Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(2)
Message 629 of 1429 (896428)
08-08-2022 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 627 by ringo
08-08-2022 11:59 AM


Re: Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything
Insulin from cows and pigs. Why would their insulin work in us if we were not all related?
Not only that, but large groupings of species have the same proteins, but slightly different in their amino acid sequences. I would assume that some proteins are present in some groups, but not in others (eg, proteins for milk production would be found in all mammals, but not in non-mammals).
Despite creationist "improbability of producing a complete protein by chance" claims which posit an 80-amino-acid protein with every single locus in the protein chain requiring one-and-only-one specific amino acid "or else the protein won't work", a lot of those loci can accept other amino acids; from Awbrey and Thwaites' two-model creation/evolution class syllabus (not quoting verbatim):
quote
They give the example of a calcium binding site with 29 amino acid positions: only 2 positions (7%) require specific amino acids, 8 positions (28%) can be filled by any of 5 hydrophobic amino acids, 3 positions (10%) can be filled by any one of 4 other amino acids, 2 positions (7%) can be filled with two different amino acids, and 14 of the positions (48%) can be filled by virtually any of the 20 amino acids.
The sequence of the 15 specified positions is:
         L* L*L* L*D D* D*G* I*D* EL* L*L* L*

 Where:
    L* = hydrophobic - Leu, Val, Ilu, Phe, or Met

    D* =  (a) Asp, Glu, Ser, or Asn
         OR (b) theoretically also Gls or Thr

    D = Asp

    E = Glu

    G* = Gly or Asp

    I* = Ilu or Val

    Remaining positions = any of 20

So while active sites on a protein are restricted in the number of amino acid substitutions they can tolerate without affecting the function of the protein, nearly half of the loci are primarily structural and can take any of 20 amino acids. That means that the same protein can exist and function in many different species despite many amino acids being different.
Therefore, protein sequence comparisons between species has been a way to measure how closely related species are. And of course closeness of relatedness implies them sharing a common ancestor.
My web page, The Bullfrog Affair, discusses this topic; the title is from Duane Gish's infamous bold-face lie on national TV about a protein that shows humans to be more closely related to a bullfrog than he is to a chimpanzee. Yeah, that one definitely blew up in Gish's face and created a standard response to creationist claims, "BULLFROG!"
The thing is that protein comparisons has been a valid scientific tool for measuring relatedness between species and it has been found to closely correlate with phylogenetic trees. There are even a few O'Reilly books on that field, bioinformatics. I even played around with the software tool, BLAST, 30 years ago.
While ID tries to poo-poo the fact that every eucaryote's biochemistry is the same and uses the same proteins, it cannot explain the differences we see in the non-active parts of the proteins' sequences, nor why the pattern of those differences line up with how closely or distantly the species appear to be to each other.
Only descent from common ancestors can explain that. And extrapolating those common ancestors back to one common ancestral species does certainly appear likely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 627 by ringo, posted 08-08-2022 11:59 AM ringo has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 695 by Dredge, posted 08-16-2022 10:57 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(2)
Message 643 of 1429 (896561)
08-13-2022 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 642 by Tanypteryx
08-13-2022 10:27 AM


Re: Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything
... , but ignorance and stupidity lead nowhere.
That is not true. And history is filled with examples of where ignorance and stupidity do lead. The short list includes famine and death.
For example, Lysenkoism:
quote
Lysenkoism was a political campaign led by Soviet biologist Trofim Lysenko against genetics and science-based agriculture in the mid-20th century, rejecting natural selection in favour of a form of Lamarckism, as well as expanding upon the techniques of vernalization and grafting. In time, the term has come to be identified as any deliberate distortion of scientific facts or theories for purposes that are deemed politically, religiously or socially desirable.
More than 3,000 mainstream biologists were dismissed or imprisoned, and numerous scientists were executed in the Soviet campaign to suppress scientific opponents. The president of the Soviet Agriculture Academy, Nikolai Vavilov, who had been Lysenko's mentor, but later denounced him, was sent to prison and died there, while Soviet genetics research was effectively destroyed. Research and teaching in the fields of neurophysiology, cell biology, and many other biological disciplines were harmed or banned.
The government of the Soviet Union (USSR) supported the campaign, and Joseph Stalin personally edited a speech by Lysenko in a way that reflected his support for what would come to be known as Lysenkoism, despite his skepticism toward Lysenko's assertion that all science is class-oriented in nature. Lysenko served as the director of the USSR's Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences. Other countries of the Eastern Bloc including the People's Republic of Poland, the Republic of Czechoslovakia, and the German Democratic Republic accepted Lysenkoism as the official "new biology", to varying degrees, as did the People's Republic of China for some years.
. . .
In 1928, rejecting natural selection and Mendelian genetics, Trofim Lysenko claimed to have developed agricultural techniques which could radically increase crop yields. These included vernalization, species transformation, inheritance of acquired characteristics, and vegetative hybridization.
. . .
Effects
From 1934 to 1940, under Lysenko's admonitions and with Stalin's approval, many geneticists were executed (including Izrail Agol, Solomon Levit, Grigorii Levitskii, Georgii Karpechenko and Georgii Nadson) or sent to labor camps. The famous Soviet geneticist and president of the Agriculture Academy, Nikolai Vavilov, was arrested in 1940 and died in prison in 1943.
In 1936, the American geneticist Hermann Joseph Muller, who had moved to the Leningrad Institute of Genetics with his Drosophila fruit flies, was criticized as a bourgeois, capitalist, imperialist, and promoter of fascism, so he left the USSR, returning to America via Republican Spain. In 1948, genetics was officially declared "a bourgeois pseudoscience". Over 3,000 biologists were imprisoned, fired, or executed for attempting to oppose Lysenkoism and genetics research was effectively destroyed until the death of Stalin in 1953. Due to Lysenkoism, crop yields in the USSR actually declined {my emphasis}.
Most other treatments have referred to crop failures and famine due to Lysenkoism.
Add to that medical examples, like a national authority advising that, since bleach kills the COVID virus, we should inject bleach into our bodies. And ignorance and stupidity related to vaccination leading to the reemergence of very serious diseases that had been eradicated (eg, polio showing up in New York City wastewater, meaning that it is circulating within the population).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 642 by Tanypteryx, posted 08-13-2022 10:27 AM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 644 by Tanypteryx, posted 08-13-2022 11:23 AM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(3)
Message 645 of 1429 (896563)
08-13-2022 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 644 by Tanypteryx
08-13-2022 11:23 AM


Re: Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything
My creation/evolution website includes two quotes regarding creationists, the first one being Sun Tzu's "Know your enemy and know yourself ... ".
The other is from my memory of an NPR interview with a Mississippi governor in the 80's or 90's. In support of his efforts at educational reform, he said (quoting from memory):
quote
We know that ignorance doesn't work, because we've tried it already.
And yet they keep trying ignorance, over and over again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 644 by Tanypteryx, posted 08-13-2022 11:23 AM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 648 of 1429 (896597)
08-14-2022 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 647 by Dredge
08-14-2022 2:39 PM


Re: Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything
 
Also, that has been answered so many times that you have no basis to claim that it has not be answered. No amount of your stubborn willful stupidity could ever justify your endless repetition of your BS nonsense.
Therefore, every time you post that nonsense, that means that you are lying through your ass (which, like with your stupid troll-god, is your true face).
Therefore, your new song:
 

This message is a reply to:
 Message 647 by Dredge, posted 08-14-2022 2:39 PM Dredge has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 654 of 1429 (896606)
08-14-2022 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 650 by Dredge
08-14-2022 6:03 PM


Re: Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything
Please show me a dictionary definition of "know" that includes the word"tentatively" or "theory".
​
Here's one dictionary definition of "know":
Argumentum ad dictionario is one of the stupidest fallacies committed by evil creationist trolls. The moment that one starts to try to change reality by redefining (and twisting and distorting) the meanings of words, then we know exactly what kind of lying, deceiving low-life we're dealing with (eg, apologists, creationists, theologians, lawyers).
Words and definitions are intended to describe what we observe, not create an entirely new reality.
IOW, WORD MAGICK DOES NOT WORK! It's not a real thing.
 
As you're jumping about shouting "ooga booga!", consider the words of Mexican President José López Portillo on 60 Minutes circa 1980:
quote
It's been a long time since we've worn feathers.
 

This message is a reply to:
 Message 650 by Dredge, posted 08-14-2022 6:03 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 677 by Dredge, posted 08-16-2022 12:34 AM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 669 of 1429 (896630)
08-15-2022 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 667 by Theodoric
08-15-2022 1:23 PM


Re: To know has many definitions
Und bei Deutsch gibt's drei:
  • Wissen -- to know a fact (como saber)
  • Kennen -- to know a person (como conecer)
  • Können -- to know how to do something (como poder)
Können is also the modal verb for being able to do something as in the English "can". So "Do you know German?" would be "Kannst du Deutsch?" Somehow I seem to recall that French or Spanish would use "savoir" or "saber" respectively for knowing a language or how to do something, but I'm somewhat rusty on that point.
 
However, kennen can also be used for a language as in the well-known adage:
quote
"Wer eine Fremdsprache nicht kennt, weiss nichts von seiner eigenen." -- Goethe
("He who doesn't know a foreign language knows nothing of his own.")
 

This message is a reply to:
 Message 667 by Theodoric, posted 08-15-2022 1:23 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(2)
Message 672 of 1429 (896641)
08-15-2022 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 671 by Dredge
08-15-2022 8:58 PM


Re: Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything

This message is a reply to:
 Message 671 by Dredge, posted 08-15-2022 8:58 PM Dredge has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 676 of 1429 (896645)
08-15-2022 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 674 by Dredge
08-15-2022 11:44 PM


Re: Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything

This message is a reply to:
 Message 674 by Dredge, posted 08-15-2022 11:44 PM Dredge has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 678 of 1429 (896648)
08-16-2022 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 677 by Dredge
08-16-2022 12:34 AM


Re: Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything
Yep ... who the hell cares what the dictionary says or how 99.99999% of the population interpret a word, when you can hijack a word like "know" a put your own spin on it?
Wow! So you have never learned any kind of trade or profession or held any kind of a job? You have only ever spent time on the streets and never in school? You are really so intellectually impoverished? Well, you have only yourself to blame.
Every single profession or trade or field of study has its own vocabulary, which outsiders call jargon:
quote
Jargon is the specialized terminology associated with a particular field or area of activity. Jargon is normally employed in a particular communicative context and may not be well understood outside that context. The context is usually a particular occupation (that is, a certain trade, profession, vernacular or academic field), but any ingroup can have jargon. The main trait that distinguishes jargon from the rest of a language is special vocabulary—including some words specific to it and often different senses or meanings of words, that outgroups would tend to take in another sense—therefore misunderstanding that communication attempt. Jargon is sometimes understood as a form of technical slang and then distinguished from the official terminology used in a particular field of activity.
I've been through public school, college, university, military tech school, and military classroom training. Usually the very first lecture consists of us being given the terminology that we are going to use and the meanings of those terms within the context of the class.
Dictionaries are of limited use because they normally only give common general-population definitions, though for some words they will refer to a specialized field explicitly (and almost never for the field that you need). So using general definitions for specialized terminology is a very grave offense indeed! For that matter, one of the most common forms of creationist misquoting of scientific sources directly employ semantic shifting, a kind of bait-and-switch (always part of a con or swindle) wherein they quote the words from a scientific source, but then substitute different meanings for those words, usually general usage, thus completely changing the meaning of the quoted text. But then we both know that creationists are evil; this is just one way of many ways in which you creationists practice your evil.
For the edification of other members and of visitors reading this, using a foreign language dictionary to find their word for an English word is like waltzing through a minefield. For example, look up the German word for "round", which in English has many possible meanings. I have collected multiple language dictionaries between various languages that I know so that I can cross-reference words; eg, I'll look up a French word from English, but then I go to my Deutsch-Französisch Langenscheidt, or even to the French-Spanish dictionary I snuck out during the divorce, to verify that I hopefully chose the right word.
For example, on a now-extinct C programming forum I used to participate in, a programmer from Portugal asked us how to work with lights in C. Nobody had any clue what he could be talking about, but, even though I don't know Portuguese, I had a hunch from Spanish, plus he had included something that hinted him trying to do multithreaded or multiprocessing programming. In multithreading, you have separate independent processes, threads of execution, which share common resources such as memory. To keep them from clobbering each other's work, they use a signaling system to let the other threads know to leave a resource (eg, a particular memory location) alone until they get the signal that they can proceed with it. That's called synchronization and one tool is semaphores. In Spanish, the word for a traffic signal is semáforo and a quick visit to the Portuguese Wikipedia confirmed that Portuguese uses the same word. So he had looked up semáforo in his Portuguese-English dictionary and it though he was talking about "traffic lights" so it told him the English word would be "lights" (eg, "Turn left at the second light."). I explained his error to him ("The dictionary is not your friend!", same as you shouldn't do what those voices in your head tell you because they're not your friend) and gave him the correct English word, "semaphore". I also advised him to look up the subject matter in his own language on Wikipedia and then switch to the English version, which would also teach him the specialized vocabulary of that subject.
Let me repeat that for those who work in more than one language (as opposed to those like Sludge who don't even know one): Wikipedia is an excellent tool for learning the specialized terminology (AKA "jargon") of a particular field. Look it up in Wikipedia, then switch to the target language which will be written using that language's version of the jargon.
In Sludge's case, he will continue to refuse to learn anything, so Marcus Lycus' beratement of an employee for not trying to improve himself apply to him:
quote
But you'll never learn, you'll be a eunuch all your life.
 
 
DWise1 writes:
The moment that one starts to try to change reality by redefining (and twisting and distorting) the meanings of words, then we know exactly what kind of lying, deceiving low-life we're dealing with (eg, apologists, creationists, theologians, lawyers).
Oh, the irony!
You willfully stupid complete idiot!
Specialists construct their own specialized vocabularies in order to facilitate clear and unambiguous communication among themselves. No attempts to change reality, but rather to enable themselves to better describe reality.
Rather it is you self-admittedly evil creationists who twist and distort the meaning of words in order to generate confusion and to practice deception.
And you're so stupid that you think it's the other way around? Ha!
Oh the irony!
 
 

This message is a reply to:
 Message 677 by Dredge, posted 08-16-2022 12:34 AM Dredge has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(3)
Message 714 of 1429 (896759)
08-19-2022 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 713 by Tanypteryx
08-19-2022 12:00 PM


Re: Mr ID is back and still as stupid as ever
Over in his older topic, The Power of the New Intelligent Design..., I discussed the matter of intelligent design based on my own professional experience as an intelligent designer -- I'm a retired software engineer. Refer to such messages as Message 83, Message 283, Message 290, Message 467, Message 469, Message 470.
Also, as a retired software engineer I have far more practical experience than MrID (self-described civil engineer who designs bridges and the like) in the dichotomy and struggle between the engineering concepts of elegance and complexity. Engineers strive for elegance in their designs, minimizing the design in both size and complexity to the simplest it can be and still be functional -- eg, a bridge consisting of a single solid block of concrete would work, but it would be far from elegant whereas a suspension bridge would be much more elegant.
Complexity -- especially excessive complexity -- must be avoided as much as possible in designs, but that is not always possible. Unlike something simple and straightforward like a bridge or building, software becomes very complex very quickly, especially if we use an evolutionary approach to design. So often in software projects, we are not given the time nor funding to write it from scratch, so we take existing code in a product that is somewhat similar to the new product yet very different and we modify that pre-existing code to perform a new function. Then in the life cycle of that product we go in to tweak the code or to copy and modify sections of code to perform new functionality, etc, in an analogy of how evolution works. And the end result is very high levels of complexity, levels so high that even the programmers have difficulty understanding what the code does (as we must try when fixing bugs -- [voice=road_trip_song]99 bugs in the code, take one bug and fix it, 117 bugs in the code[/voice]).
An intelligent design is recognizable by its elegance. Products of evolution are recognizable by their extreme complexity akin to a Rube Goldberg machine, the furthest thing from an intelligent design
What we see in nature is so extremely complex that it makes Rube Goldberg machines appear elegant in comparison. When we see something in nature that is highly complex, then that is evidence of evolution, not of any "intelligent designer".
And that's not even mentioning how entire sections of an intelligent design can be redesigned with completely different components and tech, something that evolution could never do. The example I've given is:
DWise1 writes:
Another intelligent design aspect of OOP is the ability to replace objects with entirely new object that have the same interface -- in hardware design, that would be a pin-compatible module. Internally, the new class could work entirely differently than the old one (eg, old one had a fixed set of dummy data points used for design testing whereas the new one would actually generate live data) and the program would not know the difference since they both look and behave the same (ie, they both have the same interface which is the program's only access to them). That is how you can replace an automotive component that used electro-mechanical relays with one that used transistors and then that with one that used integrated circuits and the car wouldn't know any different. You could even replace an American car engine with a Japanese engine and the car wouldn't know any different. Now that's intelligent design.
To take the intermittent windshield wipers analogy further, automotive engineering made ingenious use of the engine's vacuum line to many ends, such as pop-up headlights and intermittent windshield wipers (possibly also to power windshield wipers if we go back far enough). But then solid state electronics offered a much simpler and more elegant design -- before the invention of the transistor (1947), imagine using vacuum tube electronics to control your windshield wipers. The point is that if evolution had produced something like intermittent windshield wipers, it never could have switched from the vacuum line to electronics, whereas intelligent design could.
And what do we observe in nature? Products of evolution, not of intelligent design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 713 by Tanypteryx, posted 08-19-2022 12:00 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 725 of 1429 (896836)
08-23-2022 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 723 by Dredge
08-23-2022 10:40 PM


Re: Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything
Well, if you really want to know, the ASK SOMEBODY WITH THAT DEGREE OF KNOWLEDGE, LIKE A MEDICAL RESEARCHER!
If you wanted to know something about computer programming, then you'd ask a programmer. If you wanted to know something about Catholic theology, then you'd ask a Catholic priest or theologian. If you wanted to know about some point of the law, then you'd ask a lawyer. If you wanted to know something about chip manufacturing, then you'd ask a chip manufacturer. If you wanted to know something about the inner workings of a particular car engine (especially regarding settings), then you'd ask a car mechanic, preferably one with experience with that kind of engine.
If you really want to know something, you would ask the people who are expert in that subject. Pestering people repeatedly with the same idiotic bullshit question will not yield your answer, but rather will only serve your chosen purpose of being a fucking stupid troll.
If you actually want to know the answer, then ask the professionals. If you don't, then shut the fuck up!
Fucking evil troll!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 723 by Dredge, posted 08-23-2022 10:40 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 729 by Dredge, posted 08-24-2022 12:24 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(3)
Message 756 of 1429 (896900)
08-25-2022 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 754 by ringo
08-25-2022 11:51 AM


Re: Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything
That's mathematics, boy. You can't argue with mathematics.
Nah, he'll just say, "Mathematics doesn't prove anything!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 754 by ringo, posted 08-25-2022 11:51 AM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 759 of 1429 (896921)
08-26-2022 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 757 by Dredge
08-25-2022 11:23 PM


Re: Dredge Doesn't Think
Wow! Dredge finally realized that what he was saying and insisting on and trolling us on is complete and utterly ignorant BS. But instead of acknowledging it, it tried to wipe it out of existence. Fortunately, AZPaul3 quoted Dredge's stupidly ignorant assertions in Message 758, which I repeat below. OBTW, I had read Dredge's now-deleted post and can verify that AZPaul3 quoted him truthfully:
Dredge writes:
But in a whale, there's no sign whatsoever of a pelvis between its spine and tail - in fact, it's impossible to tell where its spine ends and its tail begins.
Dredge writes:
So Darwinists would have us believe that, through the mysterious magic of evolution, not only did the entire original pelvis detach itself from the spine and tail to operate elsewhere in the body, the tail then attached itself to the base of the spine.
So he thinks that ... what?
OK, from what he has written, here is what Dredge appears to think and is claiming:
quote:
What Dredge Appears to be Claiming:
CAVEAT: These are false strawman ideas that Dredge appears to have and are not to be confused with actual statements of fact.
  • He thinks that the pelvis is one solid bone (or at least one complete and distinct structure) that is inserted between the spine and the tail.
  • Hence, the spine and tail are two distinct and separated (by the pelvis) strings of vertebrae. That would mean that, going from the skull to the tip of the tail, you have the spine which starts at the skull and then terminates at the pelvis, then you have the pelvis, then you have the tail which originates at the pelvis.
    IOW, the vertebrate column is not continuous, but rather is broken into two distinct and separate columns tied together by the pelvis which is not a part of the vertebrate column. According to Dredge.
  • As a result (according to his strawman argument), for whales to have evolved from quadrupedal land animals their pelvis would have had to separate from both the spine and the tail, which would then have to somehow magically reattach to each other.
    IOW, his "Darwinian" scenario requires that the spine and tail both detach from the pelvis -- that leaves the spine unterminated, just "flapping around loose in the wind" and the tail floating completely free and unattached to anything -- , then the pelvis migrates out of its original location, and finally the tail and the unterminated end of the spine somehow find each other and reattach. Totally ludicrous!
  • Dredge then declares the "Darwinian" explanation to be ludicrous and hence "Darwinism" must be false.
His scenario is indeed ludicrous, but that is because it is based on incredibly stupid ideas including an abysmal ignorance of vertebrate anatomy. IOW, his "argument" is a classic strawman argument: create a gross misrepresentation of the idea you want to attack in such a manner as to make it ludicrous, attack your misrepresentation and show it to be ludicrous, then declare that you have disproven the idea that you oppose despite the fact that you had never once actually addressed that idea.

The thing is that I had already explained the anatomy of the pelvis about three weeks ago in my Message 560. However, apparently Dredge had not seen it yet because he was replying to ringo's Message 555 from an hour earlier. What I think happened to Dredge's "bigly" Message 757 is that after having "replied" to ringo, he then read my explanation of the anatomy of the pelvis and, realizing how completely and utterly stupid his claim was, abruptly deleted it hoping that nobody had read it yet. But we had read it already.
From my Message 560:
DWise1 writes:
Besides asking Dredge the obvious necessary question of why he thinks that poses any problem, we also need to ask him a couple other questions:
  • Just exactly how does the pelvis "attach to the spine"?
    In humans, the illia "attach" to the sacrum (the fused vertebrae of our vestigial tail) through the sacroiliac joints. But the bones are still separate, held together by ligaments.
  • How does he explain that in humans the ilia (AKA "pelvis bones") can and often do separate from the sacrum.
    Eg, when a woman's body is preparing to give birth, the ligaments relax so that the bones can separate, thus allowing the pelvic girdle to enlarge in order to better accommodate the passage of the fetus.
Of course, I'm more familiar with human anatomy, so I'd like to hear from someone familiar with the pelvic anatomy of other animals. Though the story should till be somewhat the same (except possibly for the necessity of expanding the pelvis during birthing).
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.
Now some information about the spine. My knowledge is based primarily on human anatomy, so I will try to practice caution when applying that to other species. Also please keep in mind that a rigorous anatomist or zoologist would probably find things to quibble about in this list:
  • The spine is the same thing as the vertebral column, which is a continuous, uninterrupted string of vertebrae running from the base of the skull to the tip of the tail. The vertebrae are classified based on their function and location along that continuous spine.
  • The sections of the spine are, from the cranium to the tip of the tail:
    1. Cervical -- forms the neck. All mammals, from mouse to giraffe, have the same number of cervical vertebrae, seven (7).
    2. Thoracic -- forms the foundation of the rib cage with the vertebrae having attachments for the ribs and supporting musculature. Humans have 12 thoratic vertebrae.
    3. Lumbar -- forms the rest of the dorsal spine down to the pelvis. Humans have five (5) lumbar vertebra, which we call our "lower back."
      It should be noted that the thoracic and lumbar spine taken together forms the dorsal spine, which is how those parts of the spine are usually referred to as a whole.
    4. Sacral -- these vertebrae are associated with the pelvis. In most cases, they are fused in adults as the sacrum. Such is the case with the five (5) sacral vertebrae in humans -- and interestingly one whale museum source, Comparative Anatomy - New Bedford Whaling Museum , cites cetaceans as also having five fused sacral vertebrae. When a pelvis is present, the actual pelvic bones, the ilia, attach to either side of the sacrum as an immovable joint, the sacroiliac joints (complained about by old-timers as their "saccareliac actin' up again").
    5. Caudal -- the bones of the tail. The number of vertebrae varies widely between species, usually unfused but the last few can be fused as in the coccygeal (AKA "tail bone") in chimpanzees (and humans). Humans have three to five caudal vertebrae, fused, while cetaceans have 19 to 27.
  • So we see that the spine is continuous from the first cervical to the final caudal vertebra. Even in animals that still have a pelvis.
  • Disassociation of the pelvic bones (ie, the ilia) from the spine would be a simple matter of opening the sacroiliac joints leading to separation from the sacrum, all without disturbing the continuity of the spine in any manner at all.
IOW, Dredge's entire whale pelvis argument is complete bollux (do they say that there in his Upside Down?).
 
The next question is: where did Dredge get this BS nonsense from?
By his own admission (verified by his lack of performance), he is far too stupid (both by being a low-grade idiot -- mental capacity less than that of a three-year-old -- and by being stubbornly willfully stupid) to have come up with it on his own.
That means that he must have gotten it from some creationist source. So what is his source for the putrid bullshit nonsense lies that he keeps gorging on?

Edited by dwise1, .


This message is a reply to:
 Message 757 by Dredge, posted 08-25-2022 11:23 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 802 by Dredge, posted 10-05-2022 6:17 PM dwise1 has replied
 Message 916 by Dredge, posted 10-14-2022 8:46 PM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 918 by Dredge, posted 10-19-2022 12:50 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 768 of 1429 (896945)
08-27-2022 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 767 by AZPaul3
08-27-2022 12:44 AM


Re: Dredge Doesn't Think
Nah, the "basic created worm kind" has all of them beat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 767 by AZPaul3, posted 08-27-2022 12:44 AM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 769 of 1429 (896947)
08-27-2022 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 763 by Dredge
08-26-2022 10:29 PM


Re: Dredge Doesn't Think
Not a good look admittedly, but I'm looking forward to having my editing privliges restored in the fullness of time.
You grossly abused your privileges, so what should you expect?
In the service, we receive General Military Training (GMT) on many subjects, including Rights and Responsibilities. You can be granted a privilege, but if you abuse it then it can be taken away. You have abused your privilege, so suck on it.
You want your privileges back? So demonstrate that you will not continue to abuse them.
Duh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 763 by Dredge, posted 08-26-2022 10:29 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 770 by Dredge, posted 08-27-2022 7:03 AM dwise1 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024