RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

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



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: 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?

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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

-CC

  
someotherguy



Posts: 398
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,22:58   

You could peruse Telic Thoughts too.  IIRC, frontloading is the main game in town for them.

--------------
Evolander in training

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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.

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

-CC

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,23:05   

MUHAHAHAHA!!

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

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

-CC

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,23:08   



"He was kinda funny-lookin..."

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,23:13   

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


"He was kinda funny-lookin..."

"The heck do ya mean? "

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

-CC

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,23:14   

"You know...just kinda funny-lookin"

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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
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.


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

-CC

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

Demise by Troy-Bilt is a process known as morselization.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,23:17   

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

"Can you be any more specific? "

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

-CC

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: 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)

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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

-CC

  
someotherguy



Posts: 398
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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)

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

Sigh. . . :(

ETA: Oops, I cross-posted with Ichthyic.

--------------
Evolander in training

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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.

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

"Two more months." :)

ID is brain-dead, but I suppose they'll just keep the front-loading on life-support and remain in denial.

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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

-CC

  
Rev. BigDumbChimp



Posts: 185
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

Oh boy look who's joined the party. JA Davison's personal patter-of-the-back, VMartin.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.


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.


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

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

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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.

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

-CC

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.


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.


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.


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.

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

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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"?
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
There is no reason why both cannot be true at the same time.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2007,13:34   

hey v-

I'm wondering....

do you and JAD share a prescription?

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

-CC

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.


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.

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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2007,14:22   

Quote

...do you and JAD share a prescription?


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

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

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2007,14:37   

*whoosh*

yup, you guys must share a perscription alrighty.

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

-CC

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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?

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

-CC

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2007,16:40   

Quote
It's your conviction they have some purpose. I've only asked what.
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.
Why should there be?

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2007,20:36   

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

...do you and JAD share a prescription?


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

VMartin, how do you feel about Davison's belief that God has died?

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: 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?

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.

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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?

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

-CC

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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?

I can't imagine what you mean.






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

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 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?

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

-CC

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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?

She said it with no prompting from me at all. :O

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

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 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?

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

-CC

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2007,22:31   

Quote

some Canadian saying of some kind?


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.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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?

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

-CC

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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

-CC

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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 ...


was busted.

LOL

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

-CC

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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

-CC

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 14 2007,05:37   

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

some Canadian saying of some kind?


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.

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.

--------------
Bye.

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.


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?

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

  
SpaghettiSawUs



Posts: 77
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: 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??

Bingo.

--------------
On June 23, 2007, 01:06 PM AFDave wrote: "How can we dismiss their theories without first reading their work?"

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,14:48   

[post scrapped]

I'm going to use Vmartin for the experiment I suggested instead.

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

-CC

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

Try "c'est la vie" in Cuba.

translates to "I see her woman parts."

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

   
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.


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.


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

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.


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.


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

like this one.

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

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2007,05:46   

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


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.


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

PS Humour works well too :)

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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?


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?

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2007,06:49   

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

Where have you been looking? And over what timescales? You seem very sure.
 
Quote
Former evolutionary forces are not taking place anymore.

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.

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.

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?

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?

You can confirm and disconfirm. But I doubt you'll do either.

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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2007,09:53   

Quote

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


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?


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

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2007,10:28   

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

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


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?


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

so what's your point exactly?

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

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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

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.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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?



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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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?


What's the point? Has the question anything to do with darwinism and origin of mammalian orders?  Are we here solving some theological problems?

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

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 17 2007,14:02   

[scrapped]

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

-CC

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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?


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

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)?

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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)?



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.

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

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,10:26   

Or, maybe all the evolutionary niches available were filled?  

Hmmm, I see a closed mind.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,10:26   

Quote

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


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?


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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,12:35   

Quote

Or, maybe all the evolutionary niches available were filled?  


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.


Why do you look in the mirror?

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,12:51   

Hey, V, do you agree with Davison's idea that God is dead?

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: 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

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,13:11   

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

Or, maybe all the evolutionary niches available were filled?  


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.


Why do you look in the mirror?

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?

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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?


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?

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,14:45   

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

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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,15:17   

Quote

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


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.

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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?


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.

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?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,15:27   

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

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

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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?

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.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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?


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.

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.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 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"

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

And I guess that was your accomplice in the woodchipper?

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,15:49   

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


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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: 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?


Is this evidence for intelligent falling? :p

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.


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

Probably not, since in the fossil record, most of the orders diversified in only a few million years, unless I'm mistaken.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: 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

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,16:37   

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

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

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: 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

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

"I will wait for you to return"  (I hope! I am sure VMartin will correct me if I got it wrong.)

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

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

Why is JAD's mouthpiece here?

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

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.
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.
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.
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?
Im not sure what you mean by Darwinism here. The modern theory of evolution says that sponge and human do share a common ancestor.

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.


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.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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?


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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 19 2007,11:57   

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

He hasn't done anything bannable yet.

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 19 2007,12:00   

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

He hasn't done anything bannable yet.

Emphasis on the word yet or the word bannable?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

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

He hasn't done anything bannable yet.

Emphasis on the word yet or the word bannable?

Louis

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

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

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

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

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


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

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

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

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

-CC

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

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

Making VMartin uncomfortable is not without its charms.

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

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

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

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

Making VMartin uncomfortable is not without its charms.

much more interesting flavors of tard out there.

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

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

-CC

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

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

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

He hasn't done anything bannable yet.

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

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

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

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

He hasn't done anything bannable yet.

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

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

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

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

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

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

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

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

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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

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

Richard Simons.

The Evolution is directed process. It is following a scenario. Because Natural selection and sexual selection are conservative forces which have nothing to do with creative evolution - they only removes extremities - possible explanation of evolution is front-loading.

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

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

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


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

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2007,10:30   

Quote (VMartin @ June 20 2007,10:26)
The Evolution is directed process. It is following a scenario. Because Natural selection and sexual selection are conservative forces which have nothing to do with creative evolution - they only removes extremities - possible explanation of evolution is front-loading.

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

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

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

Quote
Of course saltationism need something like frontloading.
Why?

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

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

Chris Hyland:

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

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

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

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

Hey, V!

Quote (VMartin @ June 20 2007,10:26)
The Evolution is directed process. It is following a scenario. Because Natural selection and sexual selection are conservative forces which have nothing to do with creative evolution - they only removes extremities - possible explanation of evolution is front-loading.

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

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

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

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

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 20 2007,10:30)
Quote (VMartin @ June 20 2007,10:26)
The Evolution is directed process. It is following a scenario. Because Natural selection and sexual selection are conservative forces which have nothing to do with creative evolution - they only removes extremities - possible explanation of evolution is front-loading.

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

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


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

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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

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

Quote

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


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

Quote

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


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

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

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

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


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

 
Quote

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


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

We're asking, V.

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

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

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

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

Chris Hyland.

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

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

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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

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

Arden Chatfield

Quote

We're asking, V.


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

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

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

You said this:

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


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

 
Quote

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


Have an answer?

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2007,15:11   

PS:

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


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

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

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2007,15:19   

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

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

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

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


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

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

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

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

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


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

 
Quote

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


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

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


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

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

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

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

What stopped it? The designer die, or something?

(snicker)  (giggle)

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

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

Quote
What stopped it?


Well, obviously, goddidit! ;)

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

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


Well, obviously, goddidit! ;)

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

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

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

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

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

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

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

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

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

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

-CC

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

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

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

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

Henry

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2007,21:40   

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

just fyi.

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

-CC

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2007,23:04   

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

Henry

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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?


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

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.


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

     
Quote

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


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!

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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.


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.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.


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

         
Quote

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


What's the matter V, you can certainly back up YOUR OWN STATEMENTS, can't you???

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

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2007,16:48   

VMartin:

Thank you for your response.

     
Quote
I suppose that this is the same article


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.


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?


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?

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: 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:


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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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?


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?

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

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.
I've read Johns work, it only partially attempts to answer some of the questions.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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?

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 22 2007,11:33   



--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: 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...

Yeah right,
JAD answers less questions than you do.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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...

Yeah right,
JAD answers less questions than you do.

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

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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...

Yeah right,
JAD answers less questions than you do.

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

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.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: 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...

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.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 22 2007,15:58   

OK I give up, VMartin, you bore me, write that down.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 22 2007,17:25   

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

I am quite sure of that.

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: 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?


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.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

[/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?

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.


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

   
Quote

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


Have an answer 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!

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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,14:51   

Quote

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


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.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,14:52   

Quote

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


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?

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

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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?

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.      

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.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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?

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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?

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.


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.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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!


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?

VMartin, why are you so afraid to explain your own statements? Are you ashamed or something?

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 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.

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

This is another excellent question, VMartin. Davison supports common descent. Do you reject it, nonetheless? If so, why?

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 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.

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


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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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?


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?

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

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.


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

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.

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
-...?

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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?


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?

Post number 90? No such thing. Prove it.

And answer the other questions while you're at it, coward.

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

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 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?


Does he?

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.

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,15:57   

jeannot
Quote

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


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)?


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?

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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...


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)?


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?

Martin, why are you ignoring Jeannot's and my questions?

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

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 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...


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)?


This question has anything to do with macroevolution.

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.

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,16:05   

Arden Chatfield:
Quote

Post number 90? No such thing. Prove it.



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?

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,16:10   

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

Post number 90? No such thing. Prove it.



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?

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?

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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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?


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.


Feel free to wait however long you like.

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

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: 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?


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.


Feel free to wait however long you like.

What do you want answering?

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,16:18   

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

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.

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?

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.


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.

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

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,16:57   

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

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.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,17:06   

Quote
as long as you are honest with yourself and others.


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

It's like asking him to set himself on fire.

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

-CC

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,17:59   

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

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.

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,18:03   

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


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



(snicker)  (giggle)

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

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,18:35   

Quote
We are all here atheists
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".
Andy why exactly does the colour of mushrooms have to be a selectable trait?

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2007,18:40   

Quote

We are all here atheists


Wrong.

Quote
and ignorants


um, 'ignorants' isn't a word.

Quote
par excellence
we love chance and random mutation
we ban everyone


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

Answer the questions, V.

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: 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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 25 2007,13:38   

Chris Hyland

 
Quote

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


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.


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.

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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 25 2007,13:50   

Arden Chatfield
Quote

Wrong.


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.


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.


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.

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 25 2007,13:59   

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

um, 'ignorants' isn't a word.


According urbandictionary it is a noun:

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.




--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 25 2007,14:22   

Quote

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


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

   
Quote
   
Quote

um, 'ignorants' isn't a word.


According urbandictionary it is a noun:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ignorants


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.


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.  


Figures. Worthless coward. Afraid to back up your own statements.

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

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 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!  

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).

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 25 2007,14:30   

Richardthughes
Quote

Bwahahahahahahah....

*remembers to breathe*


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

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

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.
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.
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.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 25 2007,14:33   

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

Bwahahahahahahah....

*remembers to breathe*


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

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"?

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 25 2007,14:36   

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

Bwahahahahahahah....

*remembers to breathe*


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

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

You are an intellectual coward.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

Just to be perfectly clear, Martin: is your hypothesis based on the supernatural?

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.


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.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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


What exactly are you afraid of?

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 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.

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?

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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.


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.

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 25 2007,16:08   

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

That's because they have black dots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Red_Owl

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 25 2007,16:13   

V, why are you afraid to explain your positions?

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 25 2007,16:16   

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

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

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

... which doesn't mean that any expressed gene is subject to natural selection.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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).

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.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 25 2007,16:41   

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

I have never heard about red owls with white dots.

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?

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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?

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

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.

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 25 2007,17:21   

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

I do like.

And I don't need your permission.


You are indeed fit only to be laughed at.

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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.


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

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.


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

And unless you quit being a coward and start backing up your statements, I can only assume I have described you correctly. Congratulations.

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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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?


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.


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.


Again: suppososing there are vision oriented mushroom eaters. In other case such explanation is not correct.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 26 2007,14:19   

What are you so afraid of, V? You're not ashamed, are you?

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

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 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.


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.

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

-CC

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 26 2007,14:27   

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

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on June 26 2007,14:39

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.



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.

mmm, sounds like ashamed to me!

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

  
Rev. BigDumbChimp



Posts: 185
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.



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.

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.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.



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.

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.

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

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 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.



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.

mmm, sounds like ashamed to me!

me too.

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

-CC

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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;

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

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...

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.


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?

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

-CC

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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?

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.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: 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

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 26 2007,15:52   

could be.

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

-CC

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.


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.

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

-CC

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.


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".

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

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: 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.


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".

Oh christ, hear we go again....

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.


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".

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?

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

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,13:07   

Quote

Oh christ, hear we go again....


only if you want to.

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

-CC

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,13:09   

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 27 2007,13:07)
Quote

Oh christ, hear we go again....


only if you want to.

I'M not touching it, but SOMEONE will. They always do.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,13:42   

Not even with a ten foot flagellum? ;)

  
Rev. BigDumbChimp



Posts: 185
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.


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".

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.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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
... it seems like you don't believe we share a common ancestors with fish. Is that your position?

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,14:33   

Well?

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.


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".

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?

KNOW, "ARDEN". USE MORE "QUOTATION MARKS" IF YOU "WANT" TO MAKE AN "INTERSTING" "POINT".

http://quotation-marks.blogspot.com/

:angry:

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.


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.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.


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".

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?

KNOW, "ARDEN". USE MORE "QUOTATION MARKS" IF YOU "WANT" TO MAKE AN "INTERSTING" "POINT".

http://quotation-marks.blogspot.com/

:angry:

"HOMO."

":angry:"

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

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2007,11:20   

Quote (VMartin @ June 29 2007,16:02)