Vestiges for Peter B.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

​

We are way off topic Schraf, so I am going to drop this. But I want to note that basically what I propose boils down to using discretion in the matter, just as in your last sentence.

​

---

Discretion?

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

​

We are way off topic Schraf, so I am going to drop this. But I want to note that basically what I propose boils down to using discretion in the matter, just as in your last sentence.

​

---

​

Discretion?

---

If you follow the thread, Shraf made a statement to the effect that a judge's discretion should come into play in some circumstances, which is the functional equivalent of the proposal I made in my now much maligned little article.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

It's all very interesting, but is it vestigial?

Originally posted by John:If you follow the thread, Shraf made a statement to the effect that a judge's discretion should come into play in some circumstances, which is the functional equivalent of the proposal I made in my now much maligned little article. [/B]In a case like this this so-called discretion of the judge would still be as subject. A smart, but not truly mature, teen could fool a judge in the same manner that a socio-path can fake emotions.
Your "article" got what it deserves.

Dear Nos,Better start reading some SCIENTIFIC work on this topic. The Y chromosome is NOT a broken X chromosome. The Y chromosome specifies unique male-specific genes.BW
Peter

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Well, I'd rather have a fairly strict, highish-age consent law if we don't have any other workable plan. I would also want judges to be able to use discretion in the case of obvious peers such as the 16 and 19 year old couple you used as an example.

---

​

We are way off topic Schraf, so I am going to drop this. But I want to note that basically what I propose boils down to using discretion in the matter, just as in your last sentence.

​

---

OK, that's fine to drop it, so maybe we can resume in the misc. topics?The logical conclusion to your idea that we use disretion alone and that consent laws are completely useless is that we will use discretion in every case, including the case of an adult having sex with a 6 year old.That's why we need a cutoff somewhere, and that's exactly what age of consent laws are.Consistent they may not be, but we need them.

dear SLPx,I think you missed my message (#27).Peter

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Nos,

​

Better start reading some SCIENTIFIC work on this topic. The Y chromosome is NOT a broken X chromosome. The Y chromosome specifies unique male-specific genes.

​

BW
Peter

---

Maybe, but just have a look at it itself. It looks more like an X than a Y. The break may have caused certain mutations afterwards.

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Nos,

​

Better start reading some SCIENTIFIC work on this topic. The Y chromosome is NOT a broken X chromosome. The Y chromosome specifies unique male-specific genes.

​

BW
Peter

---

You to....that is not all there is to the YGraves JA, Wakefield MJ, Toder R.
The origin and evolution of the pseudoautosomal regions of human sex chromosomes.
Hum Mol Genet. 1998 Dec;7(13):1991-6. Review.Graves JA.
The origin and function of the mammalian Y chromosome and Y-borne genes--an evolving understanding.
Bioessays. 1995 Apr;17(4):311-20. ReviewRappold GA.
The pseudoautosomal regions of the human sex chromosomes.
Hum Genet. 1993 Oct;92(4):315-24. Review.

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear SLPx,

​

Sorry for skimming your post to quickly. I missed that you refered to this small muscle. However, as long as this muscle (and the other one you refered to) do not demonstrate signs of atrophy --yes you have to show me the references where they demonstrate that these muscles are atrophic-- these muscles are not vestiges.

---

I am sorry that I forgot that as az creationist, you will provide all sorts of personal definitions and then demand that everything meet your personal definitions.
Allow me to explain:The extensor coccygis is not even present in all people. Indeed, most modern anatomy texts do not even list it or describe it.
Before I waste time with this, I will have to see evidence that you understand the terms I will be using, and have an understanding of anatomy. You failed utterly in your treatment of the foramen magnum, for example.
I am an anatomist by education, so I do have a solid understanding here.
Do you understand what extension is?
Do you understand what muscles do?Lets hope so. If you do, then we can proceed.

quote:

---

I like you to have alook at the following Nature paper on alleged vestigal muscles in the horse. They turned out to be crucial in dampening of vibrations (Wilson et al, Nature 414, p895, 2001, and the comments on this topic by Alexander in the same issue).

---

I am all a tingle that you were able to search the lit and find this amazing disproof of all vestigial structures.However, this has nothing to do with the extensor coccygis or the auricularis group of muscles.

quote:

---

Best wishes, (and remember: there are no vestiges, science will proof that)

​

Peter

---

You have the overconfidence of a creationist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
In a case like this this so-called discretion of the judge would still be as subject. A smart, but not truly mature, teen could fool a judge in the same manner that a socio-path can fake emotions.
Your "article" got what it deserves.

---

Do you not understand that a smart teen capable of willful deception would, in a US court of law, be considered mature enough to stand trial as an adult in, for example, a murder case? Yet this same teen is not mature enough to decide to f#%k? Really, nos, that is absurd.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Do you not understand that a smart teen capable of willful deception would, in a US court of law, be considered mature enough to stand trial as an adult in, for example, a murder case? Yet this same teen is not mature enough to decide to f#%k? Really, nos, that is absurd.

---

I am teaching my 15yo son to drive - he can't wait to be on the roads unsupervised and already has his eyes on my beloved Alfa Spider. Believe me, right now sex and drugs seem like relatively harmless options!

Originally posted by John:Do you not understand that a smart teen capable of willful deception would, in a US court of law, be considered mature enough to stand trial as an adult in, for example, a murder case? Yet this same teen is not mature enough to decide to f#%k? Really, nos, that is absurd.

​

That has more to do with people wanting some kind of "justice" for out of hand children than any real sign of maturity. It is wrong to try children as adults. Texas wants to execute the mentally incompetant as well. They'd probably execute children if they could.No nation can truly call itself civilized which still executes its own citizens.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-20-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:

I am teaching my 15yo son to drive - he can't wait to be on the roads unsupervised and already has his eyes on my beloved Alfa Spider. Believe me, right now sex and drugs seem like relatively harmless options!

​

---

LOL------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

Dear SLPx,You write,"The extensor coccygis is not even present in all people. Indeed, most modern anatomy texts do not even list it or describe it.
Before I waste time with this, I will have to see evidence that you understand the terms I will be using, and have an understanding of anatomy. You failed utterly in your treatment of the foramen magnum, for example.My response:
"I did not treat the foramen magnum (yet)."I am an anatomist by education, so I do have a solid understanding here.My reply:
"Ever heard of the thymus? It used to be seen as a rudimentary organ that was not to be found in all subjects studies. Especially the older subjects. Why? Since it is primarily an organ used for the instruction of immune cells, and decays away afterwards. Of course it was eagerly taken as proof for evolution and presented as a vestigial organ. It turned out to be nothing but conclusion jumping (=unwarranted)."Do you understand what extension is?
Do you understand what muscles do?Lets hope so. If you do, then we can proceed."My response:
"Do you know what underestimating is?"In response to my:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I like you to have alook at the following Nature paper on alleged vestigal muscles in the horse. They turned out to be crucial in dampening of vibrations (Wilson et al, Nature 414, p895, 2001, and the comments on this topic by Alexander in the same issue).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------You say:
"I am all a tingle that you were able to search the lit and find this amazing disproof of all vestigial structures."I say:
"Excellent distortion. Where do I say that it disproofs all vestigial structures. It proofs however that the EVOLUTIONARY VISION ON THESE MUSCLES WAS WRONG"However, this has nothing to do with the extensor coccygis or the auricularis group of muscles.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Best wishes, (and remember: there are no vestiges, science will proof that)
Peter--------------------------------------------------------------------------------You have the overconfidence of a creationist.I say:
"And this is another unwarranted conclusion. Besides, you didn't address my major concern"Cheers (see you in the new thread)
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 09-22-2002]