|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 2/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Can you restore my editing privileges now, please?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
xongsmith writes:
Gee, what an unexpected thing for a bunch of atheistic scientists to say ... "no supernatural explanation needed". No kidding? 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 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Tanypteryx writes:
Thank you for that fascinating information ... I didn't know parts of insects were made of plastic.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
AZPale3 writes:
As usual, I agree with you. The Beetles are my all-time favourite band. The Wasps, on the other hand, were pretty bloody ordinary.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
dwise1 writes:
Reminds me of those liars who claim to have once served in the military ...
He claims that he used to be an atheist, but it's all a lie.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Percy writes:
I can't believe some atheists reject Santa Claus ... despite all the evidence. That is fair-dinkum WEIRD.
By the same logic they also reject and hate unicorns, leprechauns and mermaids.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.4
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Admin, don't restore any privileges for this troll. He's just as bad as ever. Worse even.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined:
|
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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined:
|
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 ?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024