Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,813 Year: 3,070/9,624 Month: 915/1,588 Week: 98/223 Day: 9/17 Hour: 5/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 811 of 1429 (899027)
10-06-2022 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 777 by dwise1
08-28-2022 1:06 AM


Re: Dredge Doesn't Think
dwise1 writes:
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)?
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:
"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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 777 by dwise1, posted 08-28-2022 1:06 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 812 by dwise1, posted 10-07-2022 3:37 AM Dredge has replied

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


Message 812 of 1429 (899029)
10-07-2022 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 811 by Dredge
10-06-2022 11:49 PM


Re: Dredge Doesn't Think
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.
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.
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.
Just when we hope that you could not be even more stupid than you already are, you show us that you can indeed be far more stupid.
Please stop it. If not for your own sake, then at least for the sake of stupid idiots everywhere who cringe when they see you making them look bad.
(paraphrasing) "The FUSED sacrum disappearing and being replaced by NON-FUSED vertebrae"??? Really? That is so completely and utterly STUPID! I am literally laughing out loud at how stupid you are!
No vertebrae disappeared nor got replaced. Same vertebrae, you fucking stupid idiot! 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 are so utterly stupid that you have no clue how anything works. Learn something! And stop making the stupid idiots of the world look so much worse than they already are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 811 by Dredge, posted 10-06-2022 11:49 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 813 by Dredge, posted 10-07-2022 6:43 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 813 of 1429 (899051)
10-07-2022 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 812 by dwise1
10-07-2022 3:37 AM


Re: Dredge Doesn't Think
dwise1 writes:
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.
Apologies. I'll try again:
"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?  ...
No vertebrae disappeared nor got replaced.
Your "paraphrasing" is a deliberate falsehood and you know it.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 812 by dwise1, posted 10-07-2022 3:37 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 814 of 1429 (899060)
10-07-2022 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 760 by Admin
08-26-2022 6:01 PM


Re: Dredge Doesn't Think
Can you restore my editing privileges now, please?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 760 by Admin, posted 08-26-2022 6:01 PM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 822 by dwise1, posted 10-08-2022 2:55 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 815 of 1429 (899061)
10-08-2022 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 764 by xongsmith
08-26-2022 11:09 PM


Re: what did it?
xongsmith writes:
we don't know what random fluctuations occurred instead of other possibilities but we have the general idea that there was no supernatural explanation needed
Gee, what an unexpected thing for a bunch of atheistic scientists to say ... "no supernatural explanation needed". No kidding?
So which "environmental pressures" produced a venonmous snake's hollow fangs, for example?
Which "environmental pressures" produced said snake's venom glands?
Which "environmental pressures" connected said snake's venom glands to said fangs?
And said snake's venom just happened to paralyse its prey ... how lucky was that?! Otherwise those snakes would have all starved to death.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 764 by xongsmith, posted 08-26-2022 11:09 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 820 by xongsmith, posted 10-08-2022 1:14 AM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 816 of 1429 (899062)
10-08-2022 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 766 by Tanypteryx
08-27-2022 12:25 AM


Re: Dredge Doesn't Think
Tanypteryx writes:
There's a plasticity to almost every insect morphological feature, mothparts, eyes, head shape, front legs, middle legs hind legs antennae, front wings, hind wings, genitalia, pheromones and chemical defenses, and on and on and on.
Thank you for that fascinating information ... I didn't know parts of insects were made of plastic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 766 by Tanypteryx, posted 08-27-2022 12:25 AM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 817 of 1429 (899063)
10-08-2022 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 767 by AZPaul3
08-27-2022 12:44 AM


Re: Dredge Doesn't Think
AZPale3 writes:
Beetles is ok. Wasps is not ok. Pull a Dredge, ignore the wasp studies which I do not like and restore the title to the beetles. Just say no to wasps.
As usual, I agree with you. The Beetles are my all-time favourite band. The Wasps, on the other hand, were pretty bloody ordinary.

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

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 818 of 1429 (899064)
10-08-2022 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 775 by dwise1
08-27-2022 3:59 PM


Re: Dredge Doesn't Think
dwise1 writes:
He claims that he used to be an atheist, but it's all a lie.
Reminds me of those liars who claim to have once served in the military ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 775 by dwise1, posted 08-27-2022 3:59 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 819 of 1429 (899065)
10-08-2022 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 776 by Percy
08-27-2022 5:16 PM


Re: Dredge Doesn't Think
Percy writes:
By the same logic they also reject and hate unicorns, leprechauns and mermaids.
I can't believe some atheists reject Santa Claus ... despite all the evidence. That is fair-dinkum WEIRD.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 776 by Percy, posted 08-27-2022 5:16 PM Percy has not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


(1)
Message 820 of 1429 (899066)
10-08-2022 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 815 by Dredge
10-08-2022 12:05 AM


Dredge tries with Re: what did it?
Dredge asks:
So which "environmental pressures" produced a venonmous snake's hollow fangs, for example?
Which "environmental pressures" produced said snake's venom glands?
Which "environmental pressures" connected said snake's venom glands to said fangs?
And said snake's venom just happened to paralyse its prey ... how lucky was that?! Otherwise those snakes would have all starved to death.
You have no idea how long evolution has been making it little changes, do you? BILLIONS of YEARS is a very, very long time.
not being a professional herpetologist myself, i'd imagine it would be something like this:
start with a little groove on the inside of a tooth, then some are born with deeper grooves that are favored in that current environment. they survive at a more frequent rate and eventually are the major variant. then the deeper groove begins to fold together and the saliva has also been changing ever so slightly to venomous in this surviving population. some early venoms may have been self-destructive, others to weak to paralize a victim. some missed the teeth path and didn't work as they do today. eventually some venom systems were just right. you have BILLIONS and BILLIONS of years of generations of mutations leading to trials and errors. eventually you get rattlesnakes. or cobras. or coral snakes. or sea snakes (ahah! turn 15 in this current Xong game I'm playing now has Blue foisting a 27-legged Sea Snake upon Red, who has only one place it fits on the board and it's only for a net 4 points, leaving him only one point ahead of Blue who now gets a piece worth 4-5...but Red finds a Sea Snake of his own and now trails by 3 again - oh, nevermind).
Which "environmental pressures" produced said snake's venom glands?
pressure is the wrong word. "survival advantage" may be more accurate. just as a photosensitive dip in its head gave the primitive-eye creature an advantage living in the land of the blind, the venomous fangs gave an advantage in the life encounters over food and real-time battles of life & death.
but this is abundantly obvious to me.
why isn't it obvious to you?
what is blocking your brain from seeing this?

"I'm the Grim Reaper now, Mitch. Step aside."
Death to #TzarVladimirtheCondemned!
Enjoy every sandwich!

- xongsmith, 5.7dawkins scale


This message is a reply to:
 Message 815 by Dredge, posted 10-08-2022 12:05 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 821 by xongsmith, posted 10-08-2022 2:38 AM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied
 Message 823 by vimesey, posted 10-08-2022 3:17 AM xongsmith has not replied
 Message 826 by Dredge, posted 10-08-2022 9:44 PM xongsmith has replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 821 of 1429 (899069)
10-08-2022 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 820 by xongsmith
10-08-2022 1:14 AM


Re: Sea Snake
p.s. - Red won 25-24 to tie the measured series 274 wins apiece!

"I'm the Grim Reaper now, Mitch. Step aside."
Death to #TzarVladimirtheCondemned!
Enjoy every sandwich!

- xongsmith, 5.7dawkins scale


This message is a reply to:
 Message 820 by xongsmith, posted 10-08-2022 1:14 AM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 822 of 1429 (899070)
10-08-2022 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 814 by Dredge
10-07-2022 11:45 PM


Re: Dredge Doesn't Think
Admin, don't restore any privileges for this troll. He's just as bad as ever. Worse even.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 814 by Dredge, posted 10-07-2022 11:45 PM Dredge has not replied

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


(3)
Message 823 of 1429 (899071)
10-08-2022 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 820 by xongsmith
10-08-2022 1:14 AM


Re: Dredge tries with Re: what did it?
One of the things us humans have to wrestle with is our inability to properly conceptualise big numbers. A good example of this is asking people how long it would take them to construct a cubic metre out of cubic centimetre Lego pieces. A lot of people just reply that it would take them maybe an afternoon of work.
Then you do the maths. There are 100x100x100 square centimetre pieces in a square metre. Assume it takes you a second a piece (and that's working fast, with no breaks and no mistakes). It would take you one million seconds. That works out to 278 hours. Assuming you put in an 8 hour day, that's just under 35 days.
It's the same thing with evolution. Unless you do the maths, your head just assumes that it can perceive billions of years - but, (unless you're wired unusually), it can't.
The handlers of the world's creationists rely heavily on this to sell them their snake oil.

Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 820 by xongsmith, posted 10-08-2022 1:14 AM xongsmith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 824 by dwise1, posted 10-08-2022 5:30 AM vimesey has replied

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


(1)
Message 824 of 1429 (899072)
10-08-2022 5:30 AM
Reply to: Message 823 by vimesey
10-08-2022 3:17 AM


Re: Dredge tries with Re: what did it?
One of the things us humans have to wrestle with is our inability to properly conceptualise big numbers. A good example of this is asking people how long it would take them to construct a cubic metre out of cubic centimetre Lego pieces. A lot of people just reply that it would take them maybe an afternoon of work.

Then you do the maths. There are 100x100x100 square centimetre pieces in a square metre. Assume it takes you a second a piece (and that's working fast, with no breaks and no mistakes). It would take you one million seconds. That works out to 278 hours. Assuming you put in an 8 hour day, that's just under 35 days.

It's the same thing with evolution. Unless you do the maths, your head just assumes that it can perceive billions of years - but, (unless you're wired unusually), it can't.

The handlers of the world's creationists rely heavily on this to sell them their snake oil.
Case in point is Kent Hovind's Solar Mass Loss Claim.
5 million tonnes per second for all the seconds in about 5 billion (American and British billion, not European, so 109) years worth of seconds.
That works out to about 7.88923×1023 tonnes of solar mass lost in 5 billion years. Really big number. Astronomical even!
Yet compared to the sun's overall mass of 1.98855×1027 tonnes, that total mass loss over five billion years amounts to only 0.03965755%, a few hundredths of one percent of the sun's total mass.
Certainly nothing to write home about.
Interestingly, as Kent Hovind continues to parade this particular claim about, he also admonishes his audience to not only not do the math, but also to ignore anybody who has actually done the math.
Hmmm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 823 by vimesey, posted 10-08-2022 3:17 AM vimesey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 825 by vimesey, posted 10-08-2022 6:09 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


(1)
Message 825 of 1429 (899073)
10-08-2022 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 824 by dwise1
10-08-2022 5:30 AM


Re: Dredge tries with Re: what did it?
What's depressing is that people will listen to him and choose to believe him, even though he can be proven wrong. (Not to mention that he's a convicted tax dodger and wife beater).
Goes to show how bad things have gotten.
Ah well, we'll keep on trying.

Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 824 by dwise1, posted 10-08-2022 5:30 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024