|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Not a good look admittedly, but I'm looking forward to having my editing privliges restored in the fullness of time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
dwise1 writes:
But I have an IQ of only 9 and I'm also mentally ill ... you can't expect much from someone like that.
You grossly abused your privileges, so what should you expect?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
I can't tell you how disappointed I am to see you, Phat - a fellow theist - making fun of my serious mental disabilities and dysfunctions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Thank you for your concern and your kind advice. Much appreciated. You're such a good friend.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Tanypteryx writes:
I can sort of understand why a scientist, having lost an argument to the village-idiot, would resort to pulling out the "troll" card in a desperate attempt to save face.
And there we have undisputable proof that you are just a pathetic troll
A drowning man clutching at straws.
All the discoveries we have made in biology, including the evolution and relatedness of life on this planet are part of our arsenals of tools that can be utilized by medical science.
It's true that "evolution" - as in, inherited traits of populations through successive generations - is indeed utilized by medical science.As for the "relatedness of life" ... yes, but only in the sense that there are genetic similarities between species. But if by "relatedness of life", you mean the theory of UCD ... no, that theory is irrelevant and useless to medicine.
Interestingly, something we never see is creationism, ID, or prayer being useful tools in the medical science toolkit. Faith healers are not replacing neurosurgeons.
Interestingly, you're strawmaning again.
We are all carrying on using our knowledge to learn more new things and you have no influence over the tools we choose to use.
Medicine has learnt nothing from the theory of UCD; neither does medicine utilize UCD as a "tool" - medicine works but utilizing facts, not useless stories about the days of yore like UCD. For some strange reason, you seem incapable of separating useful facts from a useless theory that attempts to explain why those facts exist. It's as if, once upon a time, someone told you that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of UCD" and you believed it, never stopping to consider the veracity of that Darwinist doctrine. Isn't it fascinating that even highly intelligent folks, such as scientists, are not immune from brainwashing and episodes of cognitive dissonance?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
751/50
Dredge writes:
Which "job" in the field of medicine has been made "a lot easier" by the theory of UCD?Stile writes:
Please explain how the theory that all life on earth descended from a common ancestor (UCD) has contibuted to the development of a vaccines and medicines.
Pretty much all of them.But coming up with new vaccines and medicines, as already listed a few times for you, is a good one. Dredge writes:
Evolution is defined as a change in allele frequency within a population. So please explain how "UCD is the nail-gun of evolution". Stile writes:
A change in allele frequency within a population is explained by mechanisms such as natural, artificial and sexual selection, mutations, genetic drift, recombination.
UCD is the best tool we have for explaining the change in allele frequency within a population.
The theory that that all life on earth descended from a common ancestor (UCD) is not necessary to explain change in allele frequency within a population. Please explain how UCD is necessary to explain the evolution of different beaks in Galapagos fiches, for example.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dredge writes:
How does denying the theory of universal common descent prevent "useful medical research"?ringo writes:
It does matter "how". In Message 736 you claimed that "Creationists' rejection of common descent has prevented them from doing any useful medical research."
It doesn't matter "how".
So please cite an example of how creationists' rejection of the theory of UCD "prevented them from doing any useful medical research" ... lest your claim be filed under "bullshit".
The fact is that creationists DON'T do any useful medical research.
You're strawmaning. Whether creationists have done any useful medical research or not is irrelevant to the question of whether or not UCD has proven useful in medicine.
If you think it isn't because they deny science, go ahead and propose an alternative reason. Dredge writes:
I don't recall denying universal common descent. My position is, I neither deny UCD nor accept it.
You might as well say you neither deny gravity nor accept it.
More strawmaning.
It's a foolish position to take. You are not educated enough to question science
No matter the level of education, no one can prove/ demonstrate/confirm that UCD is a fact ... which sounds like a perfectly good reason to neither deny nor accept the theory of UCD. Friendly Reminder: Believing that UCD is a fact doesn't make it a fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
dwise1 writes:
I learnt long ago to never ho out in public without adult supevision ... and I always wear my protective helmet. What we expect from you is for you to put your protective helmet back on and crawl back into your crib for your mommy (or gov't designated care-giver) to keep you safe. You should not go out in public without adult supervision. (Btw, how did you know that I have to wear a protective helmet?)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dredge writes:
A scientist with any common sense would first experiment with insulin from mammals. ... no need for the theory UCD.ringo writes:
Nonsense. Humans are mammals, so anyone with half a brain would figure that insulin from other mammals would likely work better than insulin from non-mammals like mollusks or fish ... nothing to do with UCD.
That IS the theory of UCD.
Do try and awaken from your stupor.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
dwise1 writes:
I think the word you're looking for is "bollocks".
bollux
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
dwise1 writes:
An acceptable description of someone called "Dredge".
scum-sucking bottom-feederHis only "retort" after an entire month ...
You missed me, didn't you? Well, I missed you too.
... is to quibble over the spelling of a foreign term? (I'm an American making use of a British-ish term)
Don't be so hard on yourself ... everyone makes mistakes ... even highly-intelligent people like yourself. Btw, it's not too late to thank me for pointing out your error.
What a complete fucking loser
A reasonable assessment ... although "complete" might be a tad strong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
560/38
dwise1 writes:
This is your best explanation for how the ilia and hind legs completely detached themselves separated from the sacrum? So with ligaments being all that hold those pelvic bones (AKA ilia) in place, strong and tight ligaments would be beneficial for land mammals and loosing or loss of those ligaments detrimental; we can easily tell which would be selected for and which against. But when the structural requirements for strong and tight ligaments are no more, then loosening or loss of those ligaments would no longer be selected against -- I'm not sure what the trade-off would be that might make retaining those ligaments detrimental. Sounds like a vague guess from someone who claims to know how evolution works but obviously doesn't.
we can easily tell which would be selected for and which against
Well of course it's easy to tell - according to Darwinist theory, every (alleged) evolutionary change is the one "selected for!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
ringo writes:
If the whales still had legs they could escape the orca's by climbing out of the water on to land. How's that for natural selection? We just had an item on the news the other day about a pod of orcas attacking a couple of humpback whales. If the humpbacks were still dragging hind legs around, their swimming would have been hampered and they would have been eaten. That's natural selection at its best. Ever seen an otter swim? They're incredibly fast and agile ... yep, their hind legs really slow them down! Furthermore, otters don't use their front legs for swimming at all. What "environmental pressures" produced the complete separation of the ilia (along with the hindlegs) from the sacrum of the land mammal (the alleged evolutionary ancestor of whales)?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
dwise1 writes:
According to the following sources, whales don't have any "sacral vertebrae" or any fused vertebrae at all, so whales do not possess a fused sacrum. It seems that there is no sign whatsoever of a sacrum in modern whales: Not only do whales still have their sacral vertebrae, but according to that source they are still fused. Why would they still have that vestigial remain (ie, the sacral vertebrae still being fused)? "The pelvis (or hip girdle) is dramatically different in modern whales and land mammals ... The pelvis in land mammals consists of sacrum and left and right innominate bones. The sacrum is a series of vertebrae (five in humans) that are fused to each other and connect to the innominates at the first (most anterior) of these vertebrae. The innominate is an elongated bone that bears the socket (acetabulum) for the femur, forming the hip joint ...In MODERN WHALES, in contrast, the SACRUM CANNOT BE RECOGNIZED, AS THERE ARE NO FUSED VERTEBRAE and no vertebra has a joint for the innominate." (emphasis added) https:///bioscience/article/51/12/1037/223993 "in CETACEANS [which includes whales and dolphins] ... there is NO VERTEBRAL FUSION." (emphasis added)http:///marine-mammals/skeletal-anatomy-marine-mammals/ Please explain how the FUSED sacrum of a modern whale's (alleged) evolutionary ancestor effectively "disappeared" and was replaced by the modern whale's NON-FUSED vertebrae, replete with intervertebral discs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
dwise1 writes:
Apologies. I'll try again: I noticed a very odd thing about your "sources". They don't seem to exist. Neither link you provide goes anywhere except to an error message that that page could not be found. "The pelvis (or hip girdle) is dramatically different in modern whales and land mammals ... The pelvis in land mammals consists of sacrum and left and right innominate bones. The sacrum is a series of vertebrae (five in humans) that are fused to each other and connect to the innominates at the first (most anterior) of these vertebrae. The innominate is an elongated bone that bears the socket (acetabulum) for the femur, forming the hip joint ...In MODERN WHALES, in contrast, the SACRUM CANNOT BE RECOGNIZED, AS THERE ARE NO FUSED VERTEBRAE and no vertebra has a joint for the innominate." (emphasis added) Whale Origins as a Poster Child for Macroevolution | BioScience | Oxford Academic "in CETACEANS [which includes whales and dolphins] ... there is NO VERTEBRAL FUSION." (emphasis added)Skeletal Anatomy (marine mammals) It appears you didn't do your homework. The source you cited ...Comparative Anatomy - New Bedford Whaling Museum ... turned out to be unreliable and inaccurate. It says whales have a fused sacrum, which is false ... whales don't have a sacrum or any fused vertebrae.
Did you just make all that stuff up? Normally, we should give someone the benefit of the doubt, but then you are a creationist. Decades of experience with creationists has consistently shown that creationists are always thoroughly dishonest and that they lie almost constantly. And you yourself stated explicitly that all creationists are evil.
I love your sense of humour.
(paraphrasing) "The FUSED sacrum disappearing and being replaced by NON-FUSED vertebrae"??? Really? ...
Your "paraphrasing" is a deliberate falsehood and you know it.No vertebrae disappeared nor got replaced. I said the ancestor's sacrum "effectively 'disappeared'" - which obviously indicates I didn't mean anything literally disappeared and was replaced by someting else.
Whether they fuse or not fuse is a matter of development, which is known to happen a very long time post partum (ie, long after the individual is born). The human sacrum is fused in adults, but not in infants nor in children -- the vertebrae of the human sacrum fuse between ages 18-30.
You conveniently forgot to mention the intervertebral discs. How did a fused sacrum without discs (as in the modern whale's alleged evolutionary ancestor) evolve into a series of un-fused vertebrae separated by intervertebral discs? Where did the extra intervertebral discs come from? What "environmental pressures" magically produced them?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024