stevestory Posts: 13407 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: 13407 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: 13407 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: 13407 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: 13407 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: 1208 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: 13407 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: 13407 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: 13407 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. -------------- "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: 4966 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: 4966 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: 1902 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: 1552 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: 1201 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: 5760 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: 1201 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: 11177 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: 1552 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: 1201 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: 5760 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: 5760 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?

jeannot Posts: 1201 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: 1552 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: 1201 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: 1552 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: 11177 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: 1201 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: 1552 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: 5760 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 20 2007,17:59    Quote What stopped it? Well, obviously, goddidit! ;)