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

Posted: July 10 2007,16:20

So, who's gonna drive Arden home tonight? ;)

Alan Fox

Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

Posted: 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?

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.

-John A. Davison. Link

jeannot

Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: 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.

I'd like to hear Martin's opinion about that.

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: 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.

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

BWE

Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: 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.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

Posted: 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.

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)

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

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: 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.

VMartin, could you tell us why evolution stopped and who stopped it?

Otherwise, go away. The grownups are trying to have a conversation.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: July 13 2007,23:57

Quote

As for house cats, I mean Tigers, well, you stumped me there.

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.

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)

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.

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.)

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

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: 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.

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.

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)

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.

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.)

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.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

Posted: 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.

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.)

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?

Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

Posted: 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.

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?

BWE

Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: 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.

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.

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.

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.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

Posted: July 14 2007,16:08

I'm sorry, Martin, did you say something . . .?

(yawn)

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

Henry J

Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

Posted: July 16 2007,13:30

What if "kind" actually means "clade"?

Henry

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: 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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: 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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

What about apes and humans, V?

You're boring, V. Go back to JAD and pat his belly and rub his head.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

Posted: July 16 2007,17:08

I'm sorry, Martin -- did you say something? (yawn)

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

Henry J

Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

Posted: 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

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: July 17 2007,00:10

Quote

I'm sorry, Martin -- did you say something? �(yawn)

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).

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

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: July 17 2007,01:12

Quote (VMartin @ July 17 2007,00:10)

Quote

I'm sorry, Martin -- did you say something? �(yawn)

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).

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.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

Posted: 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. �

No. Besides, you'd have to compare heterozygosity in wolves 40000 years ago with heterozygosity in the other species today.

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.

You have no idea what are you babbling about but you have still enough audacity to call Behe dishonest twit.

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.

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.

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.

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: 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? �

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.

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.

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

oldmanintheskydidntdoit

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: July 17 2007,13:58

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger�s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

Posted: July 17 2007,18:00

I'm sorry, Martin -- did you, uh, say something?

(yawn)

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

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: 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)

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.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

ck1

Posts: 65
Joined: Oct. 2006

Posted: 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.

CTVT - a novel dog-derived life form.

Look it up.

Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

Posted: 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?

Can you give me an example of some new allele that appeared suddenly by random mutation

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?

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.

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

You are right.

I know.

Quote

I don't know why Dawkins brought it up (with those example of St.Bernadine bearing cask of brandy).

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.

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.

Yes, we call them dogs to reflect their common origin.

Quote

The strongest artificial selection �couldn't change the fact.

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.

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...

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."

Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

Posted: July 18 2007,07:11

Dude, you're wasting your time with Martin.

Best to ignore him so he goes away. Again.

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

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: 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.

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!

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?

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.

You probably mean phenotype variation.

Quote

Yes, we call them dogs to reflect their common origin.

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?

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.

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

Richardthughes

Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006