrase.

but I've been to BC, Toronto, and Montreal, and must have missed that expression somehow.

maybe it's a "small mind" type put down?

person is so "small" they have to worry about the cat getting them, or some such thing?

Now I'm genuinely curious.  she has no wit to speak of, so she had to have heard it somewhere.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 13 2007,23:10

just for kicks, I googled the phrase "before the cat gets you", and other than Densye, I only found one reference using it as a phrase, but the link



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
SD-1.net: We're Pretty Well Used To Batshit Crazy Around Here ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



was busted.

LOL
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 13 2007,23:30

ah, I think I've got it:

it's a twist on the "cat that swallowed the canary" thing.

maybe she is looking at the the canary being smug, cause it thinks it's safe in a cage and all.  Maybe she thinks of academics in ivory towers like canaries in cages??

maybe the usage from the original got twisted 180 somehow, since it is typically the cat that is thought to be smug and self-satisified?

wouldn't be the first time she got something 180 degrees backwards.
Posted by: Louis on June 14 2007,05:37

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 14 2007,05:31)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

some Canadian saying of some kind?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



DOL seems to be fond of regional idiomatic speech... like "Er hat einen Vogel", perhaps.

Of course, I'm fond of that one, since it is literally true in my case.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have a copy of Vogel on my shelf too.

Oh wait, that's not what you meant is it? Damn, foiled again!

Louis

P.S. "Ich bin ein Berliner". Great diplomatic cock up "I am a Berlin cake (or doughnut)". Never say Ich bin warm (I am gay) or Ich bin heisse (I am horny) in Germany unless you really mean it. Never try to bum a fag off an American, entirely different prospect, and never name your car Nova in a Spanish speaking country.
Posted by: VMartin on June 15 2007,14:02



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I'm basing my assumption on the fact that the functional regions of the proteins have been conserved and they are expressed in the sponge, most noticably in cells that perform a sensory function.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There might have been many independent creations and no common ancestor. I am not sure that sponge and a human has anything common. Their evolutionary ancestors might have been created independently and so no common ancestor of them ever existed.

It is often the case that new organisms showed up "abruptly" without predecessors. The origination of mammalian orders seems to be such a case. Then the evolution slows down and no new "body plan" evolves.
In such cases we can presume that an ancestor bear all genetic setup for further evolution. Subsequent evolution only unfolds front-loaded dispositions.

Btw - can you explain me your position? I suppose that also according darwinism life could arose many times in different places too. So maybe according darwinism sponge and human may have no common ancestor either?
Posted by: SpaghettiSawUs on June 15 2007,14:30

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 14 2007,05:30)
ah, I think I've got it:

it's a twist on the "cat that swallowed the canary" thing.

maybe she is looking at the the canary being smug, cause it thinks it's safe in a cage and all.  Maybe she thinks of academics in ivory towers like canaries in cages??
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bingo.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 15 2007,14:48

[post scrapped]

I'm going to use Vmartin for the experiment I suggested instead.
Posted by: BWE on June 15 2007,14:48

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 13 2007,22:45)
Diane ran into that one in college when she took one of those intensive language courses in German. Students were encouraged to bring props and talk about their interests, so one day Diane comes into class with her cockatiel, points to it, and says, "Ich haba einen Vogel" (sp.? I didn't take the German class...). The instructor fell off his chair laughing, and went out of the room. He fetched another instructor back and asked her to repeat what she said, she did, and the other guy busted out laughing, too. Finally they revealed that in parts of Germany that's slang (in the third person) for "She/he is crazy". Diane having essentially said "I'm crazy" tickled those guys.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Try "c'est la vie" in Cuba.

translates to "I see her woman parts."
Posted by: VMartin on June 16 2007,02:20

There is no answer to my latest post but never mind. It is better to discuss here some linguistic nonsense as usually. Darwinists like linguistic because origin of languages are as obscure as origin of species. Probably darwinists are able to discuss not only evolution of languages but also their origin (even though French Academy do not publish works at such obscure issues anymore).  


Neverthenless John Davison's opinion on frontloading is that it probably occured many times independently:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

There may have literally been tens of thousands of either origins or, more likely, that many front loadings of a lesser number of original creations. The origin of life was a miracle, and thousands of miracles are no more miraculous than one. Miracles are like that don’t you know.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And John Davison's opinion of evolution of Orders:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It is perfectly possible that life originated as many times as there are Orders of animals and plants.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



seems to be well supported by "abruptly" origin of many Orders. Mammals are very good example where darwinism have to resort to the curious explanation of this "abruptly" origin - Yucatan meteorite, empty niches or :


Modern orders of mammals that appeared abruptly on northern continents coincident with the global warming event marking the Paleocene-Eocene boundary are hypothesized to have originated on the Indian subcontinent, but no relevant paleontological information has been available to test this idea.


The article is from Geology, vol. 31, Issue 12, p.1097 Publication Date: 12/2003
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 16 2007,03:18

Quote (VMartin @ June 16 2007,02:20)
There is no answer to my latest post but never mind. It is better to discuss here some linguistic nonsense as usually.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi VMartin,
As a matter of fact I asked you a couple of questions in response to your earlier posts. Therefore it's disingenuous to claim that you had "no answer" when "no answer" is exactly what you have given me.

Carry on.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 16 2007,03:20

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 11 2007,13:29)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Such an idea of front-loading seems to better explain evolution as darwinian mantras of random mutation and natural selection does.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Can you give us an example?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That these three different morphological structures of the same indivudal evolved gradually via random mutation&natural selection is probably another darwinian fancy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You say probably. Is there some doubt in your mind then? What experiments could be conducted to remove that doubt?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


like this one.
Posted by: Alan Fox on June 16 2007,05:46



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am not sure that sponge and a human has anything common.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What about both being based on carbon, identical genetic code, chirality, etc.?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hi VMartin,
As a matter of fact I asked you a couple of questions in response to your earlier posts. Therefore it's disingenuous to claim that you had "no answer" when "no answer" is exactly what you have given me.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Exactly, VMartin. You could try extending to others the same courtesy you expect from them.

PS Humour works well too :)
Posted by: VMartin on June 16 2007,06:26

oldmaninthesky....



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You say probably. Is there some doubt in your mind then? What experiments could be conducted to remove that doubt?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There is no need to make experiments - we see that evolution is over. Former evolutionary forces are not taking place anymore. No mammalian Order evolved from Eocene - and probably even more. But it is up to you to make experiments and show how homo sapiens evolved gradually from an ancient fish. If you have no experiments that show such a nonsense to be correct and scientific - why do you adhere to darwinism? And why do you demand "contra" experiments?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 16 2007,06:49



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There is no need to make experiments - we see that evolution is over.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where have you been looking? And over what timescales? You seem very sure.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Former evolutionary forces are not taking place anymore.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, what were they and why did they stop? Does the evolution of TB and other similar things count? If so, why not? If it does, then what are you talking about?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 No mammalian Order evolved from Eocene - and probably even more.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bald assertions don't really cut the ice. Again, I notice the word probably. Is there doubt in your mind then? What could you do to remove this doubt? When people talk about evolution they don't say "Man evolved (probably evolved, but he *might* have been poofed into existence)". Well, not unless they are FTK and her ilk anyway.

What can you do to remove the probably? Are you really happy with a guess?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

But it is up to you to make experiments and show how homo sapiens evolved gradually from an ancient fish.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is it? Why thank you. So, what are transitional fossils then?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

If you have no experiments that show such a nonsense to be correct and scientific - why do you adhere to darwinism?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you have no experiments that show such that your position is correct why do you adhere to it?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And why do you demand "contra" experiments?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You can confirm and disconfirm. But I doubt you'll do either.
Posted by: VMartin on June 16 2007,09:53



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 
No mammalian Order evolved from Eocene - and probably even more.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Bald assertions don't really cut the ice. Again, I notice the word probably. Is there doubt in your mind then? What could you do to remove this doubt? When people talk about evolution they don't say "Man evolved (probably evolved, but he *might* have been poofed into existence)". Well, not unless they are FTK and her ilk anyway.

What can you do to remove the probably? Are you really happy with a guess?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Probably - again - you didn't read my previous post completely. There was a quotation of abstract from a scientific journal.  You probably din't make any own research to find out and disprove my "bald assertion" when mammalian orders evolved.


At least five lineages of placental mammals
arose more than 100 million years ago, and most of the modern orders seem to have diversified before the Cretaceous/Tertiary
extinction of the dinosaurs.


Amolecular timescale for vertebrate evolution
Sudhir Kumar & S. Blair Hedges
< http://www.kumarlab.net/pdf_new/KumarHedges98.pdf >

or have a look at the chart please:



< http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Mammalian_Adaptive_Radiation.htm >
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 16 2007,10:28

Quote (VMartin @ June 16 2007,09:53)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 
No mammalian Order evolved from Eocene - and probably even more.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Bald assertions don't really cut the ice. Again, I notice the word probably. Is there doubt in your mind then? What could you do to remove this doubt? When people talk about evolution they don't say "Man evolved (probably evolved, but he *might* have been poofed into existence)". Well, not unless they are FTK and her ilk anyway.

What can you do to remove the probably? Are you really happy with a guess?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Probably - again - you didn't read my previous post completely. There was a quotation of abstract from a scientific journal.  You probably din't make any own research to find out and disprove my "bald assertion" when mammalian orders evolved.


At least five lineages of placental mammals
arose more than 100 million years ago, and most of the modern orders seem to have diversified before the Cretaceous/Tertiary
extinction of the dinosaurs.


Amolecular timescale for vertebrate evolution
Sudhir Kumar & S. Blair Hedges
< http://www.kumarlab.net/pdf_new/KumarHedges98.pdf >

or have a look at the chart please:



< http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Mammalian_Adaptive_Radiation.htm >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


so what's your point exactly?
Posted by: qetzal on June 16 2007,12:31

Quote (VMartin @ June 16 2007,09:53)
Probably - again - you didn't read my previous post completely. There was a quotation of abstract from a scientific journal.  You probably din't make any own research to find out and disprove my "bald assertion" when mammalian orders evolved.


At least five lineages of placental mammals
arose more than 100 million years ago, and most of the modern orders seem to have diversified before the Cretaceous/Tertiary
extinction of the dinosaurs.


Amolecular timescale for vertebrate evolution
Sudhir Kumar & S. Blair Hedges
< http://www.kumarlab.net/pdf_new/KumarHedges98.pdf >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Probably you didn't read your own citation completely. This paper offers evidence that mammalian orders appeared less abruptly than previously thought. Here's their final paragraph (emphasis added):


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Our molecular timescale for vertebrate evolution will be useful in calibrating local molecular clocks and in estimating intraordinal divergence times more reliably, especially in groups with poor fossil records. Molecular times also provide an independent measure of the tempo and mode of morphological change. For example, the sudden appearance (in the Early Tertiary fossil record) of mammalian and avian orders, which show large morphological differences, has been taken to imply rapid rates of morphological change at that time(14,24). Now, the possibility of 20–70Myr of prior evolutionary history relaxes that assumption and suggests a greater role for Earth history in the evolution of terrestrial vertebrates(12,25). An accurate knowledge of divergence times can help to direct the search for ‘missing’ fossils and test hypotheses of macroevolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 16 2007,12:46

VMartin:

Speaking of not answering questions, here's one you've ignored twice: how do you feel about Davison's belief that God has died?

Also, here are two other questions you shouldn't ignore:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, what are transitional fossils then?


If you have no experiments that show such that your position is correct why do you adhere to it?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: VMartin on June 17 2007,13:53



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Speaking of not answering questions, here's one you've ignored twice: how do you feel about Davison's belief that God has died?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What's the point? Has the question anything to do with darwinism and origin of mammalian orders?  Are we here solving some theological problems?
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 17 2007,14:02

[scrapped]
Posted by: jeannot on June 17 2007,16:17

Quote (VMartin @ June 17 2007,13:53)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Speaking of not answering questions, here's one you've ignored twice: how do you feel about Davison's belief that God has died?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What's the point? Has the question anything to do with darwinism and origin of mammalian orders?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It sure does since for JAD, the adaptive prescribed radiation of mammals is an evidence for God's death.
No kidding.
But we should be the ones asking you the question : how does the radiation of mammals support your view? It's unclear. Is it for the same reason as JAD's (God's death)?
Posted by: VMartin on June 18 2007,10:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

But we should be the ones asking you the question : how does the radiation of mammals support your view? It's unclear. Is it for the same reason as JAD's (God's death)?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Once the Earth was created there is no need to create it again and again, don't you think?  The same for mammalian Orders - the forces that led to mammalian diversification are not active any more. The evolution is finished. The nature of the forces that led to mammalian diversification is unknown nowadays. Yet they obviously have nothing to do with random mutation and natural selection as darwinists claim.  If they had there would have been no reason why there didn't arise any new mammalian order after Eocene. Because random mutation and natural selection operate according darwinism permanently there should have been evolved some new mammalian orders at least. But they didn't.

Maybe it was prescribed evolutionary process via saltationism, maybe some spiritual forces were taken place and maybe both of them.

John Davison's view as far as I know is that evolution is finished with it's terminal product homo sapiens.

I fully agree.

I will not discuss theological problems with atheists like you. It is wasting time and off topic.
Posted by: guthrie on June 18 2007,10:26

Or, maybe all the evolutionary niches available were filled?  

Hmmm, I see a closed mind.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 18 2007,10:26



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I will not discuss theological problems with atheists like you. It is wasting time and off topic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why are you afraid to answer the question, V?

Since you seem to routinely attack 'Darwinists' for their atheism, it seems to me that a bizarre theological statement like Davison's should be quite relevant.

If you don't want to discuss 'theological problems' with Darwinists, then you have no right to bitch about Darwinists being atheists.

So, V, try again.


Also, don't ignore these questions, either:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, what are transitional fossils then?

If you have no experiments that show such that your position is correct why do you adhere to it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: VMartin on June 18 2007,12:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Or, maybe all the evolutionary niches available were filled?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Because mammalian orders evolved long before K/T boundary when allegedly majority of species died out your remark seems to be irrelevant to the matter. Only if you presumed that there had been enough empty niches for mammals to evolve among dinos...  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Hmmm, I see a closed mind.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why do you look in the mirror?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 18 2007,12:51

Hey, V, do you agree with Davison's idea that God is dead?
Posted by: Henry J on June 18 2007,12:56

I thought that species were assigned to an order because of the comparatively large amount of difference between them and those put into other orders. That large amount of difference would be expected to take a large amount of time to evolve from their common ancestor.

Henry
Posted by: jeannot on June 18 2007,13:11

Quote (VMartin @ June 18 2007,12:35)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Or, maybe all the evolutionary niches available were filled?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Because mammalian orders evolved long before K/T boundary when allegedly majority of species died out your remark seems to be irrelevant to the matter. Only if you presumed that there had been enough empty niches for mammals to evolve among dinos...  

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Hmmm, I see a closed mind.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why do you look in the mirror?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


VMartin, how do you test your hypothesis?

Because natural selection is constantly observed, and its role in speciation is essential, but I am not aware of huh... how would you describe it?
Posted by: VMartin on June 18 2007,14:39



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Because natural selection is constantly observed, and its role in speciation is essential, but I am not aware of huh... how would you describe it?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Natural selection is anti-evolutionary device which only removes extremities from extant species. Its role is conservative.


Otherwise "natural selection" is somehow frozen as well. How would you describe the fact that no mammalian order evolved more than 50 mil. years? Is it really possible that in such huge scale of time with K/T extinction there were really no emptied niches where new mammalian order could evolve?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 18 2007,14:45

Hey, V, I keep asking you! Do you agree with Davison's idea that God is dead?
Posted by: VMartin on June 18 2007,15:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Hey, V, I keep asking you! Do you agree with Davison's idea that God is dead?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I have read already your question several times. As you see I don't answer. The question is off topic. But feel free to ask me again.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 18 2007,15:21

Quote (VMartin @ June 18 2007,15:17)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Hey, V, I keep asking you! Do you agree with Davison's idea that God is dead?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I have read already your question several times. As you see I don't answer. The question is irrelevant and off topic. But feel free and ask me again if you like.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


intellectual Cowardice.


Hey, If front loading is true, shouldn't early life have more, erm, *cough* CSI than the later stuff?

Also, how did front loading know about the suggested meteorite strike 251 million years ago? Was the meteorite intelligently thrown?
Posted by: Alan Fox on June 18 2007,15:27

Quote (stevestory @ June 10 2007,18:14)
"You know...just kinda funny-lookin"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So what you're sayin' is.... whadda you sayin'?
Posted by: jeannot on June 18 2007,15:32

Quote (VMartin @ June 18 2007,14:39)
Natural selection is anti-evolutionary device which only removes extremities from extant species. Its role is conservative.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Am afraid the evidence indicates otherwise. Have you read science lately, or any paper dealing with evolution?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Otherwise "natural selection" is somehow frozen as well. How would you describe the fact that no mammalian order evolved more than 50 mil. years? Is it really possible that in such huge scale of time with K/T extinction there were really no emptied niches where new mammalian order could evolve?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think you're onto something. I heard that no new empire (bacteria, archea...) appeared in the last billion of years. Sure it means that natural selection has stopped since then.
Joke aside, adpative radiations have occured frequently when some taxa indaved new habitats. We basically now how they work and most of the time they are correlated with peculiar ecological conditions.
Why no new mammalian order appear in the last 50 Myears? No one knows. Does it prove that evolution has stopped? It doesn't since evolution is currently observed. It's not a requirement for the theory to make new mammalian orders appear every Myear.

But I would like to know more precisely about your hypothesis and how you would test (and falsify) it.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 18 2007,15:36

Quote (VMartin @ June 18 2007,15:17)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Hey, V, I keep asking you! Do you agree with Davison's idea that God is dead?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I have read already your question several times. As you see I don't answer. The question is off topic. But feel free to ask me again.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay, I'll ask you again, V:

Do you agree with Davison that God has died?

Why do you seem afraid to answer this?

Don't be afraid of going off-topic. It's okay, Steve is quite forgiving about that kind of thing.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 18 2007,15:39

Quote (Alan Fox @ June 18 2007,15:27)
Quote (stevestory @ June 10 2007,18:14)
"You know...just kinda funny-lookin"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So what you're sayin' is.... whadda you sayin'?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And I guess that was your accomplice in the woodchipper?
Posted by: Henry J on June 18 2007,15:49



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why no new mammalian order appear in the last 50 Myears? No one knows.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



My guess would be that any split occurring since then wouldn't have had time to develop the amount of difference that we associate with orders.

Henry
Posted by: Henry J on June 18 2007,15:49



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also, how did front loading know about the suggested meteorite strike 251 million years ago? Was the meteorite intelligently thrown?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Is this evidence for intelligent falling? :p
Posted by: jeannot on June 18 2007,15:52

Quote (Henry J @ June 18 2007,15:49)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why no new mammalian order appear in the last 50 Myears? No one knows.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



My guess would be that any split occurring since then wouldn't have had time to develop the amount of difference that we associate with orders.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Probably not, since in the fossil record, most of the orders diversified in only a few million years, unless I'm mistaken.
Posted by: Alan Fox on June 18 2007,16:02

VMartin,

You may not realise this, but the idea of a forum is to exchange ideas, for example by posing and answering questions. It can be quite enlightening if you let yourself get into the spirit of things...

Budem cakat na tvoj navrat
Posted by: jeannot on June 18 2007,16:37

Quote (Alan Fox @ June 18 2007,16:02)
Budem cakat na tvoj navrat
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You need to improve your French, Alan.  ;)
Seriously, was does that mean?
Posted by: Alan Fox on June 19 2007,01:21

Quote (jeannot @ June 18 2007,11:37)
Quote (Alan Fox @ June 18 2007,16:02)
Budem cakat na tvoj navrat
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You need to improve your French, Alan.  ;)
Seriously, was does that mean?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"I will wait for you to return"  (I hope! I am sure VMartin will correct me if I got it wrong.)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 19 2007,07:19

Why is JAD's mouthpiece here?
Posted by: Chris Hyland on June 19 2007,11:03



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There might have been many independent creations and no common ancestor. I am not sure that sponge and a human has anything common. Their evolutionary ancestors might have been created independently and so no common ancestor of them ever existed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And the earth might actually be three hours old, I'm sticking with the most parsimonious explanation.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It is often the case that new organisms showed up "abruptly" without predecessors. The origination of mammalian orders seems to be such a case. Then the evolution slows down and no new "body plan" evolves.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Are you basing that on anything other than an incomplete fossil record?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In such cases we can presume that an ancestor bear all genetic setup for further evolution. Subsequent evolution only unfolds front-loaded dispositions.
---------------------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.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Btw - can you explain me your position? I suppose that also according darwinism life could arose many times in different places too. So maybe according darwinism sponge and human may have no common ancestor either?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Im not sure what you mean by Darwinism here. The modern theory of evolution says that sponge and human do share a common ancestor.
Posted by: VMartin on June 19 2007,11:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Okay, I'll ask you again, V:

Do you agree with Davison that God has died?

Why do you seem afraid to answer this?

Don't be afraid of going off-topic. It's okay, Steve is quite forgiving about that kind of thing.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



O.K. I believe you - unless you have provoked me. You do not comprehend Davison opinion on the matter.  John Davison opinion is this one:


...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. I agree.

My point WAS then, and still is NOW, that there is no need for a living God within the postulates of the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. The scientist cannot assume the existence of that which cannot be demonstrated. However he can be convinced of such a prior existence which is exactly what the PEH maintains...


I quoted these words from ISCID where everyone can find them, post June 5th 2007:

< http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000548-p-14.html >

So his claim is different as you thought. He used such words  only as "rhetorical trick". Consequently your question is not expressing the real John's opinion. You should formulate it differently at least.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 19 2007,11:25



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, what are transitional fossils then?

If you have no experiments that show such that your position is correct why do you adhere to it?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 19 2007,11:57

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ June 19 2007,07:19)
Why is JAD's mouthpiece here?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He hasn't done anything bannable yet.
Posted by: Louis on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He hasn't done anything bannable yet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Emphasis on the word yet or the word bannable?

Louis
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He hasn't done anything bannable yet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Emphasis on the word yet or the word bannable?

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good point. I'd say emphasis on 'bannable'.
Posted by: Ichthyic on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 19 2007,17:02

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


Making VMartin uncomfortable is not without its charms.
Posted by: Ichthyic on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Making VMartin uncomfortable is not without its charms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


much more interesting flavors of tard out there.

but i take your point that none of them are engaging here at the moment.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He hasn't done anything bannable yet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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. . . . .
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He hasn't done anything bannable yet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


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.
Posted by: Richard Simons on 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.)
Posted by: VMartin on 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?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who directs it, and what exactly is the 'scenario'?
Posted by: Chris Hyland on June 20 2007,10:39



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course saltationism need something like frontloading.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Why?
Posted by: VMartin on 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.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

(Don't worry, it's not off topic.)
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


VMartin, did you miss this one?


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


Posted by: VMartin on June 20 2007,13:46



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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'?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I am not sure you want to know response to such a question. If you want feel free to ask me.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 20 2007,13:49

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


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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'?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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


We're asking, V.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 20 2007,13:50

YES PLEASE VMARTIN! SHARE YOUR DAVIDSON'S THOUGHTS WITH US!!!!!
Posted by: Chris Hyland on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: VMartin on 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.
Posted by: VMartin on June 20 2007,15:08

Arden Chatfield



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

We're asking, V.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Have an answer?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 20 2007,15:11

PS:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Evolution is directed process. It is following a scenario.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Given Davison's your beliefs, shouldn't you have put that in past tense?
Posted by: jeannot on 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?
Posted by: Alan Fox on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< 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."
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 20 2007,17:55

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


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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'?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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


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


But we certainly do understand why you don't want to answer.  (snicker)  (giggle)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 20 2007,17:56

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


What stopped it? The designer die, or something?

(snicker)  (giggle)
Posted by: Henry J on June 20 2007,17:59



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What stopped it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, obviously, goddidit! ;)
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 20 2007,18:19

Quote (Henry J @ June 20 2007,17:59)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What stopped it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, obviously, goddidit! ;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or, more precisely, goddidit, then stopped.  :p
Posted by: Richard Simons on 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.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 20 2007,19:54

by jove, i think you have the makings of an ISCID publication there, richard!
Posted by: Henry J on 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
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 20 2007,21:40

we already covered the issue of mimicry in the other thread Vmartin embarassed himself in last year.

just fyi.
Posted by: Henry J on June 20 2007,23:04

Oh - no point mimicking an old thread here, huh?

Henry
Posted by: VMartin on June 21 2007,12:40

Henry



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

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?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Do you think that the following case of polymorphic case of butterfly mimicry also "happen" in accordance with statistics and probability? I would like to notice you that on the right sight are females of the same species:

< http://www.ucl.ac.uk/taxome/jim/Mim2/dardanus.html >

Of course darwinists here will suppose that Natural selection is responsible for such a striking similarities. Obviously even neodarwinian  explanation of the phenomena have to resort to saltationism to be somehow plausible. Look at neodarwinian newspeak for saltationism, hehe -


"Initial step in the evolution of mimicry is likely to have been due to a genetic effect of large magnitude".



< http://www.nbb.cornell.edu/neurobio/BioNB420/Dardanus2003.pdf >
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 21 2007,12:44

V, please don't tell me you're avoiding our questions!

To remind you:

You said this:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Evolution is directed process. It is following a scenario.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



C'mon, pal, you can tell us! This is basically the VMartin thread by now... Don't let us think that you're one of those weaselly Creationists who spends all his time whining about 'Darwinism', yet who dodges tough questions!
Posted by: VMartin on June 21 2007,13:57

A.Fox



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Thank you - but the link is blocked. I suppose that this is the same article:
< junk dna >

It is interesting you are right. The next to the last sentence from the article about "junk RNA":


We don't think they're produced by accident," he says.


If "junk" RNA is not produced by accident then
"junk" DNA is consequently also not produced by accident, don't you think?

But it is interesting that darwinian scientists having not enough knowledge of the problem in previous years claimed that DNA is junk. They have never admited that "we don't know". Having not enough knowledge they always claim a problem doesn't exist.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 21 2007,14:05

Come ON, V, you can do it!!

To remind you, AGAIN:

You said this:

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Evolution is directed process. It is following a scenario.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What's the matter V, you can certainly back up YOUR OWN STATEMENTS, can't you???
Posted by: Alan Fox on June 21 2007,16:48

VMartin:

Thank you for your response.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I suppose that this is the same article
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Indeed, your link is to the New Scientist review that discusses the article I referred to. Unfortunately, it is only available via subscription.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But it is interesting that darwinian scientists having not enough knowledge of the problem in previous years claimed that DNA is junk.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It is not my recollection of events. "Junk DNA" was just a snappy title that stuck. I don't recall any scientist "claiming" DNA to be junk, just that the function of non-coding DNA was unknown, thus allowing speculation about its significance.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If "junk" RNA is not produced by accident then
"junk" DNA is consequently also not produced by accident, don't you think?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Not 100% sure what you are driving at here, but if you are suggesting some spirit force was directing events, you would need to support that idea with some evidence if you want anyone to take you seriously.

I understand you were once a Marxist, and are now disenchanted. Given how events have unfolded in the former Communist states of Eastern Europe, I am not surprised, but consider, do you not conflate Marxism, atheism and "Darwinism" as tools of state control, and the revival of Catholicism in the wake of the retreat of Soviet control has induced this somewhat  hysterical reaction to current evolutionary biology?
Posted by: Henry J on June 21 2007,21:49



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you think that the following case of polymorphic case of butterfly mimicry also "happen" in accordance with statistics and probability? I would like to notice you that on the right sight are females of the same species:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



My understanding is that the resemblance would most likely be very superficial initially, and would be fine tuned later due to selection effects (i.e., the ones least resembling the toxic critter would get eaten first, repeatedly over many generations). It's the superficial resemblances that I'd think wouldn't be all that unlikely given a large number of species in the same class.

Henry
Posted by: VMartin on June 22 2007,10:38



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I understand you were once a Marxist, and are now disenchanted. Given how events have unfolded in the former Communist states of Eastern Europe, I am not surprised, but consider, do you not conflate Marxism, atheism and "Darwinism" as tools of state control, and the revival of Catholicism in the wake of the retreat of Soviet control has induced this somewhat  hysterical reaction to current evolutionary biology?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What a brilliant nonsense Alan! Congratulation.

You should better readmit John Davison. He could explain his semi-meiosis hypothesis and also his opinion on meiosis as such. His views on the process are very interesting and it would be no doubt more instructive than Ichthyic, Chatfield "witty" posts and questions.

Btw. there is a question asked by Chris Hyland  what is behind "frontloading", what mechanisms took place. I can only copy/paste from John's work. It would be more relevant if he could explain it himself. He as former University teacher and proponent of frontloading would be  the right person for this thread, don't you think?
Posted by: Chris Hyland on June 22 2007,10:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Btw. there is a question asked by Chris Hyland  what is behind "frontloading", what mechanisms took place. I can only copy/paste from John's work.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I've read Johns work, it only partially attempts to answer some of the questions.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 22 2007,11:13

Quote (VMartin @ June 22 2007,10:38)
You should better readmit John Davison. He could explain his semi-meiosis hypothesis and also his opinion on meiosis as such. His views on the process are very interesting and it would be no doubt more instructive than Ichthyic, Chatfield "witty" posts and questions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


VMartin, if you're going to try and act like you're superior to us here, you should quit ignoring our questions.

Why do you seem to be afraid to answer such a simple question?
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 22 2007,11:33


Posted by: Stephen Elliott on June 22 2007,11:38

Quote (VMartin @ June 22 2007,10:38)
...
You should better readmit John Davison. He could explain his semi-meiosis hypothesis and also his opinion on meiosis as such. His views on the process are very interesting and it would be no doubt more instructive than Ichthyic, Chatfield "witty" posts and questions...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah right,
JAD answers less questions than you do.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 22 2007,11:50

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ June 22 2007,11:38)
Quote (VMartin @ June 22 2007,10:38)
...
You should better readmit John Davison. He could explain his semi-meiosis hypothesis and also his opinion on meiosis as such. His views on the process are very interesting and it would be no doubt more instructive than Ichthyic, Chatfield "witty" posts and questions...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah right,
JAD answers less questions than you do.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I dunno, it might be kind of diverting to have John come in here and call us all sluts...
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 22 2007,11:54

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 22 2007,11:50)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ June 22 2007,11:38)
Quote (VMartin @ June 22 2007,10:38)
...
You should better readmit John Davison. He could explain his semi-meiosis hypothesis and also his opinion on meiosis as such. His views on the process are very interesting and it would be no doubt more instructive than Ichthyic, Chatfield "witty" posts and questions...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah right,
JAD answers less questions than you do.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I dunno, it might be kind of diverting to have John come in here and call us all sluts...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can write a JAD simulator.

It will:

Refer you to the PEH
Tell you evolution has stopped
Do the transpose letters thing
Offer 3 random / crap quotes
offer a "sock it to me", "I love it so" etc type ending.


You wont know the difference.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on June 22 2007,11:56

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 22 2007,11:50)
...
I dunno, it might be kind of diverting to have John come in here and call us all sluts...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


JAD is funny in small doses. The amusement wears a little thin damn quick though.

On a more serious note, he possibly has serious medical problems and it is bloody difficult not to throw insults at him after a few of his posts. It is a bit like those Victorian freak shows.
Posted by: Alan Fox on June 22 2007,15:58

OK I give up, VMartin, you bore me, write that down.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 22 2007,17:25

Quote (VMartin @ June 22 2007,10:38)
I can only copy/paste from John's work.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am quite sure of that.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 22 2007,17:26

Hey Martin, since you won't answer any questions, and can't do anything more than brainlessly parrot JAD, can you think of any good reason why anyone should pay the slightest attention to you?



Me neither.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 24 2007,11:30

Well, looks like the simple expedient of forcing him to explain his statements has frightened off VMartin. He can scuttle off and resume cozily brownnosing Javison somewhere.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 24 2007,11:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

He as former University teacher and proponent of frontloading would be  the right person for this thread, don't you think?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope. Davison was banned for cause. There has been no change on that score.

Now, concerning the re-raising of moderation issues outside of private communication channels... You have been warned once on this; now you get a second warning. Three strikes and you will be out. Hopefully, that is clear enough for you. If not, use PM or email, not comments in public areas.
Posted by: VMartin on June 24 2007,14:08

Wesley R. Elsberry
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Now, concerning the re-raising of moderation issues outside of private communication channels... You have been warned once on this; now you get a second warning. Three strikes and you will be out. Hopefully, that is clear enough for you. If not, use PM or email, not comments in public areas.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I see. It was the last time I asked it publicly here. Anyway I would like to know how neodarwinian "democracy" works here. First I thought I would put here your photo with some idiotic text following it. Exactly as jeanot and Richardthughes did with Davison's photo. How would you like it? Is it wellcome here?

Richardthughes

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I can write a JAD simulator.

It will:

Refer you to the PEH
Tell you evolution has stopped
Do the transpose letters thing
Offer 3 random / crap quotes
offer a "sock it to me", "I love it so" etc type ending.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And I can write AtBC song:

We are all here atheists
and ignorants par excellence
we love chance and random mutation
we ban everyone
who disagree with us and chance
we ban you
after giving you stupid questions
par excellence.

Stephen Elliot:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

On a more serious note, he possibly has serious medical problems and it is bloody difficult not to throw insults at him after a few of his posts. It is a bit like those Victorian freak shows.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The most serious problem here have Ichthyic, Reverend Dr. Lenny Frank and you. Some of you suffer from serious schizofrenia. I would reccomend you to visit a psychiatrist. Tell him also that you firmly believe beyond any doubt that you originated from fish and that your cousins are mollusks.      


Arden Chatfield
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Making VMartin uncomfortable is not without its charms.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I remember how one of your cronies kept asking me how  he could see new information in genome. I told him that information cannot be "seen". Some folks here evidently like to ask stupid questions repeatedly.


----

Anyway if some guy here want to discuss curious polymorphic mimicry of P. dardanus or evolution of mammalian Orders I am prepare. Both cases are good examples of saltationism.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 24 2007,14:18

Quote (VMartin @ June 24 2007,14:08)
I told him that information cannot be "seen". Some folks here evidently like to ask stupid questions repeatedly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


[/URL]
heh tell that to mr CD-ROM :)

And if you can't "see" information (in the DNA presumably) what are the sequencing databases full of then? Not-information?

If you cannot see information, how do you even know it has any in the first place?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 24 2007,14:19

V! How lovely to have you back, taking a break from brownnosing Davison. Now, how about you answer our questions, since I'm sure you're keen to PROVE how superior you are to all of us.

Here's the questions, V:

You said this:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Evolution is directed process. It is following a scenario.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Have an answer NOW? Still afraid to answer? They're YOUR OWN WORDS I'm asking you to explain, V!

C'mon, Borat VMartin, you can do it! SHOW us how superior your outlook is!
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 24 2007,14:51



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

First I thought I would put here your photo with some idiotic text following it.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It would mark a vast improvement over your contributions to discussion that I've seen thus far.

And you are, after all that, still just one violation of the rules away from being gone, just in case you thought that there was any unclarity.
Posted by: VMartin on June 24 2007,14:52



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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?
Posted by: jeannot on June 24 2007,15:04

Martin, *cough* what about some evidence for your PEH?
Let's see what we have...
- no new order of mammals for 50 Myears or so (something you borrowed from JAD)
- mimicry in butterflies.
-...?

In both cases, you've been unable to demonstrate how this disproves the current theory and how your hypothesis would explain the data better.
You've never felt the necessity to give any detail of your PEH. Instead, you've repeated several assertions that are been demonstrated to be false, like "natural selection is only a destructive process".

And since you haven't provided anything that would falsify your hypothesis, I would follow Lenny's position. Why should we care about what you think?
Posted by: carlsonjok on June 24 2007,15:13

Quote (VMartin @ June 24 2007,14:08)
Tell him also that you firmly believe beyond any doubt that you originated from fish and that your cousins are mollusks.      
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, we did come from fish as was conclusively demonstrated by Garrison, et al:

"In the beginning we were all fish.  Okay, swimming around in the water. And one day a couple of fish had a retard baby and the retard baby was different so it got to live. So retard fish goes on to make more retard babies and one day a retard baby fish crawls out of the ocean with it's mutant fish hands and it had buttsecks with a squirrel or something and made this: retard frog-squirrel. And that had a retard baby that was a monkey-fish-frog.  And then this monkey-fish-frog had buttsecks with that monkey.  And that monkey had a mutant retard baby that screwed another monkey and that made you."

So, there you have it, VMartin, you are the retarded offspring of five monkeys having buttsecks with a fish-squirrel. Congratulations.
Posted by: jeannot on June 24 2007,15:19

Quote (VMartin @ June 24 2007,14:08)
I see. It was the last time I asked it publicly here. Anyway I would like to know how neodarwinian "democracy" works here. First I thought I would put here your photo with some idiotic text following it. Exactly as jeanot and Richardthughes did with Davison's photo.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I protest vigorously.
I linked to JAD's photo yes (heck, he put it online in the first place), but it wasn't followed by any idiotic text. Everything I write is intelligently designed. :p

More seriously Martin. Why should we be afraid of you?
Even if you had some good evidence that the ToE is wrong, claiming to be a martyr of the Darwinian orthodoxy on a random discussion board does not represent a threat to the scientific establishment.  
Unless you've submitted some paper to Science or Nature?
Posted by: jeannot on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

If it's only about the way it happened, would *you* explain how man originated from fish? Goddidit, then he died?
Posted by: VMartin on 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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on 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!

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


VMartin, why are you so afraid to explain your own statements? Are you ashamed or something?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


This is another excellent question, VMartin. Davison supports common descent. Do you reject it, nonetheless? If so, why?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Posted by: VMartin on 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?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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?
Posted by: jeannot on 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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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


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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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
-...?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on 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?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Post number 90? No such thing. Prove it.

And answer the other questions while you're at it, coward.
Posted by: jeannot on 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?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Does he?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: VMartin on June 24 2007,15:57

jeannot


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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)?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on 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...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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)?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Martin, why are you ignoring Jeannot's and my questions?
Posted by: jeannot on 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...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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)?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This question has anything to do with macroevolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: VMartin on June 24 2007,16:05

Arden Chatfield:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Post number 90? No such thing. Prove it.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




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?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 24 2007,16:10

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


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Post number 90? No such thing. Prove it.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
Posted by: VMartin on 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?

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



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I'm waiting.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Feel free to wait however long you like.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on 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?

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



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I'm waiting.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Feel free to wait however long you like.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What do you want answering?
Posted by: jeannot on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< 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.
Posted by: jeannot on June 24 2007,16:18

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


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
Posted by: jeannot on June 24 2007,16:57

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


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.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 24 2007,17:06



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
as long as you are honest with yourself and others.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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

It's like asking him to set himself on fire.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 24 2007,17:59

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


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.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 24 2007,18:03

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


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



(snicker)  (giggle)
Posted by: Chris Hyland on June 24 2007,18:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We are all here atheists
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

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".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Andy why exactly does the colour of mushrooms have to be a selectable trait?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 24 2007,18:40



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

We are all here atheists
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wrong.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
and ignorants
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



um, 'ignorants' isn't a word.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
par excellence
we love chance and random mutation
we ban everyone
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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

Answer the questions, V.
Posted by: Henry J on 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
Posted by: VMartin on June 25 2007,13:38

Chris Hyland

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
Posted by: VMartin on June 25 2007,13:50

Arden Chatfield


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Wrong.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 25 2007,13:59

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


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

um, 'ignorants' isn't a word.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



According urbandictionary it is a noun:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 25 2007,14:22



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

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



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

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

um, 'ignorants' isn't a word.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



According urbandictionary it is a noun:

< http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ignorants >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Figures. Worthless coward. Afraid to back up your own statements.
Posted by: jeannot on 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!  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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).
Posted by: VMartin on June 25 2007,14:30

Richardthughes


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Bwahahahahahahah....

*remembers to breathe*

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What are you doing Dude? Are you reading the latest "biological ejaculation" from doctor Meyeres or what?
Posted by: Chris Hyland on June 25 2007,14:31



---------------------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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The modernt heory of evolution doesn't say every feature of an organism has to be the product of natural selection.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't underestand how one can be a darwinist and believe in some supernatural power as well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I have no opinion on the existence or otherwise of the supernatural, so that's not a problem. Millions of people are able to believe in both, so thats good enough for me. I have plenty of Christian friends who believe that God makes the flowers grow, that doesn't mean that we can't attibute it to a natural process.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 25 2007,14:33

Quote (VMartin @ June 25 2007,14:30)
Richardthughes
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Bwahahahahahahah....

*remembers to breathe*

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What are you doing Dude? Are you reading the latest "biological ejaculation" from doctor Meyeres or what?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's 'Myers', V. Read closer.

Hey, V, who's your designer, and what scenario is he using?

And do you agree or disagree with Davison's statement that "There is absolutely no evidence to refute common descent"?
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 25 2007,14:36

Quote (VMartin @ June 25 2007,14:30)
Richardthughes
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Bwahahahahahahah....

*remembers to breathe*

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What are you doing Dude? Are you reading the latest "biological ejaculation" from doctor Meyeres or what?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Funny, of all the posts you could reply to...

You are an intellectual coward.
Posted by: jeannot on June 25 2007,14:40

Quote (VMartin @ June 25 2007,13:38)
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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just to be perfectly clear, Martin: is your hypothesis based on the supernatural?
Posted by: VMartin on June 25 2007,15:08

Chris Hyland (and others who would like to discuss some issue concerning the topic)

In the main article of this thread is written:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Natural selection can only work on genes that are expressed. If a gene is "turned off" then it is subject to runaway mutations that will render if useless in short order.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In the case of mushrooms the genes for coloration are expressed (it is not always pigments btw) but obviously there is not natural or sexual pressure that could refine or check the quality of expression. So there is no reason why should some mushroom be so colorful (no one cares of it you know). If they are so colorful despite of lack of NatSel or SexSel, it would mean that there is some other non-darwinian force behind preservation of such genes (Portmann's self-represantation for instance). It would also mean that the same force could preserve frontloaded genes that are "turned off" despite of common darwinian meaning.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 25 2007,15:12

V, why is it that you admire Davison so so much, yet you aren't willing to comment on this statement of his?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There is absolutely no evidence to refute common descent
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What exactly are you afraid of?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 25 2007,15:13

Quote (VMartin @ June 25 2007,15:08)
In the case of mushrooms the genes for coloration are expressed (it is not always pigments btw) but obviously there is not natural or sexual pressure that could refine or check the quality of expression. So there is no reason why should some mushroom be so colorful (no one cares of it you know). If they are so colorful despite of lack of NatSel or SexSel, it would mean that there is some other non-darwinian force behind preservation of such genes (Portmann's self-represantation for instance). It would also mean that the same force could preserve frontloaded genes that are "turned off" despite of common darwinian meaning.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Out of interest, what colour would they be if they did not have any evolved genes? :D

So, let me get this straight, the fact all mushrooms are not what, black, white? Let's say a single colour. And re-try.

The fact that all mushrooms are not the same colour is evidence for VMartins "theory" of the supernatural designer interfering on earth with DNA?

right so far? ok.

VMartin, what colour would mushrooms be if there was no designer?
Posted by: VMartin on June 25 2007,16:02



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So, let me get this straight, the fact all mushrooms are not what, black, white? Let's say a single colour. And re-try.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I see, you are a darwinist from AtBC. You don't want to discuss problem but only to ridicule. As usually. I am fed up with people like you but I'll try to answer you neverthenless.

I would say that coloration should be white, black or gray (many mushrooms have such colors btw). I would compare situation to nocturnal animals where there is  no natural selection or sexual selection present as active force to modify coloration. Generally speaking moles are not as colorful as butterflies are. I have never heard about red owls with white dots. I have never heard about yellow or green bats. But there might be some cryptic function during day.

I would appreciate some ideas but you may keep ridiculing my posts if you like. You are a frustrated darwinists from AtBC I underestand you.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 25 2007,16:08

Quote (VMartin @ June 25 2007,16:02)
I have never heard about red owls with white dots.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's because they have black dots.

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Red_Owl >
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 25 2007,16:13

V, why are you afraid to explain your positions?
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 25 2007,16:16

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 25 2007,16:13)
V, why are you afraid to explain your positions?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's a troll. It's not about discussion, just the reaction.
Posted by: jeannot on June 25 2007,16:24

Quote (VMartin @ June 25 2007,15:08)
Chris Hyland (and others who would like to discuss some issue concerning the topic)

In the main article of this thread is written:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Natural selection can only work on genes that are expressed. If a gene is "turned off" then it is subject to runaway mutations that will render if useless in short order.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


... which doesn't mean that any expressed gene is subject to natural selection.
Posted by: jeannot on June 25 2007,16:29

Quote (VMartin @ June 25 2007,15:08)
In the case of mushrooms the genes for coloration are expressed (it is not always pigments btw) but obviously there is not natural or sexual pressure that could refine or check the quality of expression. So there is no reason why should some mushroom be so colorful (no one cares of it you know).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I certainly care about the color of comestible or toxic mushrooms. That's how I can identify them.
Don't you think it has something to do with natural selection?

You want to prove your conclusion with dubious arguments, Martin.
You seem to think that all mushrooms should be pigment-less (white). In that case, a toxic species (or a species that interacts with animals in any way) would not be as easily recognizable. This should favor a particular color.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on June 25 2007,16:41

Quote (VMartin @ June 25 2007,16:02)

I have never heard about red owls with white dots.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's one (rufous morph of the Eastern Screech-owl, Otus asio), photographed from the back steps of the Biology building at Kansas State University in 2006.


What's next?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 25 2007,16:46

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 25 2007,16:16)
         
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 25 2007,16:13)
V, why are you afraid to explain your positions?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's a troll. It's not about discussion, just the reaction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's my take:

VMartin is basically a Christian creationist, though in his own odd Eastern European way. He's indicated this here and there on other boards in the past. He doesn't know much about biology, but bottomline, he's a creationist. That's why he won't answer questions about his 'designer' and his 'scenario' -- he knows all he has is 'Goddidit', and he can't defend that and continue his pseudoscientific pretensions.

Moreover, he's from Slovakia, and he seems to have bought the notion that anything 'leftwing' -- like not being a fundie, being an atheist or a 'Darwinist' -- means you're the same as the atheistic Communist meanies who stomped on Slovakia for 45 years. In other words, he's another one of those Eastern Europeans who becomes a total rightwinger purely as a reaction against the Soviet period. His anti-Darwinism is part and parcel of this. (Like how DaveScot embraces ID as part of his wingnuttery.)

Since VM is not very bright and doesn't understand English terribly well, he's not able to see how insane Davison is, something everyone in the English-speaking world figured out years ago. All he knows is that Davison offers some kind of pseudoscientific 'attack against Darwinism', and that's enough for him.  However, he hasn't been paying very close attention, so he has serious cognitive dissonance when it's pointed out to him that Davison thinks that God has died (clashes badly with his religious beliefs), or when Davison says that there's no reason to doubt common descent (something those awful atheists believe in). VM can't make those things line up with his religious opinions, so only option is to ignore our comments. The closest he can come to a counterargument is to snarl incoherent insults, to say "I can see you are all Darwinist", or to make jokes about "you Darwinist atheist are all stupid". Like Robert O'Brien, he's completely convinced that he's smarter than everyone around him, and that his religious views make him superior to us all, so he assumes this absolves him from having to actually back up any claims he makes.

I don't see him coming here to 'get a reaction' per se; I think it's more that he wants to stroke his ego by his devastating counterarguments against the Darwinists and atheists. In other words, he wants to dazzle us all, and he's too dumb to know he can't do it.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on June 25 2007,17:21

Quote (VMartin @ June 25 2007,16:02)
you may keep ridiculing my posts if you like.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I do like.

And I don't need your permission.


You are indeed fit only to be laughed at.
Posted by: VMartin on June 26 2007,13:42

Arden Chatfield



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Moreover, he's from Slovakia, and he seems to have bought the notion that anything 'leftwing' -- like not being a fundie, being an atheist or a 'Darwinist' -- means you're the same as the atheistic Communist meanies who stomped on Slovakia for 45 years. In other words, he's another one of those Eastern Europeans who becomes a total rightwinger purely as a reaction against the Soviet period.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I dare say you are not only a prominent linguist but also a promiment psychologist. Congratulation!
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 26 2007,14:10

Quote (VMartin @ June 26 2007,13:42)
Arden Chatfield



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Moreover, he's from Slovakia, and he seems to have bought the notion that anything 'leftwing' -- like not being a fundie, being an atheist or a 'Darwinist' -- means you're the same as the atheistic Communist meanies who stomped on Slovakia for 45 years. In other words, he's another one of those Eastern Europeans who becomes a total rightwinger purely as a reaction against the Soviet period.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I dare say you are not only a prominent linguist but also a promiment psychologist. Congratulation!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And unless you quit being a coward and start backing up your statements, I can only assume I have described you correctly. Congratulations.
Posted by: VMartin on June 26 2007,14:15

jeannot

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

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?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I missed this post of yours  yesterday. I take it for granted that according darwinism "structure" that is not used is "phased out". Wikipedia writes:


As the function of the structure is no longer beneficial for survival, the likelihood that future offspring will inherit the "normal" form of the structure decreases.


So the structure would degenerate consequently, wouldn't it? To be sincere I do not see darwinian explanation why should  "neutral structure" or "neutral gene" persist intact during evolution. Might be neutral drift could remove harmful mutation on "neutral genes"
but I don't know. But if yes you have a problem. Fronloaded genes that are not used could be kept "ready" by the same mechanism, don't you think so?

Do you mean that such mechanism (neutral drift or even neutral draft) lies under bright coloration of mushrooms once it developed?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You want to prove your conclusion with dubious arguments, Martin.
You seem to think that all mushrooms should be pigment-less (white). In that case, a toxic species (or a species that interacts with animals in any way) would not be as easily recognizable.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I quoted a serious research that poisonous mushrooms do not tend to be more colorful as edible ones. I mentioned a fact that there are no other vision-oriented mushroom eaters as squirrels (unless you prove that deers, slugs and turtles are vision oriented and proceeds selective pressure on mushroom coloration). There is not known case of wild animal poisoned by mushrooms.


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

This should favor a particular color.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Again: suppososing there are vision oriented mushroom eaters. In other case such explanation is not correct.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 26 2007,14:19

What are you so afraid of, V? You're not ashamed, are you?
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 26 2007,14:23



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To be sincere I do not see darwinian explanation why should  "neutral structure" or "neutral gene" persist intact during evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



then go read Kimura.

I would also suggest learning something about population genetics.

here's a very simple thought for you:

linkage.

just one in the myriad of things explaining how "neutral" traits can be maintained. Concept elucidated, tested, and verified by the Evil Darwinist Conspiracy ™.

because you are blind in no way impacts on the rest of us.
Posted by: VMartin on June 26 2007,14:27

[No channeling of banned posters. Do that again and your posting privileges will be lifted. -- WRE]


Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 26 2007,14:29

Quote (VMartin @ June 26 2007,14:27)
Chatfield 24. june 11:30

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Well, looks like the simple expedient of forcing him to explain his statements has frightened off VMartin. He can scuttle off and resume cozily brownnosing Javison somewhere.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Why do you mentioned John and me in such a way?
John's opinion on people like you is that you are creep and that you are genetic garbage. You can kiss his ass to a purple blister. It's my opinion too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


mmm, sounds like ashamed to me!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp on June 26 2007,14:30

Quote (VMartin @ June 26 2007,14:27)
Chatfield 24. june 11:30

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Well, looks like the simple expedient of forcing him to explain his statements has frightened off VMartin. He can scuttle off and resume cozily brownnosing Javison somewhere.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Why do you mentioned John and me in such a way?
John's opinion on people like you is that you are creep and that you are genetic garbage. You can kiss his ass to a purple blister. It's my opinion too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


JAD is a Joke and the fact that you're his lapdog makes you one as well. He's growing increasingly insane and ...well... the fact you can't help but wag your tail in his shadow says alot.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 26 2007,14:39

Quote (VMartin @ June 26 2007,14:27)
Chatfield 24. june 11:30

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Well, looks like the simple expedient of forcing him to explain his statements has frightened off VMartin. He can scuttle off and resume cozily brownnosing Javison somewhere.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Why do you mentioned John and me in such a way?
John's opinion on people like you is that you are creep and that you are genetic garbage. You can kiss his ass to a purple blister. It's my opinion too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now that you've announced that once again you agree with Davison, how do you feel about his statements that (a) there's no reason to doubt common descent, and (b) God has died? Can we assume that you agree with those statements, too?

Really, V, if you'd quit being a weasel and started trying to back up your statements and started answering questions, things would be a lot easier for you here.

Oh, and one more thing? Drop Davison. The man's a loon. Trust me. Even Dave Scot and Bill Dembski think so.

PS: If anyone's kissing JAD's ass to a purple blister, it isn't us Darwinists.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 26 2007,14:45

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 26 2007,14:29)
Quote (VMartin @ June 26 2007,14:27)
Chatfield 24. june 11:30

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Well, looks like the simple expedient of forcing him to explain his statements has frightened off VMartin. He can scuttle off and resume cozily brownnosing Javison somewhere.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Why do you mentioned John and me in such a way?
John's opinion on people like you is that you are creep and that you are genetic garbage. You can kiss his ass to a purple blister. It's my opinion too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


mmm, sounds like ashamed to me!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


me too.
Posted by: jeannot on June 26 2007,14:53

&t  
Quote (VMartin @ June 26 2007,14:15)
So the structure would degenerate consequently, wouldn't it? To be sincere I do not see darwinian explanation why should  "neutral structure" or "neutral gene" persist intact during evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are making more sense in your latest post, Martin. But I still don't see how you come to that prescribed evolution hypothesis.

Regarding neutrality, you are referring to some "structures" that are supposed to be costly (requiring energy/biomass). In that case, they are not neutral, they are deleterious in comparison to the absence of structure.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Might be neutral drift could remove harmful mutation on "neutral genes;
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is unclear, at most antithetical. If a mutation is harmful, it's not neutral.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Fronloaded genes that are not used could be kept "ready" by the same mechanism, don't you think so?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

What mechanism?
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you mean that such mechanism (neutral drift or even neutral draft) lies under bright coloration of mushrooms once it developed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

What is neutral draft? I personally don't think that coloration is neutral, even in mushrooms. But even if it's not linked to their toxicity, there could be a variety of environmental factors that could select a particular color.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I quoted a serious research that poisonous mushrooms do not tend to be more colorful as edible ones. I mentioned a fact that there are no other vision-oriented mushroom eaters as squirrels (unless you prove that deers, slugs and turtles are vision oriented and proceeds selective pressure on mushroom coloration). There is not known case of wild animal poisoned by mushrooms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not surprised their is none. I am not aware of any research regarding the ecological impact of predation on fungal populations by wild animals (although I haven't do much bibliographic research on that topic). I'm not even sure whether we know why some fungi are toxic and others are not. Has this anything to do with spore dissemination for instance? My suggestion was a just an example of what could select a particular color.
Anyway, you are the one who should provide some evidence for your hypothesis. And in the case of color in mushrooms, I've been asking you several times what your hypothesis was and you haven't felt the necessity to give me an answer.
If color in mushrooms is useless and costly, as you suggest, why most of them are colored? Give me a suggestion, anything...
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 26 2007,15:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But even if it's not linked to their toxicity, there could be a variety of environmental factors that could select a particular color.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Indeed, moreover, coloration might be linked to an entirely different trait.

nothing Vmartin has raised has ANYTHING to do with whether color in fungi is a trait resultant from any selective pressures.

funny, but he really is doing the exact thing he accuses "darwinists" of:

inventing just so stories.

but then, as I keep saying, projection is nothing unusual amongst anti-science folk.

If anyone is actually interested (VMartin obviously isn't), why not create a thread where we examine the actual literature on the subject?

I'd be willing to lay odds that someone has investigated the genetics behind color and toxicity in various fungi, and that someone has even attempted to investigate if the traits are correlated with a specific selective pressure.

IMO, it would be a far more interesting thread than this one, which had actually reached the "diminishing return" point the LAST time Vmartin appeared in the forum, many moons ago.

Jean, you have access.  If you think it interesting, and have time, why not start a thread with a link to a relevant article if you manage to dig one up?

meh, I've decided I have enough interest myself, that I'll just go ahead and create a thread.

see if you can dredge up the pdf of the article list, if you have time?
Posted by: jeannot on June 26 2007,15:33

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 26 2007,15:05)
Jean, you have access.  If you think it interesting, and have time, why not start a thread with a link to a relevant article if you manage to dig one up?

meh, I've decided I have enough interest myself, that I'll just go ahead and create a thread.

see if you can dredge up the pdf of the article list, if you have time?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll have a look.

EDIT : It seems that the paper quoted by Martin is almost the only one dealing the the evolution of toxicity in mushrooms. Unfortunately, Am. Nat. is one of the few journals (of ecology) I can't access.
However, I have the list of their cited references, and none of them deals with the genetics of coloration in mushroom, nor their selective role. They also clearly state in the abstract that the topic has received little attention. So I suppose most of the work remains to be done.

However, this reminds me of fascinating stories about coloration and mimicry in orchids. Stuff that has been deeply studied and explained by adaptive models.
Martin, if you really want to do some science, you should dig into that.
Posted by: Henry J on June 26 2007,15:44

Maybe the coloration is caused by chemical(s) that serve some other purpose for the organism? In that case the color could be merely a side-effect.

Henry
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 26 2007,15:52

could be.
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 26 2007,15:58



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It seems that the paper quoted by Martin is almost the only one dealing the the evolution of toxicity in mushrooms. Unfortunately, Am. Nat. is one of the few journals (of ecology) I can't access.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



One, I suggest moving any real discussion to the thread I just made where the subject would be the actual science, instead of watching Vmartin make an ass of himself.

Two, yeah, access IS a problem.  perhaps we can work that issue out in the other thread?

however, if the paper Vmartin is alluding to is the one I just linked to in the new thread, I wonder why it is that he completely ignored the findings of the paper wrt to determining if signalling is actually happening in fungi, in favor of saying that the color of fungi somehow "disproves the darwinian narrative".

talk about missing the forest for the trees.
Posted by: VMartin on June 27 2007,12:18

Another "psychologist"  with very nice nick "Rev. BigDumbChimp":

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

JAD is a Joke and the fact that you're his lapdog makes you one as well. He's growing increasingly insane and ...well... the fact you can't help but wag your tail in his shadow says alot.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I would like to congratulate you for another deep "psychological" insight (darwinists are not only brilliant scientists but also prominent linguists and psychologists as we see here) but I am afraid you are only projecting your own dismal situation to John and me. But it is O.K. - darwinists project humans relation also to animal kingdom seeing everywhere "struggle for life", "evolution in action" and "mimicry".
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 27 2007,12:19

Quote (VMartin @ June 27 2007,12:18)
Another "psychologist"  with very nice nick "Rev. BigDumbChimp":

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

JAD is a Joke and the fact that you're his lapdog makes you one as well. He's growing increasingly insane and ...well... the fact you can't help but wag your tail in his shadow says alot.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I would like to congratulate you for another deep "psychological" insight (darwinists are not only brilliant scientists but also prominent linguists and psychologists as we see here) but I am afraid you are only projecting your own dismal situation to John and me. But it is O.K. - darwinists project humans relation also to animal kingdom seeing everywhere "struggle for life", "evolution in action" and "mimicry".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh christ, hear we go again....
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 27 2007,12:28

Quote (VMartin @ June 27 2007,12:18)
Another "psychologist"  with very nice nick "Rev. BigDumbChimp":

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

JAD is a Joke and the fact that you're his lapdog makes you one as well. He's growing increasingly insane and ...well... the fact you can't help but wag your tail in his shadow says alot.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I would like to congratulate you for another deep "psychological" insight (darwinists are not only brilliant scientists but also prominent linguists and psychologists as we see here) but I am afraid you are only projecting your own dismal situation to John and me. But it is O.K. - darwinists project humans relation also to animal kingdom seeing everywhere "struggle for life", "evolution in action" and "mimicry".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A hint, V: use fewer quotation marks.

I trust you're ready to answer our questions now, Slugger?

Let's start: do you agree with Davison on common descent?
Posted by: Ichthyic on June 27 2007,13:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Oh christ, hear we go again....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



only if you want to.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on June 27 2007,13:09

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 27 2007,13:07)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Oh christ, hear we go again....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



only if you want to.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'M not touching it, but SOMEONE will. They always do.
Posted by: Henry J on June 27 2007,13:42

Not even with a ten foot flagellum? ;)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp on June 27 2007,14:12

Quote (VMartin @ June 27 2007,12:18)
Another "psychologist"  with very nice nick "Rev. BigDumbChimp":

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

JAD is a Joke and the fact that you're his lapdog makes you one as well. He's growing increasingly insane and ...well... the fact you can't help but wag your tail in his shadow says alot.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I would like to congratulate you for another deep "psychological" insight (darwinists are not only brilliant scientists but also prominent linguists and psychologists as we see here) but I am afraid you are only projecting your own dismal situation to John and me. But it is O.K. - darwinists project humans relation also to animal kingdom seeing everywhere "struggle for life", "evolution in action" and "mimicry".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dismal Situation in what way? The theory of Evolution is the accepted explanation for the fact of evolution. It is one of the most well supported theories in science whether you or JAD choose to accept it. I see nothing dismal about that. It's you hand waving types on the sidelines who's current situation is dismal. John IS a joke. He's a joke here, a joke among those actually doing the science and a joke every time he writes another 400 comment single post blog. When you find the strength to remove your proboscis from JAD's nether regions you feel the need to defend his untenable position by failing to address questions posed to you and readjusting the x,y coordinates of those posts generally found on the short sides of a football field.


I stick by my assessment.
Posted by: jeannot on June 27 2007,14:16

Martin, you're becoming boring.

This thread is about front-loading, so tell us how your hypothesis explains the coloration of mushrooms.
And also, tell us what you think about common descent. From one of your latests post :

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
go observe your colorful fish-ancestors in aquarium
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

... it seems like you don't believe we share a common ancestors with fish. Is that your position?
Posted by: jeannot on June 28 2007,14:33

Well?
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 28 2007,14:52

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 27 2007,12:28)
Quote (VMartin @ June 27 2007,12:18)
Another "psychologist"  with very nice nick "Rev. BigDumbChimp":

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

JAD is a Joke and the fact that you're his lapdog makes you one as well. He's growing increasingly insane and ...well... the fact you can't help but wag your tail in his shadow says alot.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I would like to congratulate you for another deep "psychological" insight (darwinists are not only brilliant scientists but also prominent linguists and psychologists as we see here) but I am afraid you are only projecting your own dismal situation to John and me. But it is O.K. - darwinists project humans relation also to animal kingdom seeing everywhere "struggle for life", "evolution in action" and "mimicry".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A hint, V: use fewer quotation marks.

I trust you're ready to answer our questions now, Slugger?

Let's start: do you agree with Davison on common descent?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


KNOW, "ARDEN". USE MORE "QUOTATION MARKS" IF YOU "WANT" TO MAKE AN "INTERSTING" "POINT".

< http://quotation-marks.blogspot.com/ >

:angry:
Posted by: VMartin on June 29 2007,11:02

Because Wesley R. Elsberry wrote:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The discussion of technical details, should any be found relevant, in Davison's formal work is OK. So if VMartin or anyone else wants to quote from a peer-reviewed publication of Davison's, there is no issue there.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



we may discuss a question that provocateur Chatfield asked repeatedly to obscure John and my view.

The question on me was if I share John's opinion on common descent. I would like to say that John's opinion is different as people here presume. If there is no problem I would quote his thoughts on common descent here. But it was not published in "formal work". But it was so interesting that I quoted it in One blog a day about doctor Meyers Pharyngula.


Of course anybody can review John Davison's interesting work Semimeiosis as an evolutionary mechanism published in Journal Of Theoretical Biology in 1984. I reccomend it becauese it can elucidate the question of common descent with scientific arguments.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 29 2007,11:17

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 28 2007,14:52)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 27 2007,12:28)
 
Quote (VMartin @ June 27 2007,12:18)
Another "psychologist"  with very nice nick "Rev. BigDumbChimp":

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

JAD is a Joke and the fact that you're his lapdog makes you one as well. He's growing increasingly insane and ...well... the fact you can't help but wag your tail in his shadow says alot.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I would like to congratulate you for another deep "psychological" insight (darwinists are not only brilliant scientists but also prominent linguists and psychologists as we see here) but I am afraid you are only projecting your own dismal situation to John and me. But it is O.K. - darwinists project humans relation also to animal kingdom seeing everywhere "struggle for life", "evolution in action" and "mimicry".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A hint, V: use fewer quotation marks.

I trust you're ready to answer our questions now, Slugger?

Let's start: do you agree with Davison on common descent?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


KNOW, "ARDEN". USE MORE "QUOTATION MARKS" IF YOU "WANT" TO MAKE AN "INTERSTING" "POINT".

< http://quotation-marks.blogspot.com/ >

:angry:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"HOMO."

":angry:"
Posted by: Chris Hyland on June 29 2007,11:20

Quote (VMartin @ June 29 2007,16:02)
Of course anybody can review John Davison's interesting work Semimeiosis as an evolutionary mechanism published in Journal Of Theoretical Biology in 1984. I reccomend it becauese it can elucidate the question of common descent with scientific arguments.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not unless you have a link for it they can't.

EDIT: I mean a link to the paper, not just the abstract.
Posted by: VMartin on July 01 2007,14:50

Chris Hyland



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

EDIT: I mean a link to the paper, not just the abstract.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Semi-Meiosis as an evolutionary mechanism is available here:

< http://hkusua.hku.hk/~cdbeling/Semi-Meiosis.pdf >

I would say that facts mentioned there by John Davison are very  uncomfortable for modern neodarwinism.
The origin of the definitive germ cells is really baffling and would support his conclusion:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Since the sources and modes of invasion (of germinal cells) are not homologous from group to group, the continuity of the germ plasm is a myth.
.
.
.
... contemporary reproductive cell lineages cannot be ancestral but have independently replaced the original (semi-meiotic) lineage and that the latter is no longer extant.      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: jeannot on July 01 2007,17:12

I read the paper. It's rather well written (ie, easily understandable for a person like me, whose English is not the first language) and his observations regarding the origin of germ cells are interesting. I guess that's why he got published in this journal, not in rivista di biologia.

However, I certainly disagree with his view that, implicit to Darwin, "sexual reproduction is the mechanism producing the differences that natural selection acts upon". Actually, Darwin's model of natural selection is mostly independent of sexual reproduction, unless in the cases of sexual selection and avoidance of inbreeding, which provide selecting pressures. Of course, he never considers recombination, since the field of genetics didn't exist. In the end, Darwin never dealt with actual speciation. However, it is of common knowledge that recombination can accelerate the evolution of a lineage, because independent mutations can be combined in the same genomes.
As JAD notes, 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. This would constitute a powerful evidence against JAD's hypothesis that semi-meiosis was common in vertebrates and underlay most of their macro-evolutionary history. In the end, his semi-meiosis hypothesis is interesting, however this mechanism may not have been widespread in eukaryotes, if it ever existed.
By the way, it’s clear to me that JAD supports common descent, at least between vertebrates. He relies on this principle to posit semi-meiosis as a pre-sexual state, the root of different mechanisms of sexual reproduction between different taxa.

Genomic rearrangements in the evolution of vertebrates and plants are well know, so are their underlying physiological mechanisms. But it is also well known that adaptation and speciation doesn't need such rearrangements, most of the time then don’t involve them. I would conclude that semi-meiosis may be an evolutionary mechanism to consider, however it's not less "Darwinian" than, say, allopolyploidy, stasipatric speciation, etc. And I certainly don’t see what it has to do with intelligent design (I  know JAD doesn’t claim that in the paper)
And contrarily to JAD's words, his hypothesis doesn’t sounds more testable that "NeoDarwinism" is, in his own definition of testability: being able to observe a new genus appear.
Posted by: VMartin on July 02 2007,15:32

It is not easy for me to defend John Davison's ideas in more details especially this one. He studied the problem very carefully and whoever wants discuss with him can do it at Brainstorm. It would be more proper that my copy/paste from his works.

Preliminary I restrict myself to constatation that I agree with Davison's claims that evolution is over, that nomogenesis or orthogenesis played in evolution the main role, that Natural selection is conservative force having no role in creative evolution and that some kind of saltationism is needed to explain evolution. There might have been many independent creations.  Information for further evolution was pre-programmed, or frontloaded.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on July 02 2007,17:26

Quote (VMartin @ July 02 2007,15:32)
It is not easy for me to defend John Davison's ideas
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's not easy for John, either.

Of course, it's not easy for the rest of the world to figure out what the hell he's gibbering about, either.  (shrug)
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 02 2007,17:53



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Information for further evolution was pre-programmed, or frontloaded.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



By whom?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on July 02 2007,17:58

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 02 2007,17:53)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Information for further evolution was pre-programmed, or frontloaded.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



By whom?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And why did it stop?
Posted by: jeannot on July 03 2007,00:55

According to JAD, it stopped once humans appeared. He's not very clear about it, but he seems to think that with humans, The Designer reach perfection so there's nothing to be front-loaded anymore.
Posted by: Darth Robo on July 03 2007,09:56

"The Designer reach perfection so there's nothing to be front-loaded anymore."

Then why are there still VMartin's and JAD's?

???
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on July 03 2007,10:28

Quote (jeannot @ July 03 2007,00:55)
According to JAD, it stopped once humans appeared. He's not very clear about it, but he seems to think that with humans, The Designer reach perfection so there's nothing to be front-loaded anymore.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That makes sense when you look at the sheer sublime ideals represented by our 32 teeth packed into enough jaw space for 28, and a vestigial organ (appendix) that becomes infected and kills 400 people a year in the US alone.  I really don't see how we could be any better.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 03 2007,10:38

Quote (jeannot @ July 03 2007,00:55)
According to JAD, it stopped once humans appeared. He's not very clear about it, but he seems to think that with humans, The Designer reach perfection so there's nothing to be front-loaded anymore.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I assume that's when God carked, according to Nosivad. I'd ask VMartin, but he won't answer.

It takes a certain kind of unique egomania to base a whole scientific theory on the idea that humans have 'reached perfection'.
Posted by: VMartin on July 03 2007,14:37



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

"The Designer reach perfection so there's nothing to be front-loaded anymore."

Then why are there still VMartin's and JAD's?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I am not perfect. But haughty darwinists at AtBC reach the point of perfection (in use of abuses instead of  arguments you know).
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 03 2007,14:40

Quote (VMartin @ July 03 2007,14:37)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

"The Designer reach perfection so there's nothing to be front-loaded anymore."

Then why are there still VMartin's and JAD's?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I am not perfect. But haughty darwinists
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


*GULP*

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
at AtBC reach the point of perfection (in use of abuses instead of  arguments you know).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Please, continue.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on July 03 2007,17:17

Quote (VMartin @ July 03 2007,14:37)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

"The Designer reach perfection so there's nothing to be front-loaded anymore."

Then why are there still VMartin's and JAD's?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I am not perfect. But haughty darwinists at AtBC reach the point of perfection (in use of abuses instead of  arguments you know).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(sniffle)  (sob)  Boo hoo hoo.

Sure sucks to be you, doesn't it.

(yawn)
Posted by: VMartin on July 04 2007,00:14



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(sniffle)  (sob)  Boo hoo hoo.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



First try to fart. If it doesn't help read Darwin's Origin of species. It will help you no doubt.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 04 2007,00:40

Quote (VMartin @ July 04 2007,00:14)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(sniffle)  (sob)  Boo hoo hoo.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



First try to fart. If it doesn't help read Darwin's Origin of species. It will help you no doubt.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey V, why did evolution stop?
Posted by: Darth Robo on 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.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on 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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



First try to fart. If it doesn't help read Darwin's Origin of species. It will help you no doubt.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey V, why did evolution stop?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And who stopped it?
Posted by: VMartin on 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.

Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 04 2007,18:22

V, this doesn't answer the question of why evolution stopped or who stopped it.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on 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
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's nice.  (yawn)

Who "froze" it.  And why.
Posted by: Henry J on 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
Posted by: VMartin on 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?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on July 05 2007,07:02

That's nice.  (yawn)

Who froze evolution, again . . . ?

And why . . . . ?
Posted by: Henry J on 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
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 05 2007,12:37

[WmAD]


< Is this an ID friendly paper on Front Loading? >

[/WmAD]
Posted by: VMartin on 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."

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://www.nytimes.com/2005....ei=5070 >
Posted by: stevestory on July 05 2007,12:42

Quote (Richardthughes @ July 05 2007,13:37)
[WmAD]


< Is this an ID friendly paper on Front Loading? >

[/WmAD]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL!
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on 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?
Posted by: stevestory on 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."

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://www.nytimes.com/2005....ei=5070 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh my god.
Posted by: VMartin on July 05 2007,13:00

stevestory.

Aren't you an atheist darling? You should better use
"Oh my natural selection".
Posted by: stevestory on July 05 2007,13:04

"Oh my natural selection" isn't an English colloquialism.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on 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".
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on 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."

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://www.nytimes.com/2005....ei=5070 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
Posted by: VMartin on 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?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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?
Posted by: Henry J on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hint: dead tissue is not actively making new copies of its DNA.
Posted by: VMartin on 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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on 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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: VMartin on July 05 2007,13:58



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Hint: dead tissue is not actively making new copies of its DNA.

---------------------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. 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?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hey V, are you hinting at the earth being 6,000 years old here?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 05 2007,14:03



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You can find my clearly expressed opinion on your little person at ISCID forum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
Posted by: Alan Fox on 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.

---------------------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. 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(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.
Posted by: Henry J on 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
Posted by: VMartin on 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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on 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
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ugh, I'd better rest. I'm afraid I may lose my countenace completely.
:O


PS: THREE gulps next time he says 'National Socialist'.
Posted by: Henry J on July 10 2007,16:20

So, who's gonna drive Arden home tonight? ;)
Posted by: Alan Fox on July 11 2007,06:10

VMartin:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am not sure of that but the fact of DNA preserved after 70. milion years is very weird, isn't it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I suspect that DNA allegedly from dinosaur bones was actually a contaminant. But don't take my word for it.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I suspect that DNA allegedly from dinosaur bones was actually a contaminant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

-John A. Davison. < Link >
Posted by: jeannot on July 11 2007,06:39

Interesting link, Alan.

John states:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
After all, I believe in reproductive continuity with change which is evolution. I am not sure you do. You seem to exempt Homo sapiens from that definition which I find unacceptable. Apparently you do not believe we had organic ancestors. I am not ready for that and I don't think many others are either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd like to hear Martin's opinion about that.
Posted by: VMartin on July 13 2007,17:41

Behe obviously doesn't believe in random mutation as the source of evolutionary novelties. If he believes in frontloading I don't know. But what may be of interest is John Davison's comment about the latest Dawkins critique of Behe's book in the New York Times.

< http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000370-p-48.html >

Columnist Richard Dawkins published his view on evolution and Behe's book in the NYT.

I am surprised by Dawkins arguments - Darwinism is a science because of "Ronald Fisher, Sewall Wright, J. B. S. Haldane, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Richard Lewontin, John Maynard Smith and hundreds of their talented co-workers and intellectual descendants." But Fisher's  arguments against  Punnet's conception of saltationism of butterfly mimicry he didn't mention. Somebody could check them, you know.

Dawkins picked up dogs to show that random mutation is responsible for their diversity. I would like to see if Dawkins is able to domesticate also lizards or tigers, hehe. Obviously in those species is random mutation somehow frozen.
Posted by: BWE on July 13 2007,18:07

Well, Lizards are a bit different in that, although they have changed significantly over the eons, they still have that basic reptilian brain. Maybe Lenny could tell us some more about that. As for house cats, I mean Tigers, well, you stumped me there.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on July 13 2007,22:49

Quote (BWE @ July 13 2007,18:07)
Well, Lizards are a bit different in that, although they have changed significantly over the eons, they still have that basic reptilian brain. Maybe Lenny could tell us some more about that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually some lizards, like monitors, are pretty bright, and can learn to run mazes as well as a rat can.

Martin is just making noises out his anal orifice again.  Like all creationists, he displays an incredible amount of sheer utter pig-ignorance about the natural world around him.   (shrug)
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 13 2007,23:33

Quote (VMartin @ July 13 2007,17:41)
Behe obviously doesn't believe in random mutation as the source of evolutionary novelties. If he believes in frontloading I don't know. But what may be of interest is John Davison's comment about the latest Dawkins critique of Behe's book in the New York Times.

< http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000370-p-48.html >

Columnist Richard Dawkins published his view on evolution and Behe's book in the NYT.

I am surprised by Dawkins arguments - Darwinism is a science because of "Ronald Fisher, Sewall Wright, J. B. S. Haldane, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Richard Lewontin, John Maynard Smith and hundreds of their talented co-workers and intellectual descendants." But Fisher's  arguments against  Punnet's conception of saltationism of butterfly mimicry he didn't mention. Somebody could check them, you know.

Dawkins picked up dogs to show that random mutation is responsible for their diversity. I would like to see if Dawkins is able to domesticate also lizards or tigers, hehe. Obviously in those species is random mutation somehow frozen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


VMartin, could you tell us why evolution stopped and who stopped it?

Otherwise, go away. The grownups are trying to have a conversation.
Posted by: VMartin on July 13 2007,23:57



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

As for house cats, I mean Tigers, well, you stumped me there.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If you know about domesticated cats as great as Bernardines let me know. Let me also know about domesticated cats/tigers used in Army or by guards.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Actually some lizards, like monitors, are pretty bright, and can learn to run mazes as well as a rat can.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Do you think that running mazes is preliminary test before domestication or what? People domesticate animals many thousands years. One of the result is observation that some animals couldn't be domesticated.  Another is that you cannot create from one species another one  by any artificial selection .
It's only in darwinian imagination that selection can lead to speciation.  


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Martin is just making noises out his anal orifice again.  Like all creationists, he displays an incredible amount of sheer utter pig-ignorance about the natural world around him.   (shrug)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You are angry because your hero Dawkins is obviously wrong. You should send him to retirement. It's him who  "displays an incredible amount of sheer utter pig-ignorance about the natural world around him." No wonder that sitting drowsily in his University armchair he conceived not only selfish gene nonsense but farted also this sentence in NYT:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Or a heavyset, thick-coated wolf, strong enough to carry a cask of brandy, that thrives in Alpine passes and might be named after one of them, the St. Bernard? Behe has to predict that you'd wait till hell freezes over, but the necessary mutations would not be forthcoming.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The facts are these:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

As for the barrel on the collar, it first appeared in a painting by artist Edwin Landseer called “Alpine Mastiffs Reanimating a Distressed Traveler” in 1820; Landseer was only 17 at the time. The cask was thought to contain brandy and quickly caught on in the public imagination, though the monks and their dogs never actually used such a thing. (Alcohol, after all, could hasten dehydration—not a good treatment for a snowbound traveler.)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 14 2007,00:00

Quote (VMartin @ July 13 2007,23:57)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

As for house cats, I mean Tigers, well, you stumped me there.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If you know about domesticated cats as great as Bernardines let me know. Let me also know about domesticated cats/tigers used in Army or by guards.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Actually some lizards, like monitors, are pretty bright, and can learn to run mazes as well as a rat can.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Do you think that running mazes is preliminary test before domestication or what? People domesticate animals many thousands years. One of the result is observation that some animals couldn't be domesticated.  Another is that you cannot create from one species another one  by any artificial selection .
It's only in darwinian imagination that selection can lead to speciation.  


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Martin is just making noises out his anal orifice again.  Like all creationists, he displays an incredible amount of sheer utter pig-ignorance about the natural world around him.   (shrug)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You are angry because your hero Dawkins is obviously wrong. You should send him to retirement. It's him who  "displays an incredible amount of sheer utter pig-ignorance about the natural world around him." No wonder that sitting drowsily in his University armchair he conceived not only selfish gene nonsense but farted also this sentence in NYT:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Or a heavyset, thick-coated wolf, strong enough to carry a cask of brandy, that thrives in Alpine passes and might be named after one of them, the St. Bernard? Behe has to predict that you'd wait till hell freezes over, but the necessary mutations would not be forthcoming.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The facts are these:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

As for the barrel on the collar, it first appeared in a painting by artist Edwin Landseer called “Alpine Mastiffs Reanimating a Distressed Traveler” in 1820; Landseer was only 17 at the time. The cask was thought to contain brandy and quickly caught on in the public imagination, though the monks and their dogs never actually used such a thing. (Alcohol, after all, could hasten dehydration—not a good treatment for a snowbound traveler.)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


V, go away. You're a dimwit and no one here is interested in your bitching about Darwin, atheists and Dawkins.

Go back to Davison. He's getting lonely over there.
Posted by: JAM on July 14 2007,14:59

[quote=VMartin,July 13 2007,23:57]

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dawkins:
Or a heavyset, thick-coated wolf, strong enough to carry a cask of brandy, that thrives in Alpine passes and might be named after one of them, the St. Bernard? Behe has to predict that you'd wait till hell freezes over, but the necessary mutations would not be forthcoming.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The facts are these:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

As for the barrel on the collar, it first appeared in a painting by artist Edwin Landseer called “Alpine Mastiffs Reanimating a Distressed Traveler” in 1820; Landseer was only 17 at the time. The cask was thought to contain brandy and quickly caught on in the public imagination, though the monks and their dogs never actually used such a thing. (Alcohol, after all, could hasten dehydration—not a good treatment for a snowbound traveler.)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


VMartin,

Your reading skillz aren't that great.

If they were better, you'd have noticed a relevant fact: Dawkins didn't write that they actually carried casks of brandy, but merely that they are strong enough to do so.

So are you disagreeing with what Dawkins actually wrote, or just with what you wish he had written?
Posted by: JAM on July 14 2007,15:30

Quote (VMartin @ July 13 2007,17:41)
Dawkins picked up dogs to show that random mutation is responsible for their diversity. I would like to see if Dawkins is able to domesticate also lizards or tigers, hehe. Obviously in those species is random mutation somehow frozen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


VMartin,

Would you mind explaining the mental processes that lead you to believe that your first sentence is accurate, and that your second sentence has any logical relationship to the first?

Dogs show more variation than other species because artificial selection was intense and taken in multiple directions.

The underlying source of genetic variation is the same (mutations), but more of it is evident in dogs because we did the selection.

Therefore, Behe is a dishonest twit because he tries to pass off limited diversity caused by reversing selection pressures (Plasmodium) as a low mutation rate, and you're a twit for believing him. If you disagree, answer these questions:

1) Why did Behe extrapolate from Plasmodium to humans instead of using mutation rates measured in humans?

2) Why do people who don't believe that humans and Plasmodium share a common ancestor defend Behe's extrapolations?
Posted by: BWE on July 14 2007,15:32

Quote (VMartin @ July 13 2007,23:57)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

As for house cats, I mean Tigers, well, you stumped me there.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If you know about domesticated cats as great as Bernardines let me know. Let me also know about domesticated cats/tigers used in Army or by guards.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Actually some lizards, like monitors, are pretty bright, and can learn to run mazes as well as a rat can.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Do you think that running mazes is preliminary test before domestication or what? People domesticate animals many thousands years. One of the result is observation that some animals couldn't be domesticated.  Another is that you cannot create from one species another one  by any artificial selection .
It's only in darwinian imagination that selection can lead to speciation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are tigers and house cats different species? I get so confused because this other guy keeps telling me about these things called "kinds" that came off the ark. Noah's ark that is. I don't get it very well. Can you help me to understand?

Smart or not, lizards as far as I know don't do much of the mammalian emotion thing. It's like they are lacking a vertebrae or something. Or some part of the ear canal, I forget which.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on July 14 2007,16:08

I'm sorry, Martin, did you say something . . .?

(yawn)
Posted by: Henry J on July 16 2007,13:30

What if "kind" actually means "clade"? :p

Henry
Posted by: VMartin on July 16 2007,14:54

JAM


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Would you mind explaining the mental processes that lead you to believe that your first sentence is accurate, and that your second sentence has any logical relationship to the first?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The problem of domestication is very important. Dawkins avoided the main problem - why we have domesticated only few species? Many species we can't domesticate - they simply die. Of course Dawkins conclusion is unfounded that random mutation is behind all variety of dogs races . It's only hypothesis that all alleles aroused via random mutation.  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Dogs show more variation than other species because artificial selection was intense and taken in multiple directions.

The underlying source of genetic variation is the same (mutations), but more of it is evident in dogs because we did the selection.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Underlying source of genetic variation is not the same. It is greater in Jaguars, Leopards and Pumas than in dogs. Heterozygosity in dogs is also lower than in lynx. Consequetly artificial selection should be there as successful as in dogs.  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Therefore, Behe is a dishonest twit because he tries to pass off limited diversity caused by reversing selection pressures (Plasmodium) as a low mutation rate, and you're a twit for believing him.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You have no idea what are you babbling about but you have still enough audacity to call Behe dishonest twit.




---------------------QUOTE-------------------

If you disagree, answer these questions:

1) Why did Behe extrapolate from Plasmodium to humans instead of using mutation rates measured in humans?

2) Why do people who don't believe that humans and Plasmodium share a common ancestor defend Behe's extrapolations?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I am not Behe's advocate. I personally consider more valuable resource of anti-darwinian thinking Davison's works. But on the other hand I am almost sure that Plasmodium and humans don't share common ancestors.
Anyway criticising Dawkin's stories about dogs doesn't mean defending Behe's book, you know.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 16 2007,15:05

Quote (VMartin @ July 16 2007,14:54)
JAM
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Would you mind explaining the mental processes that lead you to believe that your first sentence is accurate, and that your second sentence has any logical relationship to the first?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The problem of domestication is very important. Dawkins avoided the main problem - why we have domesticated only few species? Many species we can't domesticate - they simply die. Of course Dawkins conclusion is unfounded that random mutation is behind all variety of dogs races . It's only hypothesis that all alleles aroused via random mutation.  

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Dogs show more variation than other species because artificial selection was intense and taken in multiple directions.

The underlying source of genetic variation is the same (mutations), but more of it is evident in dogs because we did the selection.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Underlying source of genetic variation is not the same. It is greater in Jaguars, Leopards and Pumas than in dogs. Heterozygosity in dogs is also lower than in lynx. Consequetly artificial selection should be there as successful as in dogs.  

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Therefore, Behe is a dishonest twit because he tries to pass off limited diversity caused by reversing selection pressures (Plasmodium) as a low mutation rate, and you're a twit for believing him.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You have no idea what are you babbling about but you have still enough audacity to call Behe dishonest twit.


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

If you disagree, answer these questions:

1) Why did Behe extrapolate from Plasmodium to humans instead of using mutation rates measured in humans?

2) Why do people who don't believe that humans and Plasmodium share a common ancestor defend Behe's extrapolations?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I am not Behe's advocate. I personally consider more valuable resource of anti-darwinian thinking Davison's works. But on the other hand I am almost sure that Plasmodium and humans don't share common ancestors.
Anyway criticising Dawkin's stories about dogs doesn't mean defending Behe's book, you know.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dawkins: 3
Darwin: 1
Davison: 1

You forgot to mention peppered moths and to call us National Socialists. Got that? Write it down!

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am almost sure that Plasmodium and humans don't share common ancestors.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What about apes and humans, V?

You're boring, V. Go back to JAD and pat his belly and rub his head.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on July 16 2007,17:08

I'm sorry, Martin -- did you say something?  (yawn)
Posted by: Henry J on July 16 2007,17:48

Re "Many species we can't domesticate - they simply die"

The obvious conclusion there would be that the environment that people stick them in is too different from the one for which they were adapted.

Henry
Posted by: VMartin on July 17 2007,00:10



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I'm sorry, Martin -- did you say something?  (yawn)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What kind of inscription did you have on your T-Shirt when you protested against the war in Korea? And what T-shirt do you wear now? Did you buy the one Dawkins wears? Richard Dawkins has really nice T-shirt - look at inscription on it "Evolution greatest show in history" here:

< http://richarddawkins.net/article....Dawkins >

(I suppose T-Shirt with inscription "Random mutation is the rigt answer" with picture of St.Bernard having brandy cask would be more fitting, but this one is good too).
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 17 2007,01:12

Quote (VMartin @ July 17 2007,00:10)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I'm sorry, Martin -- did you say something?  (yawn)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What kind of inscription did you have on your T-Shirt when you protested against the war in Korea? And what T-shirt do you wear now? Did you buy the one Dawkins wears? Richard Dawkins has really nice T-shirt - look at inscription on it "Evolution greatest show in history" here:

< http://richarddawkins.net/article....Dawkins >

(I suppose T-Shirt with inscription "Random mutation is the rigt answer" with picture of St.Bernard having brandy cask would be more fitting, but this one is good too).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why are you so obsessed with Dawkins, V?

Go away, dimwit. We're all 'Darwinist National Socialists' here anyway, remember? Go cuddle up with Davison. As far as I can tell you're his only friend.
Posted by: JAM on July 17 2007,11:53

Quote (VMartin @ July 16 2007,14:54)

JAM: Would you mind explaining the mental processes that lead you to believe that your first sentence is accurate, and that your second sentence has any logical relationship to the first?

The problem of domestication is very important.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's no "problem of domestication" here--Dawkins is trashing Behe's lie that there's not enough variation to support natural selection.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dawkins avoided the main problem - why we have domesticated only few species? Many species we can't domesticate - they simply die.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dawkins wasn't avoiding anything--he was directly rebutting the thesis of Behe's sad little book.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course Dawkins conclusion is unfounded that random mutation is behind all variety of dogs races . It's only hypothesis that all alleles aroused via random mutation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why do we see new alleles appearing all the time? And why are you so dense that you don't realize that "random" only applies to fitness?  
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
JAM: Dogs show more variation than other species because artificial selection was intense and taken in multiple directions.
The underlying source of genetic variation is the same (mutations), but more of it is evident in dogs because we did the selection.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Underlying source of genetic variation is not the same. It is greater in Jaguars, Leopards and Pumas than in dogs. Heterozygosity in dogs is also lower than in lynx.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course heterozygosity in dogs is lower than it is in any wild animal that is not threatened with extinction--we have inbred dogs.

Lab mice are completely inbred--does that say a damn thing about heterozygosity in wild mice?
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Consequetly artificial selection should be there as successful as in dogs.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No. Besides, you'd have to compare heterozygosity in wolves 40000 years ago with heterozygosity in the other species today.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Therefore, Behe is a dishonest twit because he tries to pass off limited diversity caused by reversing selection pressures (Plasmodium) as a low mutation rate, and you're a twit for believing him.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You have no idea what are you babbling about but you have still enough audacity to call Behe dishonest twit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I've published infinitely more papers in the subjects Behe misleads on in this book (some in retrovirology, microbiology, and mutagenesis) than Behe has (0 for 3).


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

But on the other hand I am almost sure that Plasmodium and humans don't share common ancestors.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then we agree that Behe is a twit, but for different reasons.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Anyway criticising Dawkin's stories about dogs doesn't mean defending Behe's book, you know.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I know. I also know that you either don't understand, or are pretending not to understand, why Dawkins brought up dogs in a review of Behe's book.
Posted by: VMartin on July 17 2007,12:48

Jam


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Why do we see new alleles appearing all the time? And why are you so dense that you don't realize that "random" only applies to fitness?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Can you give me an example of some new allele that appeared suddenly by random mutation and it wasn't consequently present in the gene pool before? I mean something that is not degeneration of previously existed functional allele.




---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I know. I also know that you either don't understand, or are pretending not to understand, why Dawkins brought up dogs in a review of Behe's book.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You are right. I don't know why Dawkins brought it up (with those example of St.Bernadine bearing cask of brandy). Dogs are good example of the fact that evolution has nothing to do with natural selection. You can breed dogs however you like (diversity in dogs are greatest in mammals) they still remain dogs. The strongest artificial selection  couldn't change the fact. That's probably the reason no one observed selection as creative force of evolution before Darwin. It also prove the fact that the process is almost fully reversible -dogs  left for themselves would return after some generation to their former state.

Dogs prove the fact that most species are unable to evolve and they only somehow react to pressure by their innate diversity. After some point they are unable to accomodate themselves and die. Consequently what  species do under pressure is they change their alleles frequency but do not instigate evolution of new species by such process.

Dawkins mentioned the domesticated species that defy to evolve as evolutionary example against Behe.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 17 2007,13:58


Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on July 17 2007,18:00

I'm sorry, Martin -- did you, uh, say something?

(yawn)
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 17 2007,22:04

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 17 2007,18:00)
I'm sorry, Martin -- did you, uh, say something?

(yawn)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Something about Nazis, Darwin, and Richard Dawkins, near as I can tell.

Oh yeah, and I think he mentioned moths.

I'm not totally sure -- it was a little hard to understand.
Posted by: ck1 on July 17 2007,22:21

Quote (VMartin @ July 17 2007,12:48)
Dogs are good example of the fact that evolution has nothing to do with natural selection. You can breed dogs however you like (diversity in dogs are greatest in mammals) they still remain dogs. The strongest artificial selection  couldn't change the fact. That's probably the reason no one observed selection as creative force of evolution before Darwin. It also prove the fact that the process is almost fully reversible -dogs  left for themselves would return after some generation to their former state.

Dogs prove the fact that most species are unable to evolve and they only somehow react to pressure by their innate diversity. After some point they are unable to accomodate themselves and die. Consequently what  species do under pressure is they change their alleles frequency but do not instigate evolution of new species by such process.

Dawkins mentioned the domesticated species that defy to evolve as evolutionary example against Behe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


CTVT - a novel dog-derived life form.

Look it up.
Posted by: JAM on July 18 2007,00:24

Quote (VMartin @ July 17 2007,12:48)
Jam
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Why do we see new alleles appearing all the time? And why are you so dense that you don't realize that "random" only applies to fitness?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Can you give me an example of some new allele that appeared suddenly by random mutation
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Many of them. Are you denying that such events have ever occurred? If so, how much are you willing to bet on your certainty?

Get this through your thick skull--"random" is only wrt fitness. Your incoherent use of the adjective makes you look stupid.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
and it wasn't consequently present in the gene pool before?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Huh? If it is new, how could it have possibly been present in the gene pool before?

Should we call you the Master of Redundancy?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I mean something that is not degeneration of previously existed functional allele.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I do too. Your retarded view of biology certainly is degenerate!


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I know. I also know that you either don't understand, or are pretending not to understand, why Dawkins brought up dogs in a review of Behe's book.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You are right.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I know.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't know why Dawkins brought it up (with those example of St.Bernadine bearing cask of brandy).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps you should read Behe's book before making a fool of yourself. Also, we already disposed of your lie that Dawkins claimed that St. Bernards actually did carry brandy; he just noted that they are capable of doing so. Why do you continue to lie about that?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dogs are good example of the fact that evolution has nothing to do with natural selection.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dogs are a good example of the extent of genetic variation that can be brought out by artificial selection.

If you weren't as dumb as a post, you'd know that Behe's thesis is that there is insufficient genetic variation to drive natural selection. Behe's book is not an attack on natural selection. Therefore, the variation we have in dogs is a perfect rebuttal to Behe's stupidity and dishonesty.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You can breed dogs however you like (diversity in dogs are greatest in mammals) they still remain dogs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, we call them dogs to reflect their common origin.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The strongest artificial selection  couldn't change the fact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's easily strong enough to bifurcate dogs to completely prevent them from interbreeding.

If you dumped 100 St. Bernards and 100 Chihuahuas on a large island with no other canids, would they ever interbreed? Could they interbreed?

Haven't we already met the major criterion for speciation?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That's probably the reason no one observed selection as creative force of evolution before Darwin. It also prove the fact that the process is almost fully reversible -dogs  left for themselves would return after some generation to their former state.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So try it with the two breeds I specified and see if it works.  


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dogs prove the fact that most species are unable to evolve...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dogs have undergone incredibly rapid evolution, and their diversity shows that natural, existing genetic variation is more than enough to allow natural selection.

It looks to me as though you don't even understand the meaning of the word "evolution."
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on July 18 2007,07:11

Dude, you're wasting your time with Martin.

Best to ignore him so he goes away.  Again.
Posted by: VMartin on July 18 2007,14:47

Jam


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Many of them. Are you denying that such events have ever occurred? If so, how much are you willing to bet on your certainty?

Get this through your thick skull--"random" is only wrt fitness. Your incoherent use of the adjective makes you look stupid.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




If anyone here looks stupid it's you. Random mutation is random whatever effect it has on fitness.  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I do too. Your retarded view of biology certainly is degenerate!

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I see. Your view is "scientific".



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Also, we already disposed of your lie that Dawkins claimed that St. Bernards actually did carry brandy; he just noted that they are capable of doing so. Why do you continue to lie about that?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Aha. So he know they are only "capable of doing it". How does he know it anyway?  Because he saw a picture painted by 17 year old yougster from 19 century? Or did he really put a barrel on the neck of St.Bernard and ran with it 10 kilometers?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Dogs are a good example of the extent of genetic variation that can be brought out by artificial selection.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You probably mean phenotype variation.




---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yes, we call them dogs to reflect their common origin.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No. Our ancestors called them dogs and they knew nothing about "common ancestor". We call them dogs because they are the same species. It is very simple.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

If you dumped 100 St. Bernards and 100 Chihuahuas on a large island with no other canids, would they ever interbreed? Could they interbreed?

Haven't we already met the major criterion for speciation?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Do you  mean that St. Bernards on a large island
with no other canids will be the same race  St.Bernards also after 200 generation? If yes you don't know anything about breeding and artificial selection. You probably suppose that St.Bernards and Chihuahuas have their genetic variability exhausted (common mistake of darwinists) or that they are in genetic homeostasis. So or so the answer to your foolish question is -  we haven't met criterion for speciation.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 18 2007,15:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
St.Bernards and Chihuahuas have their genetic variability exhausted (common mistake of darwinists)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



testible prediction!
Posted by: JAM on July 18 2007,17:02

Quote (VMartin @ July 18 2007,14:47)
Jam
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Many of them. Are you denying that such events have ever occurred? If so, how much are you willing to bet on your certainty?

Get this through your thick skull--"random" is only wrt fitness. Your incoherent use of the adjective makes you look stupid.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If anyone here looks stupid it's you. Random mutation is random whatever effect it has on fitness.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mutations don't occur at random locations or in random directions.

Why are you afraid to bet? 
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No. Our ancestors called them dogs and they knew nothing about "common ancestor". We call them dogs because they are the same species. It is very simple.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Very simply, our ancestors had dogs long before the English language existed.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
JAM: If you dumped 100 St. Bernards and 100 Chihuahuas on a large island with no other canids, would they ever interbreed? Could they interbreed?

Haven't we already met the major criterion for speciation?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you  mean that St. Bernards on a large island
with no other canids will be the same race  St.Bernards also after 200 generation?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I asked if they would interbreed. Do you not understand what the word means? If so, just ask, instead of stupidly pretending that I had asked you a completely different question.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on July 18 2007,17:10

Dudes, you are slinging mud at a pig.

And he likes it.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on July 18 2007,17:17

I like watching VMartin make an asshole of himself.  I wish dave tard would drop by and do the same.

Watching creobots is like watching the mentally ill (at a safe distance.)

I'll be right back, the popcorn's done!
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 18 2007,17:56

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ July 18 2007,17:17)
I like watching VMartin make an asshole of himself.  I wish dave tard would drop by and do the same.

Watching creobots is like watching the mentally ill (at a safe distance.)

I'll be right back, the popcorn's done!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But unlike VMartin, Dave Scot can be funny. Except when he mangles his English especially vividly, Martin's a snooze.
Posted by: VMartin on July 20 2007,11:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

No, I asked if they would interbreed. Do you not understand what the word means? If so, just ask, instead of stupidly pretending that I had asked you a completely different question.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I wrote you it will take some time until both races change their phenotype and they would look alike. Of course after some generations feral dogs of those species would be able to interbreed.

But I don't see your point. Do you mean seriously your question that

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Haven't we already met the major criterion for speciation?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Because it sounds very weird - dog can hybridize with wolf, coyote, Ethiopian wolf and golden jackal and produce fertile offspring with them. Why do you think that especially dogs are good example of speciation?


---
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I like watching VMartin make an asshole of himself.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And we enjoy discussions with you at ISCID where John sometimes commented some posts here. Anyway  the ongoing discussion with you about dogs is really entertaining. Especially how you defend nonsensical Dawkins story about ability of St.Bernard to bear cask of brandy. You have never answered consistently any problems (except using denigration and abuses) about evolution of mimicry, coloration and now you claimed that dogs almost " met the major criterion for speciation". You make perfect fools of yourselves.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on July 20 2007,11:57

Now, I can't say I really understand the science, but it seems to me anytime anyone replies to him with something he doesn't like, VMartin seems to do the equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and chanting "I'm not going to listen to this, I'm not going to hear this now" a la The 'burbs.


Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 20 2007,12:06

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 20 2007,11:57)
Now, I can't say I really understand the science, but it seems to me anytime anyone replies to him with something he doesn't like, VMartin seems to do the equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and chanting "I'm not going to listen to this, I'm not going to hear this now" a la The 'burbs.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


His stock reply can be summed up as "of course you are thinking that because of you are all foolish atheist Darwinist". Press him harder and he'll denounce your morality ("something bad may happen to you") and call you a Nazi. And he ignores about 90% of the serious questions put to him.

This is why no one on the internet has any use for him except Javison.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on July 20 2007,17:24

I'm sorry, Martin --- did you say something?   (yawn)
Posted by: VMartin on July 21 2007,01:35

Becuase you didn' response to the problem of dogs I suppose you realized clearly it was incorrect inference from you - that they could speciate. Dogs cannot speciate and support your view about evolution. But if anyone here has different opinion I would like to know it and discuss the issue further.

Maybe another question.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And why did it (evolution) stop?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Because the human is the terminal product of the evolution and there is not other morphological "Typus" or "Form" that any organism can have. Because you are here obviously excellent linguists I would like to support  such a view and concept of directed evolution by this quotation of paleontologist Dacque:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

»Typen - soviel wenigstens läßt sich mit übertragener Ausdrucksweise sagen - sind den wirklichen Formen zugrunde liegende, in ihnen realisierte Artpotenzen. Es sind keineswegs nur Abstraktionen aus den konkreten Formen, sondern sind letzte genotypische Realitäten und Potenzen jenseits des Gegenständlich-Phänotypischen.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Such concept is supported by the fact of saltationism and stasis what could be often in many cases observed in fossil record (puctuated equilibrium in darwinian thinking - Eldredge and Gould). The succession of indiduals in the course of the process of evolution is to be explained by this way :

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

»Die Folge der Individuen, die wir ja allein haben
und sehen, ist nicht die Entwicklung selbst, so wenig wie die Individuen die Art sind, sie sind auch nicht das, was sich entwickelt im stammesgeschichtlichen Sinn, sondern sie sind allenfalls das herausgestellte Ergebnis der Entwicklung des Lebens an sich, sind dies auch
schon als Same und Ei, so gut wie als fertige Tiere. Sie sind eben in jeder Weise Symbol eines inneren Zustandes, einer Entelechie, einer Potenz, oder wie man sonst sagen mag, da sich solches niemals konkret nennen lässt. Und deshalb können - um nun zum Stammbaum und damit zum Werden der >Arten< überzugehen - auch Formenreihen, die man historisch aus ihnen zusammenstellt, wenn man genug fossiles Material hat, nie die Entwicklung als solche zeigen,
sondern uns nur die Symbole für eine solche geben.«

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So pigs can start ridicule Dacque. Go on.
Posted by: skeptic on July 21 2007,02:27

can anyone else read this stuff, or is it just me?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 21 2007,03:17

Quote (skeptic @ July 21 2007,02:27)
can anyone else read this stuff, or is it just me?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's not just you.
Posted by: VMartin on July 21 2007,04:15

Except denigration, abuses, lies and stupid questions you dont know anything. You cannot read German.  

I have tried to open a thread at EVC forum where the contibutors are on much higher level than stupidos here. So especially for you:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before 2nd WW German idealistic morphology had many prominent proponents. Nowadays the concept of idealistic morphology is obviously a forgotten theory of biological evolution. Neverthenless its basic concept of directed evolution lives poorly on the verge of the scientific interest (John Davisons PEH).

The basic concept of IM is that there are idealistic, non-darwinian forces behind the evolutionary process - "Zeitgeist" or "Typus" or "Urformen" (pre-existing formen). The main idea of the paleontologist Dacque is that human is final product of evolution. There are only idealistic, platonic "Formen" that underlie biological evolution. New types arouse suddenly and science doesn't have enough instruments to elucidate the process. The evolution is teleological process aimed for perfection and emergence of human. "Entelechie" of human is present from the beginning of the evolution and consequently human have no ancestors. It may be of interest that Leo Berg mentioned Dacque in his Nomogenesis - evolution directed by law. His concept is very similar of that of Dacque of development of a pre-existing Plan.



The interesting material about thinking and concepts of Naef, Dacque, Troll in German is here:

"Goethes langer Atem: »Methodologische Ideologien«
in der Deutschen Morphologie des 20. Jahrhunderts*".

< http://www.evolutionsbiologen.de/goethesatem.pdf >

Some materials could be found also on internet. Troll was a prominent botanist whose work was accepted world-wide.

[Wilhelm Troll (1897-1978). The tradition of idealistic morphology in the German botanical sciences of the 20th century]

< http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites....itation >
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 21 2007,05:32

Quote (VMartin @ July 21 2007,04:15)
Except denigration, abuses, lies and stupid questions you dont know anything. You cannot read German.  

I have tried to open a thread at EVC forum where the contibutors are on much higher level than stupidos here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So why are you still here? To wave your intellect around like a de-boned fish or what?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on July 21 2007,07:11

I'm sorry, Martin -- did you say something?

(yawn)
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 21 2007,10:23

Hey, V, why won't you tell us why evolution stopped or who stopped it? It seems to be very important to Javison...

Oh, right -- must be because we're all National Socialists.

Go back to John, pinhead. No one here is listening to you.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on July 22 2007,14:22

sweet jesus that is some high-octane stuff.  thank you, vmartin, for being such a fool. i just laughed my duodenum off.

'you are all foolish darwinist from ATBC'

roflmao
Posted by: qetzal on July 22 2007,15:51

Quote (VMartin @ July 21 2007,04:15)
The evolution is teleological process aimed for perfection and emergence of human.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is perfection? Homo sapiens?

Ho. Lee. Cr*p. How could anyone, no matter how delusional, think that man = perfection?

If I actually believed evolution was teleological and aimed at perfection, I'd be dead certain it wasn't finished yet.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 22 2007,16:11



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Entelechie" of human is present from the beginning of the evolution and consequently human have no ancestors.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



V, is this what you believe? That 'human have no ancestors'?

This would seem to indicate that you do not believe in common descent. And yet, Davison said this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There is absolutely no evidence to refute common descent,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why exactly do you disagree with Davison on this?
Posted by: jeannot on July 22 2007,17:21

Quote (VMartin @ July 21 2007,04:15)
Except denigration, abuses,...
<stuff>
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Martin, are you here to actually argue for your PEH or just complain?

- What are the evidence for your hypothesis? You haven't shown anything yet. Sorry, "I bet you can't domesticate a lizard" or "look at those colorfull mushrooms" don't count.

- When did evolution stop and why?

*Bonus question: does "prescribed evolution" mean anything without common descent?
Posted by: Henry J on July 22 2007,18:50

Re ""Entelechie" of human is present from the beginning of the evolution and consequently human have no ancestors."

So he thinks what, that some bio-engineer(s) deliberately manufactured humans to be a slightly modified copy of the predecessors of chimpanzees? And that's supposed to somehow be a route to perfection?

Henry
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on July 22 2007,19:09

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 22 2007,16:11)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There is absolutely no evidence to refute common descent,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why exactly do you disagree with Davison on this?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The brown noser gets his masters commands wrong!

I LOVE IT SO!










Sorry if that was overkill, but it looked like fun.
Posted by: VMartin on July 22 2007,23:58

Jeanot



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

- What are the evidence for your hypothesis? You haven't shown anything yet. Sorry, "I bet you can't domesticate a lizard" or "look at those colorfull mushrooms" don't count.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I put those examples (together with mimicry) only to show that darwinismus is unable to explain them. That's all.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

- When did evolution stop and why?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Because the man is final product of evolution the evolution is now over.
Posted by: VMartin on July 23 2007,00:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So he thinks what, that some bio-engineer(s) deliberately manufactured humans to be a slightly modified copy of the predecessors of chimpanzees? And that's supposed to somehow be a route to perfection?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Human pre-existed before evolution started as a "Typus", "Archetype".
Evolution was directed process and nowadays human corresponds with the  pre-existed platonic "typus" or idea.

According Naeff:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

»Der Typus ist also für uns eine bloß gedachte Form, die Idee eines Naturwesens.«

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 23 2007,00:11



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
- When did evolution stop and why?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Because the man is final product of evolution the evolution is now over.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But when exactly did evolution stop and who stopped it?

And how do you know that 'man is final product of evolution'?

And why do you disagree with Davison about common descent? Is he wrong?

 

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



When did evolution start? Who started it?

Does it bother you that you have absolutely no real, uh, evidence for any of this? Or do you take that in stride?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
darwinismus
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



'Darwinismus' is not an English word. Try harder.
Posted by: Patrick Caldon on July 23 2007,01:14

Quote (VMartin @ July 22 2007,23:58)
I put those examples (together with mimicry) only to show that darwinismus is unable to explain them. That's all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For mimicry, I'd suggest chapter 8 of Ridley's Evolution book.  Its an accessible undergraduate text, and describes the evolution of mimicry in great detail as an example of multi-locus population genetics.

Why not buy the book, read through it, and then work through the exercises at the back of the chapter?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 23 2007,02:21



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Such concept is supported by the fact of saltationism and stasis what could be often in many cases observed in fossil record (puctuated equilibrium in darwinian thinking - Eldredge and Gould).

---------------------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.
Posted by: jeannot on July 23 2007,08:03

Quote (VMartin @ July 22 2007,23:58)
Jeanot

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

- What are the evidence for your hypothesis? You haven't shown anything yet. Sorry, "I bet you can't domesticate a lizard" or "look at those colorfull mushrooms" don't count.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I put those examples (together with mimicry) only to show that darwinismus is unable to explain them. That's all.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

- When did evolution stop and why?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Because the man is final product of evolution the evolution is now over.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, coloration in mushrooms has hardly been studied, and the genetic mechanisms of domestication are very well explained by "Darwinismus".

Is that all you have, Martin?
Posted by: jeannot on July 23 2007,08:11

Quote (VMartin @ July 22 2007,23:58)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

- When did evolution stop and why?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Because the man is final product of evolution the evolution is now over.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You mean descent with modification don't happen anymore?
If so, could you be more specific: have mutations stopped to happen?
And what about all those cases of speciation?

I'm afraid that your view conflicts with reality, Martin.

And also, why should the emergence or man stop the evolution of, say, Boletus?
Posted by: Alan Fox on July 23 2007,08:25

Oh, and VMartin,

Have you now abandoned your claim that 70 million year old DNA has been found? Just to remind you:

 
Quote (Alan Fox @ July 11 2007,01:10)
VMartin:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am not sure of that but the fact of DNA preserved after 70. milion years is very weird, isn't it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I suspect that DNA allegedly from dinosaur bones was actually a contaminant. But don't take my word for it.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I suspect that DNA allegedly from dinosaur bones was actually a contaminant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

-John A. Davison. < Link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: k.e on July 23 2007,09:04

V are you nukin futs or what?

Oh BTW did you know hysteria was treated earlier last century by surgically removing the womb (disturbances of the uterus, hystera in Greek) seriously bloke you ought to get your knob polished.
Posted by: Henry J on 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
Posted by: VMartin on 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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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."

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What did Gould say that you consider 'soviet science'?
Posted by: VMartin on 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.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 02 2007,17:33

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


Geez.
Posted by: VMartin on Aug. 03 2007,02:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Aug. 03 2007,04:02



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We are having fun at ISCID reading your stupid responses.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, I am sure both of you are!
Posted by: VMartin on 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.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So where do mollusk shells come from, V?
Posted by: Henry J on 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
Posted by: Henry J on Aug. 07 2007,14:34

Re "So where do mollusk shells come from"

Most of them come from the ocean.  :p
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Aug. 07 2007,16:33

VMartin:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I didn't read the article.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



We get that.
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Aug. 07 2007,16:38



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
such triffles are no problem for the doctor
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


However, they did kick Kirk's ass:



Oh, you said triffles.  Nevermind.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 07 2007,17:02

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

He just doesn't give up, does he . . . .
Posted by: Nerull on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe he thinks if you spell his name 3 times he comes into your house and steals your bible?
Posted by: VMartin on 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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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:
 




Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Aug. 10 2007,14:03

Your point being?
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on 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!
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on 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:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


V

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

When did God die?
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on 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:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


V

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

When did God die?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or has god died, in your opinion?

NOT JAD's opinion. YOURS.
Posted by: Henry J on 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
Posted by: VMartin on 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).
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on 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).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What exactly is your alternate explanation?
Posted by: VMartin on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Do I?

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

Jesus christ you're mental.
Posted by: VMartin on Aug. 11 2007,06:54



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on 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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

DO YOU HAVE AN EXPLANATION?
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on 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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 11 2007,10:53

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 11 2007,08:25)
VMartin, if you think 'Darwinism' can't explain snail shells, what DO you think the explanation is?

DO YOU HAVE AN EXPLANATION?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


God made snail shells.  Then he died.

(snicker)  (giggle)
Posted by: VMartin on Aug. 16 2007,14:57

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank

?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


God made snail shells. ?Then he died.

(snicker) ?(giggle)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Let us consider another possibility - it was Natural selection which created snails and slugs. Now we may try to use darwinian dialectic to explain why slugs do not have their shells anymore and snails still posseses them. We are going to use darwinian dialectic from darwinian explanation of hoverfly mimicry:


Species with relatively slow unaccomplished flight may be placed under strong selection for high-quality mimicry bla bla bla...

? ?
Because slugs do not have shells they are a little bit faster than snails (they are more aerodynamic you know). ?They make 1500 mm an hour but snails make only 1498 mm an hour. This difference give slugs a little advantage when hunting by predators . Even though scientifically undetectable, such small advantage over millions and millions of years surely have led to preservation of snail's shells and diminishing of slugs' shells.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Aug. 16 2007,15:23

Quote (VMartin @ Aug. 16 2007,14:57)
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank

? ?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


God made snail shells. ?Then he died.

(snicker) ?(giggle)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Let us consider another possibility - it was Natural selection which created snails and slugs. Now we may try to use darwinian dialectic to explain why slugs do not have their shells anymore and snails still posseses them. We are going to use darwinian dialectic from darwinian explanation of hoverfly mimicry:


Species with relatively slow unaccomplished flight may be placed under strong selection for high-quality mimicry bla bla bla...

? ?
Because slugs do not have shells they are a little bit faster than snails (they are more aerodynamic you know). ?They make 1500 mm an hour but snails make only 1498 mm an hour. This difference give slugs a little advantage when hunting by predators . Even though scientifically undetectable, such small advantage over millions and millions of years surely have led to preservation of snail's shells and diminishing of slugs' shells.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now we may try to use darwinian dialectic
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Cute. VMartin still thinks calling Darwinists Communists is going to impress people. I guess he's a little behind the rest of the Western world here.

Hey, V, you seem not to think natural selection can explain things like snail shells, yet why won't you let us know what the correct explanation is? Is there some reason for this reluctance on your part?
Posted by: Henry J on Aug. 16 2007,15:32

If anybody wants a guess from an amateur, I'd guess that slugs rely more on shelter (i.e., being under things), whereas snails carry a partial shelter around with them. But that's at a cost; building that shell, and putting out the energy needed to carry it while moving around - slugs aren't paying that cost; their way works for them (yucky as it is), else they'd be extinct by now.

Just my two cents.

Henry
Posted by: JohnW on Aug. 16 2007,15:49

Slugs also rely on tasting nasty.  Very few predators will touch them.
Posted by: VMartin on Aug. 17 2007,00:17

Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 16 2007,15:49)
Slugs also rely on tasting nasty. ?Very few predators will touch them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, really? I would say it is only a darwinian bullshit for children in school how to explain reality not fitting into ?"natural selection" armchair preconcptions. ?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

These results represent the only known case of a European slug proving to be toxic to potential predators, and is one of a very small number of reported instances of possible toxicity amongst terrestrial gastropods.

.
.
.

Slugs are known to be killed and consumed by a range of invertebrate and vertebrate predators in the field.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The quotation above is from Journal of Molluscan studies, Oxfordjournals. ?

< http://mollus.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/63/4/541 >
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Aug. 17 2007,00:23

Quote (VMartin @ Aug. 17 2007,00:17)
?
Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 16 2007,15:49)
Slugs also rely on tasting nasty. ?Very few predators will touch them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, really? I would say it is only a darwinian bullshit for children in school how to explain reality not fitting into ?"natural selection" armchair preconcptions. ?

? ?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

These results represent the only known case of a European slug proving to be toxic to potential predators, and is one of a very small number of reported instances of possible toxicity amongst terrestrial gastropods.

.
.
.

Slugs are known to be killed and consumed by a range of invertebrate and vertebrate predators in the field.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The quotation above is from Journal of Molluscan studies, Oxfordjournals. ?

< http://mollus.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/63/4/541 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, V, since natural selection supposedly can't explain snail shells, why don't you tell us what the correct explanation is?

You do HAVE an explanation, right V?

(Remember, calling us Communists doesn't count.)
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Aug. 17 2007,01:23

VMartin's clue of the week:

Niche.
Posted by: JohnW on Aug. 17 2007,10:59

Quote (VMartin @ Aug. 16 2007,22:17)
Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 16 2007,15:49)
Slugs also rely on tasting nasty. ?Very few predators will touch them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, really? I would say it is only a darwinian bullshit for children in school how to explain reality not fitting into ?"natural selection" armchair preconcptions. ?

?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

These results represent the only known case of a European slug proving to be toxic to potential predators, and is one of a very small number of reported instances of possible toxicity amongst terrestrial gastropods.

.
.
.

Slugs are known to be killed and consumed by a range of invertebrate and vertebrate predators in the field.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The quotation above is from Journal of Molluscan studies, Oxfordjournals. ?

< http://mollus.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/63/4/541 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And how does the range of slug predators compare with the range of snail predators?  I assume you've studied this in the process of coming up with your "better than darwinian bullshit" explanation.  After all, you do have an explanation, yes?
Posted by: Alan Fox on Aug. 17 2007,11:54

Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 16 2007,10:32)
If anybody wants a guess from an amateur, I'd guess that slugs rely more on shelter (i.e., being under things), whereas snails carry a partial shelter around with them. But that's at a cost; building that shell, and putting out the energy needed to carry it while moving around - slugs aren't paying that cost; their way works for them (yucky as it is), else they'd be extinct by now.

Just my two cents.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Me, miss! Me, miss!

Where I live, during hot, dry conditions, in daytime, you find many snails with opercula tightly closed in vegetation such as vines about 1 metre from the ground. The strategy seems to help avoid dessication, as the ground surface can become much hotter than the air above. The shell is an essential element in this strategy, and may enable snails to thrive in drier climates. I have not seen a slug here, and our lettuces do very well.

PS among all the other questions that I am sure you will be soon getting around to answer, when you have time, please don't forget:
VMartin:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I am not sure of that but the fact of DNA preserved after 70. milion years is very weird, isn't it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




I suspect that DNA allegedly from dinosaur bones was actually a contaminant. But don't take my word for it.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I suspect that DNA allegedly from dinosaur bones was actually a contaminant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


-John A. Davison. < link >

< PPS >
Posted by: stephenWells on Aug. 17 2007,15:56

Quote (Alan Fox @ Aug. 17 2007,11:54)

Where I live, during hot, dry conditions, in daytime, you find many snails with opercula tightly closed in vegetation such as vines about 1 metre from the ground. The strategy seems to help avoid dessication, as the ground surface can become much hotter than the air above. The shell is an essential element in this strategy, and may enable snails to thrive in drier climates. I have not seen a slug here, and our lettuces do very well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Whereas in a very damp German forest recently, I saw very large numbers of both slugs and snails, with the slugs being particularly prevalent in the deep, shady leaf-litter, and the snails being more prevalent in the leafy bushes. Indeed, I saw a large snail eating a leaf with enough voracity that I actually heard the rasping of its radula.

So it seems we have a niche for creatures that rely on damp concealed conditions, and don't bother with the energetic investment of building a shell, and others which do build a shell and can occupy a broader range of environments.

Which we all knew, except VMartin.
Posted by: VMartin on Aug. 23 2007,12:47

John Davison has written in his Manifesto:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The actual facts are as follows. 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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Adolf Portmann adressed almost the same problem from another point of view. Because all of you are excellent linguists I suppose you have no problem reading German. I quoted from Adolf Portmann's "Biologie und Geist - Die Biologie und das Phanomen des Geistigen", Zurich 1956, page 22:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Verfolgt man nun in dieser naturlichen Serien von Tiertypen die Lage der mannlichen Keimdrusen, dann stellen wir fest, dass diese Hoden in der aufsteigenden Reihe vom Fisch zum Sauger aus der vorderen Rumpfzone oder der Rumpfmitte mehr becken-, ja leistenstandig werden, um schliesslich in einem Hodensack ausserhalb der Leibsholle in geradezu paradoxer ?Situation am analen Korperpol eingelagert zu werden.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Whats more important Adolf Portmann didn't see any plausible "selection" explanation of it:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

...dass es keine Theorie gibt, welche das Phanomen des <<Descensus>>, des Hodenabstiegs, erklart. Die Erscheinung ist ist um so beachtenswerter, als keine Moglichket gibt, die Entstehung dieses Gebildes durch Selektion zu erklaren.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Perhaps the prominent Swiss professor didn't hear about "niche"?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Aug. 23 2007,12:56

Hey, "V", now that you're back, can you please share with us what YOU think is the correct explanation of snail shells, since you evidently think that the Darwinian/Marxist explanation won't work?

You see, V, it's a little weird: you've been badmouthing "Darwinism" and calling evolutionists Communists here for months, yet you've never explained what exactly your alternative to natural selection is. Do you actually HAVE one? Is it identical to JD's "God did it, then died", theory, or is it different?

Please share, V! We're reaching out to you?

(Don't just call us communists or quote Javison. That's not what we're asking for.)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 23 2007,15:08

Damn, who left the door open and let the cackling chicken in again?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 23 2007,15:10

Quote (VMartin @ Aug. 23 2007,12:47)
John Davison has written in his Manifesto:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"A specter is haunting Europe -- the specter of anti-science nutjobs" . . . . ?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 23 2007,15:12

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 23 2007,12:56)
Don't just call us communists
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, you can call  *me*  a commie, V.  I don't mind.

Here, I'll even do it for you ------  "Lenny is a commie!  A big hairy erect commie!"

Happy now?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Aug. 23 2007,15:40

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 23 2007,15:12)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 23 2007,12:56)
Don't just call us communists
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, you can call ?*me* ?a commie, V. ?I don't mind.

Here, I'll even do it for you ------ ?"Lenny is a commie! ?A big hairy erect commie!"

Happy now?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay, V, I revise my statement. Call Lenny a commie all you want. Even call him 'hairy' and 'erect'. :p

But for the rest of us, let's just say it doesn't strengthen your, um, 'argument' any.

(Tho truth be told, I don't recall you advancing many arguments except for "DARWIN IS WICKED STALINIST!")
Posted by: Henry J on Aug. 23 2007,20:04

Being "hairy" is a correctable condition. :p

Henry
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 23 2007,20:54

Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 23 2007,20:04)
Being "hairy" is a correctable condition. :p

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So is being "erect".


(big fat evil grin)
Posted by: k.e on Aug. 23 2007,21:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Indeed, I saw a large snail eating a leaf with enough voracity that I actually heard the rasping of its radula.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ha, that wasn't eating it was trying to communicate with you. What do you think it was saying?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Aug. 23 2007,21:21



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Perhaps the prominent Swiss professor didn't hear about "niche"?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



VMartin actually gets something right. Stopped clocks and all that. The quote was from 1956. The classic paper introducing the biological niche concept was published by G.E. Hutchinson in... 1957.
Posted by: VMartin on Aug. 24 2007,06:57

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 23 2007,21:21)
? ?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Perhaps the prominent Swiss professor didn't hear about "niche"?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



VMartin actually gets something right. Stopped clocks and all that. The quote was from 1956. The classic paper introducing the biological niche concept was published by G.E. Hutchinson in... 1957.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Portmann published the article first in 1949 in fact.

Probably the problem has nothing to do with "niche". (As probably also the explanation of disappearance/retaining of snail's shells are only unproved "niche" explanation as well).

Doctor Myers addressed the same problem mentioned by Portmann here (in reality he quotes only some scientific source where he added some unsuitable, would- be "funny" remarks. What a difference to cultivated Portmann.):

< http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/descent_of_the_testicle/ >

Doctor Myers and authors of the research didn't mention "niche" there. Reading the article we see, that no new explanation of descent of testicles appeared that Portmann was not aware of in his time. Some of the most weird neodarwinian explanations dismissed doctor Myers himself. Yet he has written:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The temperature hypothesis. The most likely explanation is that there is something in the function of the testis that is optimized for a lower temperature, and that the clumsy kludge that evolved to reduce that temperature was to let the organ hang out in the breeze.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oddly enough birds having temperature 4 grad Celsius higher than mammals haven't solved the same problem this way.

Elephants living in very hot areas of the world keep their
testicles in their body cavity. But many mammals living in the same area - (or niche?) - have testicles descended and scrotal.

Obviously neodarwinism is groping in the case and all the "temperature" explanation is more a product of imagination as a real underestanding of the evolutionary processes leading to the observed reality -descent and moving of mammalian's males organs of reproduction to the back parts and outside of the body.

----
Animals like sharks solved problem of keeping great temperature differences inside their bodies:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

This way, these sharks have temperatures of 14?C above the water, while the heart and gills remain at sea-temperature, enabling them to hunt such rapid and agile prey like marine mammals.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Aug. 24 2007,07:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Obviously neodarwinism is groping in the case and all the "temperature" explanation is more a product of imagination as a real underestanding of the evolutionary processes leading to the observed reality -descent and moving of mammalian's males organs of reproduction to the back parts and outside of the body.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



what's your explanation of this observed reality VMartin?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Aug. 24 2007,07:38

A dramatic lack of focus, VMartin.

You brought up whether Portmann was aware of the niche concept. 1949 still predates 1957.

You also were blithering on about snails vs. slugs at the time you were handed the clue about niche, not testicular placement. Try not to wander off the page again, OK?
Posted by: VMartin on Aug. 24 2007,12:05

My opinion is that niche play almost no role in evolution. Evolution on my opinion is governed by processes different from those proposed by darwinism. Such directed evolution is called Orthogenesis.

I supposed that dispute about snails vs slugs was over.
Alan Fox mentioned snails resting on grapevein and another man saw snails and slugs in German forests. I saw both snails and slugs in the garden.

In many sources inquiring snails and slugs they are mentioned together as regard their habitats. But because in the same habitat live so different animals like wolfs and deers I think that habitat (or niche in the case) discussion would be endless.

I wanted only to emphasize that becoming slugs from snails is process that involve not only disappearance of shells. It requires the rearrangements of internal organs that matched perfectly mantel cavity of snails. It requires also detorsion.

I have mentioned that (in fact I quoted a German morphogist) shell should arose at once, by saltus because partial shell has no meaning.

Now I quoted A.Portmann in regard of another problem where niche obviously play no role. At least modern research do not mention it. I suppose it is more open for discussion.

I would say that blithering is more on the part of "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank and the others, who do not contribute to discussion anything except nonsenses.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Aug. 24 2007,12:08

Speaking of 'contributing', VMartin...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolution on my opinion is governed by processes different from those proposed by darwinism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And what precisely are those processes?

Don't just drop Davison's buzz words. Explain what YOU think.

Put up or shut up.
Posted by: VMartin on Aug. 24 2007,12:34



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Put up or shut up.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why do you think you can command me what to do?
Do you think you are admin here? The most probable is that you only suffer from delusion of grandeur. Don't read Selfish gene so often.

Remember: it is darwinism here on trial not me.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Aug. 24 2007,12:48

Quote (VMartin @ Aug. 24 2007,12:34)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Put up or shut up.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why do you think you can command me what to do?
Do you think you are admin here? The most probable is that you only suffer from delusion of grandeur. Don't read Selfish gene so often.

Remember: it is darwinism here on trial not me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


About what I expected. Coward.

VMartin, answer this:

Do you HAVE an alternative to 'Darwinism', or is it just that you're afraid to say what it is?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Aug. 24 2007,12:59

Well, I see that Brave Sir VMartin has already bravely run away, buggered off, skarkered:

?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
24 guests, 9 Public Members and 2 Anonymous Members ? [ View Complete List ]
>Arden Chatfield >carlsonjok >Kristine >ck1 >eTourist >Stephen Elliott >Reciprocating Bill >Dazza McTrazza >Zachriel
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Gee, my Master's orals were pretty rough. Would have been a lot easier if I'd known I could have short-circuited the whole process by replying "Why do you think you can command me what to do?"

Over in three minutes!

EDIT:

Ooh, he's back now!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
21 guests, 11 Public Members and 1 Anonymous Members ? [ View Complete List ]
>Arden Chatfield >carlsonjok >eTourist >Hermagoras >franky172 >ppb >VMartin >mitschlag >Erasmus, FCD >Kristine >ck1
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Martin, talk to us!
Posted by: VMartin on Aug. 24 2007,13:19



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

About what I expected. Coward.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Strong words. I suppose that you account yourself to be a fearless knight. Especially when you are repeating darwinian mantras like a parrot. You feel like a Rambo.



(Btw. is it not interesting that parrot can reproduce human speech very good but our relatives - primates are unanble to do so? Obviously voice is another deep puzzle of evolution of humans).



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Do you HAVE an alternative to 'Darwinism', or is it just that you're afraid to say what it is?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Farnkly speaking I am still seeking. John Davison's Manifesto is very good and incentive source (btw John Davison makes some interesting comments about discussion here at ISCID).
He is not only critic but proposed his own mechanism of semi-meiosis which is very original. The most scientists I know about propose nothing. ?


Another my sources are scientists challenging darwinian explanation of mimicry like Heikertinger, Punnet, Goldschmidt etc... German morphologists, biological structuralism and Adolf Portmann's conception of self-representation and "Innerlichkeit".

Read it yourself instead of asking me. Life and forces behind it's development are much more complicated to be reduced to neodarwinian explanation.

I have tried to put some of puzzles mentioned by prominent scientists here.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Aug. 24 2007,13:32



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

About what I expected. Coward.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Strong words. I suppose that you account yourself to be a fearless knight. Especially when you are repeating darwinian mantras like a parrot. You feel like a Rambo.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Not really. You feel like a coward, tho.

?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Btw. is it not interesting that parrot can reproduce human speech very good but our relatives - primates are unanble to do so? Obviously voice is another deep puzzle of evolution of humans).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Your point being? Or is that another one of your nonsequitors?

?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you HAVE an alternative to 'Darwinism', or is it just that you're afraid to say what it is?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Farnkly speaking I am still seeking. John Davison's Manifesto is very good and incentive source (btw John Davison makes some interesting comments about discussion here at ISCID).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's a partial answer that doesn't really tell us anything we didn't know.

?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He is not only critic but proposed his own mechanism of semi-meiosis which is very original. The most scientists I know about propose nothing. ? ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Do you agree with John that evolution has stopped? If so, why did it stop? Who stopped it?

Do you also agree with John that God is dead?

?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Read it yourself instead of asking me. ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You aren't even capable of explaining what you yourself believe?

Out of curiosity, let me ask you this:

1) do you believe in common descent?
2) how old do you think the earth is?

A yes/no and rough number would be fine.
Posted by: VMartin on Aug. 24 2007,13:43



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Do you agree with John that evolution has stopped? If so, why did it stop? Who stopped it?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, I agree with him. But again - why are you interrogating me? I am here not at police station, don't you think so?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Do you also agree with John that God is dead?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Do you disagree with him?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Your point being? Or is that another one of your nonsequitors?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And your point here? Any darwinian explanation?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You aren't even capable of explaining what you yourself believe?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And you? Are you able of explaining what you ?believe?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

1) do you believe in common descent?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And you? Do you believe in common descent? Is it your credo, your belief? Do you know that common decent is a fact or you just belive it?




---------------------QUOTE-------------------

2) how old do you think the earth is?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And you? How old do you think the earth is? Do you think it or do you believe it? Is it your credo?

Another cross examination?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Aug. 24 2007,14:01

Wow, VM continues to dodge questions.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Do you agree with John that evolution has stopped? If so, why did it stop? Who stopped it?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, I agree with him. But again - why are you interrogating me? I am here not at police station, don't you think so?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, V, it's just that you're quite confident in your beliefs that Darwinism is horrible, natural selection doesn't explain anything, and evolutionists are just like communists, etc., all of them ideas that no one here really agrees with, so the burden of proof is on you to defend your rather bizarre ideas. I wouldn't give you a very high grade so far.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Do you also agree with John that God is dead?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Do you disagree with him?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I neither agree nor disagree.

Are YOU afraid to answer that question?

Really, it's okay if you disagree with Davison. Nothing bad will happen to you. It's quite a good idea, really.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Your point being? Or is that another one of your nonsequitors?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And your point here? Any darwinian explanation?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, V, it's just that you have this habit of saying "Oh, X is very bad problem for Darwinian evolution", and it turns out you have no alternate solution, or no larger point. You're just trying to look profound by saying "Oh, Darwinismus cannot explain so-and-so", while having nothing to offer yourself. I wanted to confirm that this was again the case. I'd say 'yes'.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You aren't even capable of explaining what you yourself believe?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And you? Are you able of explaining what you believe?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sure.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

1) do you believe in common descent?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And you? Do you believe in common descent? ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oops, did I hit another question you're afraid to answer?

? ?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is it your credo, your belief? Do you know that common decent is a fact or you just belive it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I believe it has overwhelming scientific evidence in support of it and see no reason to doubt it. It appears to be the only explanation for the observed evidence with any empirical support.

Your answer? Here, I'll reword it: do YOU believe common descent is correct?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

2) how old do you think the earth is?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And you? How old do you think the earth is? Do you think it or do you believe it? Is it your credo? ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oops, looks like I hit another question that VM is afraid to answer.

I believe there is a vast amount of scientific evidence to support an earth that is around 4 billion years old and have no religious predisposition to doubt this.

YOUR answer?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Aug. 24 2007,14:23

VMartin, stop what you are doing.

Take a look around you.  What do you see?

That big squishy thing over there is your lower intestine.  It's all coiled up and maybe choking off your air a bit.

That little lump of reddish brown stuff is your liver (I know, I know, what is the darwinian explanation for its color.  Yah Yah Yah).

If you pull your head back just a bit, you will feel some tightening around your ears.  Yes, this is your O-Ring.

Just a bit further.  Now, see that piece of skin with the large piercing that has JADavison's smiling mug on it?  That is your duodenum.

Keep pulling your head back.  

POP!

Now, go wash your face and we can continue the discussion.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 24 2007,15:16

Quote (VMartin @ Aug. 24 2007,12:05)
I would say that blithering is more on the part of "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank and the others, who do not contribute to discussion anything except nonsenses.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Awwww, you didn't call me a commie, V.

I'm disappointed.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Aug. 24 2007,17:51

Is there any support for the idea of a thread consisting of nothing but Lenny and VMartin battling it out over the pros and cons of Marxism? Somehow I know that would be immensely entertaining if it really took off.



Posted by: Henry J on Aug. 25 2007,01:06

Re "the pros and cons of Marxism?"

Once while on safari in Africa, I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How it got in my pajamas, I'll never know.

Oops, wrong Marx.

Never mind.

Henry
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 25 2007,01:17

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 24 2007,17:51)
Is there any support for the idea of a thread consisting of nothing but Lenny and VMartin battling it out over the pros and cons of Marxism? Somehow I know that would be immensely entertaining if it really took off.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Damn, why the hell would you want to inflict THAT on me . . . . ?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Aug. 25 2007,10:56

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 25 2007,01:17)
?
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 24 2007,17:51)
Is there any support for the idea of a thread consisting of nothing but Lenny and VMartin battling it out over the pros and cons of Marxism? Somehow I know that would be immensely entertaining if it really took off.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Damn, why the hell would you want to inflict THAT on me . . . . ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why, Lenny, for our entertainment!

Yeesh, I can't believe you had to ask...

PS: C'mon, Lenny, compared to other opponents you've had over the years, VMartin would be nothing...
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 25 2007,11:15

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 25 2007,10:56)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 25 2007,01:17)
?  
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 24 2007,17:51)
Is there any support for the idea of a thread consisting of nothing but Lenny and VMartin battling it out over the pros and cons of Marxism? Somehow I know that would be immensely entertaining if it really took off.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Damn, why the hell would you want to inflict THAT on me . . . . ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why, Lenny, for our entertainment!

Yeesh, I can't believe you had to ask...

PS: C'mon, Lenny, compared to other opponents you've had over the years, VMartin would be nothing...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why not just stick hot pokers up my bungee?
Posted by: k.e on Aug. 25 2007,11:22

Now THAT might be entertaining *runs and hides behind Louis*
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Aug. 25 2007,11:32

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 25 2007,11:15)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 25 2007,10:56)
 
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 25 2007,01:17)
? ?  
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 24 2007,17:51)
Is there any support for the idea of a thread consisting of nothing but Lenny and VMartin battling it out over the pros and cons of Marxism? Somehow I know that would be immensely entertaining if it really took off.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Damn, why the hell would you want to inflict THAT on me . . . . ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why, Lenny, for our entertainment!

Yeesh, I can't believe you had to ask...

PS: C'mon, Lenny, compared to other opponents you've had over the years, VMartin would be nothing...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why not just stick hot pokers up my bungee?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, no, no, the idea is to do that to VMartin...






('Bungee'??)
Posted by: k.e on Aug. 25 2007,11:48



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
('Bungee'??)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sorry Freudian slip.

If I can just save Lenny some embarrasment here.

What he had in mind was being dropped from the ceiling of an abandoned warehouse while in a state of extreme testosterone induced wangerzepplinesque extenditude lasting longer than a whole packet of cigarrettes by a whole lot of latex gloves.

Needless to say it took more than a gross of rubber gloves to pull that off.


*....bows and leaves stage...*
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 25 2007,14:10

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 25 2007,11:32)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 25 2007,11:15)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 25 2007,10:56)
?
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 25 2007,01:17)
? ? ?
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 24 2007,17:51)
Is there any support for the idea of a thread consisting of nothing but Lenny and VMartin battling it out over the pros and cons of Marxism? Somehow I know that would be immensely entertaining if it really took off.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Damn, why the hell would you want to inflict THAT on me . . . . ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why, Lenny, for our entertainment!

Yeesh, I can't believe you had to ask...

PS: C'mon, Lenny, compared to other opponents you've had over the years, VMartin would be nothing...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why not just stick hot pokers up my bungee?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, no, no, the idea is to do that to VMartin...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But dude, that would mean that *I* have to interact with him during the entire process.

I'd rather be marooned on an island full of Greek sailors.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Aug. 25 2007,14:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 25 2007,11:32)
?
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 25 2007,11:15)
? ?
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 25 2007,10:56)
? ?
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 25 2007,01:17)
? ? ? ?
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 24 2007,17:51)
Is there any support for the idea of a thread consisting of nothing but Lenny and VMartin battling it out over the pros and cons of Marxism? Somehow I know that would be immensely entertaining if it really took off.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Damn, why the hell would you want to inflict THAT on me . . . . ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why, Lenny, for our entertainment!

Yeesh, I can't believe you had to ask...

PS: C'mon, Lenny, compared to other opponents you've had over the years, VMartin would be nothing...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why not just stick hot pokers up my bungee?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, no, no, the idea is to do that to VMartin...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But dude, that would mean that *I* have to interact with him during the entire process.

I'd rather be marooned on an island full of Greek sailors.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Louis? Are you listening?
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Aug. 25 2007,14:35

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 24 2007,14:01)
Wow, VM continues to dodge questions...

?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, what a shock! Has VMartin answered a single difficult question? I iust admire some peoples patience here, the willingness to continue to engage (what seems to me to be) a troll is awesome. I hope that the undecided lurkers are taking note.
Posted by: VMartin on Sep. 02 2007,02:57

There was no response for one week on this thread. No one adressed either slugs or shift of reproductive organs of mammalian males. So I would like to adress mimicry now. Maybe someone wants to discuss it? Of course my point view of evolution of mimicry is non-darwinian one. So the frontloading thread is maybe fit for it (considering all nonsensse you wrote here I am not waiting any intelligent response btw.).


Franz Heikertinger wrote in 1954 an interesting book where he dismissed neodarwinian explanation of mimicry either: "Das Ratsel der Mimikry und seine Losung". I am afraid the work has never been translated into English.


I would like to put here some thoughts from the chapter "Wespen als Mimikrymodelle". First I would like to emphasize Heikertinger no way dismissed evolution - something John Davison and me have common - but saw another forces behind it and not natural selection. He dismissed natural selection as source of any wasp-mimicry.

The example considered is Trochilium apiforme in which darwinists see wasp-mimics.

< http://www.sumfak.hr/~forbug/fotke/trochiliumapiforme.htm >


Anyway we should be aware that family Sessidae is ?characterised as clearwing moths and involves more than 600 different species. Some of them is to be found at wikipedia:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sesiidae >

See especially Bambecia chrysidiformis. I would say even having transparent wings and yellow band there is no way resemblance to wasps.

So the point is this: How is it possible that 600 different Sessidaes species are often more common and outnumber would-be wasp mimic Trochilium? Are we to accept an implausible idea that all of them are imperfect mimic of wasps? Or was there only strong selective pressure on Trochylium to look like wasp, but the other species of the family have other protection? What?

So the outcome should be this one - the range, extent of different colors and forms of Sessidae is so distributed that Trochylium apiforme would exists in the same coloration and shape even if there were no wasps on the Earth.

The resemblance is due chance or by convergence. There is no mimicry in the case.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 02 2007,04:49



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There was no response for one week on this thread. No one adressed either slugs or shift of reproductive organs of mammalian males.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You need to make your points more clearly. We all understand that you have an innate aversion to Darwinian ideas, but you really need to be a little more objective. Your personal preferences cut no ice here.

Saying

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I would say even having transparent wings and yellow band there is no way resemblance to wasps.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

is not adequate as an argument.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 02 2007,11:55

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 02 2007,02:57)
There was no response for one week on this thread. No one adressed either slugs or shift of reproductive organs of mammalian males. So I would like to adress mimicry now. Maybe someone wants to discuss it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, V, you have too many questions you avoided from last time.

Now that you're rested of course you can answer them. Since we all know you have the courage of your convictions it should be easy.

Here they are again:

1) do you believe common descent is correct?

2) how old do you believe the Earth is?

A yes/no on the first would be fine.

Some kind of rough number on the second would be fine.

We eagerly await your answers!
Posted by: VMartin on Sep. 02 2007,13:31

Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 02 2007,04:49)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There was no response for one week on this thread. No one adressed either slugs or shift of reproductive organs of mammalian males.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You need to make your points more clearly. We all understand that you have an innate aversion to Darwinian ideas, but you really need to be a little more objective. Your personal preferences cut no ice here.

Saying ?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I would say even having transparent wings and yellow band there is no way resemblance to wasps.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

is not adequate as an argument.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you think I have innate aversion to darwinism? I would say darwinism is wrong, that's all. Btw. it is not my personnal preference. I quoted many prominent scientists of the past. No one of them saw darwinism as plausible explanation of evolution.

I don't see your point in saying "is not adequate as an argument". Do you consider all 600 species of Sessidaes as wasp-mimics or what? ?I quoted Heikertinger who dismissed mimicry in the case. I am afraid there is no such an expert on insect mimicry nowadays. Heikertinger spent 40 years studying insects and so-called mimicry, his correspodence with Wassmann was once closely followed by entomologists in Europe. ?You and yours alike see often mimicry everywhere. One should be more cautios reading about darwinian unfounded assertions about mimicry.

It was you who gave me notice that eye spots on butterfly wings do not deter predators. Oddly enough Heiketinger devoted almost 4 pages to experiments that disprove wasp mimicry as protective device. Why such experiments was not reproduced anymore? Because it doesnot fit into preconceived darwinian schema of protection? Dlussky made some experiments in 80ties that proves birds can tell apart model and mimics very well.

All the theory of mimicry was preconceived in heads of Bateson, Wallace and Darwin agreed with it. They made no experiments. It is no science you know, it is only preconceived ideas into which all facts should fit. Heikertinger had gone into depths of many cases and had shown that natural selection is implausible explanation of the phenomenon.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 02 2007,13:34



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you think I have innate aversion to darwinism? I would say darwinism is wrong, that's all. Btw. it is not my personnal preference.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Right. I use 'Darwinist' as an insult and call them Communists and Nazis, but that doesn't mean I have an 'innate aversion'.

Anyway, Martin, the "la la la I can't hear you!" routine isn't really very impressive.

I'll ask again:

1) do you believe common descent is correct?

2) how old do you believe the Earth is?

Answers, please?
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Sep. 02 2007,13:41

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 02 2007,13:31)
Do you think I have innate aversion to darwinism? I would say darwinism is wrong, that's all. Btw. it is not my personnal preference. I quoted many prominent scientists of the past. No one of them saw darwinism as plausible explanation of evolution.

I don't see your point in saying "is not adequate as an argument". Do you consider all 600 species of Sessidaes as wasp-mimics or what? ?I quoted Heikertinger who dismissed mimicry in the case. I am afraid there is no such an expert on insect mimicry nowadays. Heikertinger spent 40 years studying insects and so-called mimicry, his correspodence with Wassmann was once closely followed by entomologists in Europe. ?You and yours alike see often mimicry everywhere. One should be more cautios reading about darwinian unfounded assertions about mimicry.

It was you who gave me notice that eye spots on butterfly wings do not deter predators. Oddly enough Heiketinger devoted almost 4 pages to experiments that disprove wasp mimicry as protective device. Why such experiments was not reproduced anymore? Because it doesnot fit into preconceived darwinian schema of protection? Dlussky made some experiments in 80ties that proves birds can tell apart model and mimics very well.

All the theory of mimicry was preconceived in heads of Bateson, Wallace and Darwin agreed with it. They made no experiments. It is no science you know, it is only preconceived ideas into which all facts should fit. Heikertinger had gone into depths of many cases and had shown that natural selection is implausible explanation of the phenomenon.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why would anyone that is qualified to answer your questions bother to do so given your record here of refusing to reciprocate?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 02 2007,14:00

Well, Martin's run away again:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
18 guests, 12 Public Members and 1 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>Arden Chatfield >Venus Mousetrap >Stephen Elliott >Kristian Andersen >Crimifata >Leonides >incorygible >Richardthughes >Erasmus, FCD >someotherguy >Albatrossity2 >zagnik
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: VMartin on Sep. 02 2007,15:44

Stephen Elliot.

I am afraid you cannot refute my positions easily. All you can do is - like in mushroom's coloration - open a new thread and probaly only agree with my sources at last.
That's why I first checked internet if there is anything new about topic I put here. In the case of shift of reproductive organs of mammals no new plausible hypothesis has arisen last 50 years when Portmann adressed it. There is only a neodarwinian mess in it as the article from doctor Myers clearly showed.

The same mess is in wasp-mimicry explanation and observation as clearly shows this modern summary:

< http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/archive....cry.pdf >

Heikertinger claimed that butterlies that mimic wasps ?
are due to hereditary "frontloading" - "durch die Auswirkungen eines alten gemeinsamen Erbguts" and not due natural selection.

I dont know if the meaning of Erbgut is to be translated as genotype or inheritance. Anyway some of his critics agreed with him at last - F.Steiniger for instance.

I would say Heikertinger made from Darwin, Wallace and Bates perfect fools.

Especially nice is the case when Darwin asked Bates in 1867 how to explain bright coloration of larvae. Bateson (who invented explanation of butterfly mimicry 6 years before) went to ask Wallace who hypothesized it is due warning predators that they are unpalatable. So the great men reinvented the theory Bates proposed in 1861 as source of mimicry.

Heikertinger openly attacked Mullerian explanation of mimicry that even Darwin considered as "too speculative to be introduced into my book".

Heikertinger gave an example of polymorphic mimicry where females of butterfly species mimic more than one unpalatable species. The loss and disatvantage is greater than mimiking only one unpalatable species - the predator hav to taste and learn all of them. Details that neodarwinists selectively miss to hold their theory of natural selection supposedly perfect.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Sep. 02 2007,15:50

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 02 2007,15:44)
Stephen Elliot.

I am afraid you cannot refute my positions easily...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quite right. Or at least I cannot do so with scientific answers. Then again, there isn't much need is there?

What I can do is observe you ducking and running from people that can refute your positions.

Do you think I can't see that?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 02 2007,15:52

Martin, why are you acting so frightened?

I'll ask again:

1) do you believe common descent is correct?

2) how old do you believe the Earth is?

Don't expect anyone here to indulge your meandering if you ignore everyone else's questions.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Sep. 02 2007,16:11

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 02 2007,15:44)
Stephen Elliot.

I am afraid you cannot refute my positions easily. All you can do is - like in mushroom's coloration - open a new thread and probaly only agree with my sources at last.
That's why I first checked internet if there is anything new about topic I put here. In the case of shift of reproductive organs of mammals no new plausible hypothesis has arisen last 50 years when Portmann adressed it. There is only a neodarwinian mess in it as the article from doctor Myers clearly showed.

The same mess is in wasp-mimicry explanation and observation as clearly shows this modern summary:

< http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/archive....cry.pdf >

Heikertinger claimed that butterlies that mimic wasps ?
are due to hereditary "frontloading" - "durch die Auswirkungen eines alten gemeinsamen Erbguts" and not due natural selection.

I dont know if the meaning of Erbgut is to be translated as genotype or inheritance. Anyway some of his critics agreed with him at last - F.Steiniger for instance.

I would say Heikertinger made from Darwin, Wallace and Bates perfect fools.

Especially nice is the case when Darwin asked Bates in 1867 how to explain bright coloration of larvae. Bateson (who invented explanation of butterfly mimicry 6 years before) went to ask Wallace who hypothesized it is due warning predators that they are unpalatable. So the great men reinvented the theory Bates proposed in 1861 as source of mimicry.

Heikertinger openly attacked Mullerian explanation of mimicry that even Darwin considered as "too speculative to be introduced into my book".

Heikertinger gave an example of polymorphic mimicry where females of butterfly species mimic more than one unpalatable species. The loss and disatvantage is greater than mimiking only one unpalatable species - the predator hav to taste and learn all of them. Details that neodarwinists selectively miss to hold their theory of natural selection supposedly perfect.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh BTW.
I can also see that your entire post is mostly about old arguments rather than new evidence. Do you expect anyone to take that seriously?

Now I freely admit that I am no scientist but I can smell bullshit. You sir, smell full of it.

Look at yourself. You come here with crazy accusations. Refuse to answer sensible questions (and I admit that they are not mine). Claim authority and expect people to accept it.

Maybe just maybe you are the one that needs help.

Now I am pretty much just an observer but I can see who has evidence.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 02 2007,16:38

Well, VM's run off again:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
24 guests, 6 Public Members and 1 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>Arden Chatfield >stevestory >Lufeld >mitschlag >Stephen Elliott >Albatrossity2
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That didn't take long.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 03 2007,00:14



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
15 guests, 5 Public Members and 0 Anonymous Members ? [ View Complete List ]
>Arden Chatfield >Bob O'H >bdelloid >VMartin >oiuu;hrft

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hey, Martin, I see you're back, ready to answer questions now?
Posted by: VMartin on Sep. 04 2007,14:16

Obviously here is nobobody to discuss issues I have addressed. Stephen excuses himself not to be a scientist (as though natural selection has something common with real science) but neverthenless he is pretty sure darwinism is right.

Arden continues to ask his monomanical questions. Probably Arden supposes Natural selection to be a valid scientific concept - his teacher in primary school might has teach him so - ? and those who challenge it he considers for medieval obscurantists (as his teacher told him). Anyway he has innovated darwinian questionary from primary school - he don't ask if the Earth is flat or spheric but how old it is.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 04 2007,14:21

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 04 2007,14:16)
Obviously here is nobobody to discuss issues I have addressed. Stephen excuses himself not to be a scientist (as though natural selection has something common with real science) but neverthenless he is pretty sure darwinism is right.

Arden continues to ask his monomanical questions. Probably Arden supposes Natural selection to be a valid scientific concept - his teacher in primary school might has teach him so - ? and those who challenge it he considers for medieval obscurantists (as his teacher told him). Anyway he has innovated darwinian questionary from primary school - he don't ask if the Earth is flat or spheric but how old it is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Still dodging our questions, Martin?

Can you NOT ANSWER THEM for some reason?

Here. I'll repeat again.

1) do you believe common descent is correct?

2) how old do you believe the Earth is?

For (1) all we need is a yes/no.

For (2) some rough numbers would be nice.

Tell you what, I'll make (2) even easier for you.

The earth is:

a) 4.5 billion years old
b) around 12,000 years old
c) around 6,000 years old
d) probably a couple million years old
e) none of the above.

There. NOW all you need is a 'yes/no', and a letter.

Is there some reason you're refusing to answer this?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 04 2007,14:36



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
17 guests, 18 Public Members and 2 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>franky172 >Arden Chatfield >Richardthughes >Stephen Elliott >carlsonjok >Raevmo >XprioSex >jeannot >factician >Erasmus, FCD >Occam's Aftershave >Albatrossity2 >C.J.O'Brien >heddle >eTourist >ppb >Zachriel >blipey

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Bye, Martin, see you next week!
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 12 2008,18:43

That is not what JAM said on July 18 (page 11 of thread).

Edit: Never mind, the referenced spam seems to have been fried.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 12 2008,19:23

Spam comment removed.





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< RGB > by Rafa from Brazil
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 12 2008,20:20



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bye, Martin, see you next week!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That seems to have been a reeeeeeally long week!

Henry
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 23 2010,12:20

Bump. This seems about the best existing thread for the DAEvans exchange to continue in.

ETA: It was until I split the topic including that exchange; it has its own thread now.


Posted by: Joe G on Feb. 24 2010,09:46

Quote (stevestory @ June 10 2007,22:48)
This might not deserve its own thread. < Ed Brayton has a new post on Exaptation vs Frontloading > which is crossposted to PT, and it got me thinking. I've only known about this 'frontloading' nonsense for about a year. The moment I was exposed to the idea, I had the thought I've since had every time it's come up, which is pretty frequent on UD: Is frontloading the dumbest idea ever, or merely extremely stupid?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Front-loading is a dumb idea but evolution via an accumulation of genetic accidents isn't?

No that is funny...
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 24 2010,09:58

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:46)
Quote (stevestory @ June 10 2007,22:48)
This might not deserve its own thread. < Ed Brayton has a new post on Exaptation vs Frontloading > which is crossposted to PT, and it got me thinking. I've only known about this 'frontloading' nonsense for about a year. The moment I was exposed to the idea, I had the thought I've since had every time it's come up, which is pretty frequent on UD: Is frontloading the dumbest idea ever, or merely extremely stupid?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Front-loading is a dumb idea but evolution via an accumulation of genetic accidents isn't?

No that is funny...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, pretty soon we'll decode it all and see what front loaded species are comming up in the future, eh?

*bites lip*
Posted by: ppb on Feb. 24 2010,10:21

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,10:46)
Front-loading is a dumb idea but evolution via an accumulation of genetic accidents isn't?

No that is funny...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Evolution by natural selection is supported by 150 years of accumulated evidence.  Front-loading... not so much.

So yeah, it's a pretty dumb idea.
Posted by: Joe G on Feb. 24 2010,10:31

Quote (ppb @ Feb. 24 2010,10:21)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,10:46)
Front-loading is a dumb idea but evolution via an accumulation of genetic accidents isn't?

No that is funny...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Evolution by natural selection is supported by 150 years of accumulated evidence.  Front-loading... not so much.

So yeah, it's a pretty dumb idea.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Too bad evolution by natural selection hasn't been shown to do very much.

And as a matter of fact all observations and experiments support the Creation position of baraminology.
Posted by: ppb on Feb. 24 2010,10:36

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,11:31)
Too bad evolution by natural selection hasn't been shown to do very much.

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


In what way?  Where is the research to support baraminology?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 24 2010,10:43



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



Did they do an experiment as to how all them thar animals could fit in the arky-arky?
Posted by: Joe G on Feb. 24 2010,10:45

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 24 2010,10:43)


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



Did they do an experiment as to how all them thar animals could fit in the arky-arky?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes Richtard. There is a book that covers that.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 24 2010,10:46

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,10:45)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 24 2010,10:43)


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



Did they do an experiment as to how all them thar animals could fit in the arky-arky?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes Richtard. There is a book that covers that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cool! how many animals were onboard?
Posted by: Joe G on Feb. 24 2010,10:47

Quote (ppb @ Feb. 24 2010,10:36)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,11:31)
Too bad evolution by natural selection hasn't been shown to do very much.

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


In what way?  Where is the research to support baraminology?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All experiments and observations support baraminology.

There isn't any experiments that support universal common descent via an accumulation of genetic accidents.
Posted by: ppb on Feb. 24 2010,11:01

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,11:47)
All experiments and observations support baraminology.

There isn't any experiments that support universal common descent via an accumulation of genetic accidents.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I doubt the scientists doing the actual research would agree with your assessment.  I still would like to know in what way it is supported.  I don't see it.
Posted by: Joe G on Feb. 24 2010,11:05

Quote (ppb @ Feb. 24 2010,11:01)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,11:47)
All experiments and observations support baraminology.

There isn't any experiments that support universal common descent via an accumulation of genetic accidents.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I doubt the scientists doing the actual research would agree with your assessment.  I still would like to know in what way it is supported.  I don't see it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Those scientists cannot refute what I said.

If you want to know how it is supported then do a little research.

You will find that bacteria evolve into bacteria.

You will find that no one knows if the transformations required are even possible.

So have at it and stop taking the word of people with an agenda.

That is what I did thirty years ago...
Posted by: ppb on Feb. 24 2010,11:09

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,12:05)
Those scientists cannot refute what I said.

If you want to know how it is supported then do a little research.

You will find that bacteria evolve into bacteria.

You will find that no one knows if the transformations required are even possible.

So have at it and stop taking the word of people with an agenda.

That is what I did thirty years ago...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't take the word of people with an agenda.

Guess that's why I'm not a cdesign proponentist.
Posted by: ppb on Feb. 24 2010,11:37

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,12:05)
Those scientists cannot refute what I said.

If you want to know how it is supported then do a little research.

You will find that bacteria evolve into bacteria.

You will find that no one knows if the transformations required are even possible.

So have at it and stop taking the word of people with an agenda.

That is what I did thirty years ago...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thirty years ago I was finishing up my degree in Biology.  I am not a working scientist, but I have tremendous respect for the people who do the actual hard work of science.  They spend years trying to gain a better understanding of how the world works.  To paraphrase Newton, we see further because we are standing on the shoulders of giants.

The Creation Scientists and ID proponents I am familiar with do not do much of their own research.  They mostly cherry pick and misrepresent the work of others to promote their own agenda.  They don't get published much, either in the mainstream scientific journals, or even their own publications.  They prefer to write popular books for their audience, but the scientific community is not impressed.
Posted by: Joe G on Feb. 24 2010,11:45

Quote (ppb @ Feb. 24 2010,11:37)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,12:05)
Those scientists cannot refute what I said.

If you want to know how it is supported then do a little research.

You will find that bacteria evolve into bacteria.

You will find that no one knows if the transformations required are even possible.

So have at it and stop taking the word of people with an agenda.

That is what I did thirty years ago...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thirty years ago I was finishing up my degree in Biology.  I am not a working scientist, but I have tremendous respect for the people who do the actual hard work of science.  They spend years trying to gain a better understanding of how the world works.  To paraphrase Newton, we see further because we are standing on the shoulders of giants.

The Creation Scientists and ID proponents I am familiar with do not do much of their own research.  They mostly cherry pick and misrepresent the work of others to promote their own agenda.  They don't get published much, either in the mainstream scientific journals, or even their own publications.  They prefer to write popular books for their audience, but the scientific community is not impressed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Great, then why can't you find some data that supoorts your position?
Posted by: ppb on Feb. 24 2010,11:52

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,12:45)
Great, then why can't you find some data that supoorts your position?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They do.  You just prefer to ignore it.

Ever read < "The Beak of the Finch" >?  A great example of real scientists spending years collecting data in support of Evolution.

Of course you can look < here > for lots more references.

Where are the baraminologists reporting their research to support their position?
Posted by: ppb on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
Posted by: Badger3k on Feb. 24 2010,13:46

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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Them be tricks o' the Devil!  There are no transitional fossils.  Every preacher who is a real expert will tell you that, and they get their info from God, who is never wrong.  There - I run rings around your evidence.  Intercourse the Penguin!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 24 2010,13:50

Quote (Badger3k @ Feb. 24 2010,13:46)
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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Them be tricks o' the Devil!  There are no transitional fossils.  Every preacher who is a real expert will tell you that, and they get their info from God, who is never wrong.  There - I run rings around your evidence.  Intercourse the Penguin!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: qetzal on Feb. 24 2010,17:30

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,10:47)
All experiments and observations support baraminology.

There isn't any experiments that support universal common descent via an accumulation of genetic accidents.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep, he's right. I did an experiment today where I labeled some protein. You know what I found? Baraminology!

How fitting that Joe G's avatar is a cartoon character. Are we sure he's not a poe?
Posted by: fnxtr on Feb. 24 2010,17:48

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,08:47)
Quote (ppb @ Feb. 24 2010,10:36)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,11:31)
Too bad evolution by natural selection hasn't been shown to do very much.

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


In what way?  Where is the research to support baraminology?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All experiments and observations support baraminology.

There isn't any experiments that support universal common descent via an accumulation of genetic accidents.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We don't need to see his ID. (heh)

These aren't the droids we're looking for.

Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

Saying things over and over doesn't make them true, Joe.
Posted by: Texas Teach on Feb. 25 2010,18:06

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,10:47)
Quote (ppb @ Feb. 24 2010,10:36)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,11:31)
Too bad evolution by natural selection hasn't been shown to do very much.

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


In what way?  Where is the research to support baraminology?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All experiments and observations support baraminology.

There isn't any experiments that support universal common descent via an accumulation of genetic accidents.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All your experiments are belong to us.
Posted by: Richard Simons on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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).
Posted by: Joe G on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: Joe G on Feb. 25 2010,19:35

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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: REC on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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 >
Posted by: REC on 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 >
Posted by: Richard Simons on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1- The pre-cambrian rabbit is pure bullshit

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: ppb on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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"!
Posted by: ppb on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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"!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: Steverino on 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.
end


Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a
Ikonboard © 2001 Jarvis Entertainment Group, Inc.