Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9083 total)
129 online now:
AZPaul3, candle2, dwise1, evolujtion_noob, nwr, Phat (6 members, 123 visitors)
Newest Member: evolujtion_noob
Post Volume: Total: 897,186 Year: 8,298/6,534 Month: 1,367/1,124 Week: 136/430 Day: 12/60 Hour: 3/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals
Stile
Member
Posts: 4130
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.4


(2)
Message 751 of 801 (896884)
08-25-2022 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 746 by Dredge
08-24-2022 10:32 PM


Re: Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything
Dredge writes:
Which "job" in the field of medicine has been made "a lot easier" by the theory of UCD?
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.
Evolution is defined as a change in allele frequency within a population.

So please explain how "UCD is the nail-gun of evolution".
UCD is the best tool we have for explaining the change in allele frequency within a population.
Sure ... if by "projects" you mean useless bed-time stories from Darwinist folklore about what might have happened millions of years ago.

But if by "projects" you mean medical applications, it appears UCD has accomplished zilch.
UCD: Hundreds, quite possibly thousands of new medicines.
Creationists: 0 new medicines.
That's way better than 100:1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 746 by Dredge, posted 08-24-2022 10:32 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 788 by Dredge, posted 08-31-2022 1:55 AM Stile has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19989
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 752 of 801 (896886)
08-25-2022 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 740 by Dredge
08-24-2022 8:45 PM


Re: Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything
Dredge writes:
How does denying the theory of universal common descent prevent "useful medical research"?
It doesn't matter "how". The fact is that creationists DON'T do any useful medical research. 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. It's a foolish position to take. You are not educated enough to question science and nobody cares whether you accept it or not.

"Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg.
What's going on? Where are all the friends I had?
It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong.
Give me back, give me back my Leningrad."
-- Leningrad Cowboys

This message is a reply to:
 Message 740 by Dredge, posted 08-24-2022 8:45 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 790 by Dredge, posted 08-31-2022 6:54 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19989
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 753 of 801 (896887)
08-25-2022 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 744 by Dredge
08-24-2022 9:53 PM


Re: Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything
Dredge writes:
No contradiction. According to taxonomy and physiology, humans are obviously more closely "related" to other mammals than they are to
non-mammals like mollusks and fish ... regardless of being "related" according to the theory of UCD.
Again. you're contradicting yourself. If they're "obviously more closely related" then they're related. And if they're "more" closely related to other mammals than to mollusks and fish then they're also related to mollusks and fish.
Dredge writes:
A scientist with any common sense would first experiment with insulin from mammals. ... no need for the theory UCD.
That IS the theory of UCD.
Dredge writes:
Why would anyone experiment with octopus or fish insulin if they were considered toxic to humans?
Why would anybody deny science? Stupidity, I guess.

"Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg.
What's going on? Where are all the friends I had?
It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong.
Give me back, give me back my Leningrad."
-- Leningrad Cowboys

This message is a reply to:
 Message 744 by Dredge, posted 08-24-2022 9:53 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 796 by Dredge, posted 09-01-2022 10:49 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19989
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 754 of 801 (896889)
08-25-2022 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 748 by Dredge
08-24-2022 10:56 PM


Re: Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything
Dredge writes:
What I should have said is, "evolutionary relatedness" is a theory.
And a theory is an explanation of the facts. No facts --> no theory. That's mathematics, boy. You can't argue with mathematics.

"Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg.
What's going on? Where are all the friends I had?
It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong.
Give me back, give me back my Leningrad."
-- Leningrad Cowboys

This message is a reply to:
 Message 748 by Dredge, posted 08-24-2022 10:56 PM Dredge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 755 by nwr, posted 08-25-2022 12:13 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied
 Message 756 by dwise1, posted 08-25-2022 1:47 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6105
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


(3)
Message 755 of 801 (896891)
08-25-2022 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 754 by ringo
08-25-2022 11:51 AM


Re: Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything
You can't argue with mathematics.
You underestimate the trolling ability of trolls.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

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: 5274
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


(3)
Message 756 of 801 (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

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1672
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 757 of 801 (896907)
08-25-2022 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 555 by ringo
08-04-2022 12:14 PM


Re: Dredge Doesn't Think
Depletion deletion

Edited by Dredge, .


This message is a reply to:
 Message 555 by ringo, posted 08-04-2022 12:14 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 758 by AZPaul3, posted 08-25-2022 11:48 PM Dredge has replied
 Message 759 by dwise1, posted 08-26-2022 4:58 PM Dredge has not replied
 Message 760 by Admin, posted 08-26-2022 6:01 PM Dredge has replied
 Message 761 by AZPaul3, posted 08-26-2022 6:46 PM Dredge has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 7016
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 758 of 801 (896908)
08-25-2022 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 757 by Dredge
08-25-2022 11:23 PM


Re: Dredge Doesn't Think
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.
For a meat-cracker gourmand it may be impossible but for the intelligent of our species who study these things it's easy to understand. Easy as a piece of tail. And when it comes to believing between you and them I'll go with them.
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.
Not mysterious magic ... DNA ... but, yeah that's about right, give or take a detail or two. Does really strange and wonder things like dissolve legs and grow tails. Of course you can't believe in DNA. Food safety regulations don't allow any of that stuff in your meat-crackers.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

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 762 by Dredge, posted 08-26-2022 10:25 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5274
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 759 of 801 (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 not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12832
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 760 of 801 (896927)
08-26-2022 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 757 by Dredge
08-25-2022 11:23 PM


Re: Dredge Doesn't Think
Administrators do not normally carry out any administrative actions in threads in which they're participating, but it has been over a week since I posted here as Percy, longer than the normal recusal period, and your particular offense is cut and dried anyway.
You have lost your editing privileges because you edited a message in a substantial way by removing the original content entirely, which was compounded by the fact that someone had already replied.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

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 763 by Dredge, posted 08-26-2022 10:29 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 7016
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 761 of 801 (896931)
08-26-2022 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 757 by Dredge
08-25-2022 11:23 PM


Re: Dredge Doesn't Think
Ooo, a transgression of the rules! Bad Altar Boy.
At your next cracker-eating session you'll have to say an additional 5 Hail Mary's to atone for the post along with your usual 500 for your lies about the whales.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 757 by Dredge, posted 08-25-2022 11:23 PM Dredge has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1672
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 762 of 801 (896933)
08-26-2022 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 758 by AZPaul3
08-25-2022 11:48 PM


Re: Dredge Doesn't Think
AZPaul3 writes:
Not mysterious magic ... DNA ... but, yeah that's about right, give or take a detail or two
A typically simplistic and inadequate Darwinist explanation. Sure, DNA determines and thus can alter morpholgy, but that does nothing to explain how natural selection and what environmental pressures acted to remove the entire pelvis from the spine of the whale's alleged evolutionary ancestor (something like Pakicetus) and relocate it elsewhere in the body.
Nor does DNA explain how natural selection and what environmental pressures acted to disconnect the tail from original pelvis and attach it to the spine (as in a modern whale or dophin).
Even to the most science-hardened Darwinist, such evolutionary transitions must seem magical. (I completely understand why no evolutionary scientist would want to avoid discussing such matters ... too baffling and perhaps too close to divine intervention.)
As far as I know, there is no evidence whatsoever of a pelvis between the spine and tail of any modern whale or dolphin.
Your "I don't know ... DNA done it" explanation is more scientific than the "I don't know ... God done it" explanation, but not by much.
a meat-cracker gourmand it may be impossible but for the intelligent of our species who study these things it's easy to understand. Easy as a piece of tail. And when it comes to believing between you and them I'll go with them.
I take your point and I thank you for the correction.
To a layman simply looking at photos and diagrams, there seems to be no distinction between the spine and tail of most whales and dolphins.
In the case of a sperm whale, however, there is a very obvious distinction between its spine and tail ... and not only that, the alleged vestigial (remote) pelvis is located close to the spine/tail junction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 758 by AZPaul3, posted 08-25-2022 11:48 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 764 by xongsmith, posted 08-26-2022 11:09 PM Dredge has not replied
 Message 765 by AZPaul3, posted 08-26-2022 11:45 PM Dredge has not replied
 Message 777 by dwise1, posted 08-28-2022 1:06 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1672
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 763 of 801 (896934)
08-26-2022 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 760 by Admin
08-26-2022 6:01 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.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 769 by dwise1, posted 08-27-2022 5:54 AM Dredge has replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2267
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 764 of 801 (896935)
08-26-2022 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 762 by Dredge
08-26-2022 10:25 PM


Re: what did it?
dredge writes:
Your "I don't know ... DNA done it" explanation is more scientific than the "I don't know ... God done it" explanation, but not by much.
if you allow for a neutral God to make random changes to the DNA molecules by having them exist in an atomic world of random fluctuations at the quantum level and then dispassionately watching the results without interfering, then you have close to the Deist god and the difference is even less.
your whining about lack of detail in the whale pelvis is like complaining about rolling a 5 instead of a 6 on a fair die. Why a 5? no reason, other than it's one of six possible results.
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. Why add one unless you want to fool people into giving you money?

"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 762 by Dredge, posted 08-26-2022 10:25 PM Dredge has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 7016
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


(3)
Message 765 of 801 (896936)
08-26-2022 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 762 by Dredge
08-26-2022 10:25 PM


Re: Dredge Doesn't Think
DNA determines and thus can alter morpholgy, but that does nothing to explain how natural selection and what environmental pressures acted to remove the entire pelvis from the spine of the whale's alleged evolutionary ancestor (something like Pakicetus) and relocate it elsewhere in the body.
You asked how the legs could go bye-bye and get replaced by a tail. If you understood the way these things work you would know DNA does it. Does it all.
Natural selection and your redundadundant environmental pressures either accept the changes DNA wrought or not.
I know you're lost at this point but natural selection and your redundadundant environmental pressures are reflected in the number of babies made. So as legs gave way to bulbous tails gaining advantage in their ocean world those bulbous-tailed whales had lots of little bulbous-tailed whale babies.
That's evolution. It doesn't matter what you think of it. The demonstrable facts, and thus all the proof you seek, are known and verified. We know how and you don't.
The rest of your post, as always, is just more ignorance of the topic and stupidity in interpretation. Not worth a cracker's worth of energy to answer with or without god meat.
To a layman simply looking at photos and diagrams, there seems to be no distinction between the spine and tail of most whales and dolphins.
In the case of a sperm whale, however, there is a very obvious distinction between its spine and tail ... and not only that, the alleged vestigial (remote) pelvis is located close to the spine/tail junction.
This is one reason the observations of untrained religious motivated cracker-headed laymen are given such high regard.
Yes. Does a different evolutionary outcome for a different evolutionary organism surprise you? Are you going to go off about the seeming inconsistency between close lineages? Separated by millions of years?
If you understood evolution you would know this seeming inconsistency is consistent throughout all organisms. That's one reason there are sooo many types of beetles.
The joke goes god really loved beetles so he made so many different ones. Actually that was Gia's doing. She was left to do it all. That jehovah guy was off raping some little jewish girl at the time.

Edited by AZPaul3, .


Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 762 by Dredge, posted 08-26-2022 10:25 PM Dredge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 766 by Tanypteryx, posted 08-27-2022 12:25 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022