front loading: did evos get it backwards

If you are going to pretend that mutation, recombination, lateral gene transfer, natural selection, and genetic drift are not facts, perhaps you should start another thread. You could call it: "Randman Denies Reality ... Again". Is there nothing you can't mess up?"Organisms adapting an acquired trait ..." oh dear.---What's wrong with front-loading is the obvious fact that when we observe adaptive evolution take place, it isn't front-loaded. We observe the creation of new genes and alleles by mutation, not the bringing of previously untranscribed genes into play.To this we might add the consideration that front-loaded evolution is impossible. For if a gene is not yet in use, then there is nothing to prevent it from being degraded by mutations, since natural selection won't act on it even as a conservative force. Dormant front-loaded genes would be have their function annihilated by mutation and genetic drift millions of years before they were needed.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You are a liar. I have not tried to avoid the thread topic of front-loaded evolution, which I have discussed at length. Evolution is not defined by the "origin of new and higher taxa", a phrase that is all but devoid of meaning.I reiterate that all the evolution that we observe is not front-loaded. Actually, it is not I who define the meaning of scientific terms. When you say that this is "clearly" true, you are speaking for yourself rather than for, let's say, biologists, aren't you?It is interesting to see what is "clear" to you, considering that you are helpless to understand even the simplest of statements in your native language. Yet somehow your own effortless genius in overturning 150 years of science, ah, yes, that's quite clear. To you. That is not what I said in other words. That was something that I did not say nor in any way imply that dribbled out of your own fevered brain.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Randman is now so far off in his own little world that I have no idea what he's talking about.Does anyone want to take a guess?

Keep trying. One day, just by chance alone, you may manage to use all the right words in the right order.Unless you always screw it up by design. Do any of them have intact genes with potential biological function lying in unused storage for future use, as in front-loaded evolution?Would you care to give us an example of one of these organisms, so's we can see what it's doing with its genes? The article you cited does not in fact say that.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Huh?Scientist Makes New Observation, Revises Old Opinion Shock!This ... is ... how ... it's ... meant ... to ... work.

Because the theory of evolution predicts that in humans the proportion of such alleles should be increasing, and so finding that it is increasing would not consistute a counter-example to the theory.

Er ... because he's not telling the truth?

The only fun we're going to get out of them with this "front-loading" stuff is if any scientist takes it up. So long as it's just randman lying about stuff, it won't make any difference.But if some actual scientist could start talking front-loading bollocks, some freak like Behe, only with front-loading, then eventually the creationists would start parroting it, and then we could have so much fun.I guess we can still mock randman for telling lies in the cause of a notion he doesn't even believe in himself, but shooting fish in a barrel is not really a sport.