Vestiges for Peter B.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
It all depends on the cultural norms and other things such as population size, educational systems, male to female ratio, experience from observed behaviors at certain age levels, etc.

---

Wow.... you made a lot of words say nothing. You must be very proud.

quote:

---

It is not as simple as you would want it to be.

---

Interesting statement coming from someone who answers my question of when we become adults with "In the USA its 21"

quote:

---

Sorry, but it seems that the cops won't be letting you bonk any young teenage girls any time soon and we can see just how much you want to do that.

---

You honestly cannot follow an argument, can you? You haven't even figured out what the argument is about.oh... and as much fun as I've had watching you make an idiot of yourself, I am really tired of this crap.... so...you've just become irrelevant.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
It all depends on the cultural norms and other things such as population size, educational systems, male to female ratio, experience from observed behaviors at certain age levels, etc.

---

​

Wow.... you made a lot of words say nothing. You must be very proud.

​

quote:

---

It is not as simple as you would want it to be.

---

​

Interesting statement coming from someone who answers my question of when we become adults with "In the USA its 21"

​

quote:

---

Sorry, but it seems that the cops won't be letting you bonk any young teenage girls any time soon and we can see just how much you want to do that.

---

​

You honestly cannot follow an argument, can you? You haven't even figured out what the argument is about.

​

oh... and as much fun as I've had watching you make an idiot of yourself, I am really tired of this crap.... so...

​

you've just become irrelevant.

​

---

Of course I know what this arguement is about. You want to be legally able to bonk underage girls and you are angry that society won't let you. Why don't you try Thailand, I hear that they don't have an age of consent there.

dear Joe,
I am trying to publish on this topic. I've send a letter to Nature on non-random mutation, and I got it back: rejected. So, not yet any manuscripts accepted. Of course, I could get it in a creationist's journal, but that is not what I want. I like to have it real scientific impact. So, I am still working on it. But, as mentioned before it is hard to fight an established paradigm.Best wishes,
Peter

Dear Schraf,It is just a matter of paradigm. The guys from the AiG overstress the functional bit (because it has been designed and it is in decay now), while evo's overstress the redundant, functionless bit (since it evolved and is a leftover from ancient times).Luckely I can see through both paradigms,Peter

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Schraf,

​

It is just a matter of paradigm. The guys from the AiG overstress the functional bit (because it has been designed and it is in decay now), while evo's overstress the redundant, functionless bit (since it evolved and is a leftover from ancient times).

​

Luckely I can see through both paradigms,

​

Peter

---

No, the AiG people have their facts wrong. It's not just that they have a different perspective, which is true, but it's that they are simply wrong, and they also leave out facts which point away from design.They are counting on the fact that very few people have intimate knowledge of horse anatomy (unlike me), and that's why they can say things like "the splint bones support the foot bones" with a straight face. They should be embarrassed and ashamed.How does the evolutionary explanation "overstress" anything? It simply examines all the evidence, including fossil evidence of the ancestors of the modern Equus, and makes an observation.You know, sometimes modern horses are actually born with additional bones/limbs on their legs. Did you know that? Why do you think that is? Could it be that Equine ancestors used to have multiple digits and every once in a while the DNA that codes for that structure gets "turned on" again?How, exactly, do you explain this in non-evolutionary terms?Here is a link to a wonderful radiograph of vestigial toes in a modern horse:http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/...leo/pony11_1/Pe111.html#AtavismsAlso, why do you think that the splint bones articulate the knee joint if they never a weight-bearing part of the leg? How do you explain this without using evolutionary mechanisms?[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-24-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
No, the AiG people have their facts wrong. It's not just that they have a different perspective, which is true, but it's that they are simply wrong, and they also leave out facts which point away from design.

---

You know, Wordswordsman, is arguing this same "its just a different perspective" viewpoint.

quote:

---

that's why they can say things like "the splint bones support the foot bones" with a straight face. They should be embarrassed and ashamed.

---

That little dim shadow on the right side of the picture you posted and next to the big bone, is that the splint bone (that holds the foot bones)?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

dear Schraf,You say:
"No, the AiG people have their facts wrong. It's not just that they have a different perspective, which is true, but it's that they are simply wrong, and they also leave out facts which point away from design."I say:
"Leaving out facts is also a common habit to popularise the hype of evolution. For instance, gene trees not matching family trees. I proposed several times to discuss the IL-1 beta genes so if you like..."And you say:
They are counting on the fact that very few people have intimate knowledge of horse anatomy (unlike me), and that's why they can say things like "the splint bones support the foot bones" with a straight face. They should be embarrassed and ashamed.I say:
Same can be said about evolutionists. I checked several evolutionists' claims that could not hold (entirely) and posted them here.You say:
How does the evolutionary explanation "overstress" anything? It simply examines all the evidence, including fossil evidence of the ancestors of the modern Equus, and makes an observation.I say:
There is also Spetner's book. The odds that the story on horse evolution is the whole story (without directed mechanisms) is highly disputable.You say:
You know, sometimes modern horses are actually born with additional bones/limbs on their legs. Did you know that? Why do you think that is? Could it be that Equine ancestors used to have multiple digits and every once in a while the DNA that codes for that structure gets "turned on" again?I say:
'Some humans are born with 6 fingers, or with facial hair. It has nothing to do with atavistic traits. It could be explained as deregulations of genes involved in developmental control, or even redundant genes that are activated in response to some external signals.
Also, some humans grow hairs on the middle-bone of their fingers other haven't, or some are able to curl their tongs while others can't. This reflect genetic variation of the multipurpose genome.'How, exactly, do you explain this in non-evolutionary terms?I say:
"With a multipurpose genome."Here is a link to a wonderful radiograph of vestigial toes in a modern horse:http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/...leo/pony11_1/Pe111.html#AtavismsAlso, why do you think that the splint bones articulate the knee joint if they never a weight-bearing part of the leg? How do you explain this without using evolutionary mechanisms?I say:
"Activation of the wrong (redundant) genes during development. If activation of these genes don't jeopardize the reproduction of the organism, why not. Eventually, these redundant genes may decay away, and will shape the ultimate form of the hippus. Than the organism is finished"Best wishes,
Peter

Hi Peter:

quote:

---

I say:
"Leaving out facts is also a common habit to popularise the hype of evolution. For instance, gene trees not matching family trees. I proposed several times to discuss the IL-1 beta genes so if you like..."

---

Sorry to butt in here. Would you remind those of us in the peanut gallery about the gist of your argument concerning interleukin-1 genes is again? I vaguely remember you mentioning it on some thread or other, but can't for the life of me find it. Thanks.

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
dear Joe,
I am trying to publish on this topic. I've send a letter to Nature on non-random mutation, and I got it back: rejected. So, not yet any manuscripts accepted. Of course, I could get it in a creationist's journal, but that is not what I want. I like to have it real scientific impact. So, I am still working on it. But, as mentioned before it is hard to fight an established paradigm.

​

Best wishes,
Peter

---

JM: Of course, the alternative answer is that your paper was not Nature material. Nature rejects many manuscripts, there are other places one can publish. Don't start with the conspiracy because you got a paper rejected. You'll quit before you start. Did Nature send your article out for review or was it rejected by the board? If you got reviews, you can use the critiques to sharpen your argument. If the board rejected it, why not try a different journal. Don't resort automatically to conspiracy.CheersJoe Meert

Originally posted by Joe Meert:JM: Of course, the alternative answer is that your paper was not Nature material. Nature rejects many manuscripts, there are other places one can publish. Don't start with the conspiracy because you got a paper rejected. You'll quit before you start. Did Nature send your article out for review or was it rejected by the board? If you got reviews, you can use the critiques to sharpen your argument. If the board rejected it, why not try a different journal. Don't resort automatically to conspiracy.Like most creationists he likes to start at the top instead of working his way up through a gradual process and adapting his paper because it is perfect already. Unlike a Creationist's journal Nature does have standards and they won't publish just any thing sent to them.

AiG?My, Peter B., your true colors are showing.Do we have yet another claim of a conspiracy? Gene trees do not match species trees (on occasion)?Well, shiver me timbers, Peter B! That is not a secret, it is well known, oft discussed, and well understood.Yet anohter example of the creationist taking tidbits of information in areas that they have minimal knowledge in and trying to make something out of it.Sure, "Peter B", I will discuss the IL beta gene trees, and anything else you would like to.But, so as not to waste my time, you will need to demonstrate that you have a basic understanding of the topic.
It gets annoying when one's opponant sees no problem conflating terms and concepts and haphazardly using terminology.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SLPx:
AiG?

​

My, Peter B., your true colors are showing.

​

Do we have yet another claim of a conspiracy? Gene trees do not match species trees (on occasion)?

​

Well, shiver me timbers, Peter B! That is not a secret, it is well known, oft discussed, and well understood.

​

---

Indeed.In fact a "species tree" is already a concensus of other trees, I have mentioned coalescent theory to PB, alas to no effect. So, armed with the KNOWLEDGE of why all trees don't necessarily match, why would ONE gene tree that doesn't match precisely, falsify a conclusion based on several trees?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
No, the AiG people have their facts wrong. It's not just that they have a different perspective, which is true, but it's that they are simply wrong, and they also leave out facts which point away from design.

---

​

You know, Wordswordsman, is arguing this same "its just a different perspective" viewpoint.

​

quote:

---

that's why they can say things like "the splint bones support the foot bones" with a straight face. They should be embarrassed and ashamed.

---

​

That little dim shadow on the right side of the picture you posted and next to the big bone, is that the splint bone (that holds the foot bones)?

​

---

Yes. The big bone is called the cannon bone and it is the remaining modified tarsal bone. The splint bones are thin little bones, unattached to the cannon, which articulate the knee joint and run down the back/side of the cannon bone.There is a pretty good drawing of the splint bones on the AiG page I linked to, but I think the artist exaggerated the size of the splint bones. I have never felt them or seen them so big on live horses or skeletons.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by peter borger:
[B]dear Schraf,You say:
"No, the AiG people have their facts wrong. It's not just that they have a different perspective, which is true, but it's that they are simply wrong, and they also leave out facts which point away from design."

quote:

---

I say:
"Leaving out facts is also a common habit to popularise the hype of evolution. For instance, gene trees not matching family trees. I proposed several times to discuss the IL-1 beta genes so if you like..."

---

We are talking about the AiG site, and that they have made glaring errors. Care to address this?And you say:
They are counting on the fact that very few people have intimate knowledge of horse anatomy (unlike me), and that's why they can say things like "the splint bones support the foot bones" with a straight face. They should be embarrassed and ashamed.

quote:

---

I say:
Same can be said about evolutionists. I checked several evolutionists' claims that could not hold (entirely) and posted them here.

---

See above.So far, you haven't actually made a case for any of your objections. As others have said, you simply say that the "conclusions are unwarranted" but never say why or how.You say:
How does the evolutionary explanation "overstress" anything? It simply examines all the evidence, including fossil evidence of the ancestors of the modern Equus, and makes an observation.

quote:

---

I say:
There is also Spetner's book. The odds that the story on horse evolution is the whole story (without directed mechanisms) is highly disputable.

---

Nobody claims that the story of horse evolution, or the story of the evolution of any species, is the whole story!What other explanation do you have for the splint bones?You say:
You know, sometimes modern horses are actually born with additional bones/limbs on their legs. Did you know that? Why do you think that is? Could it be that Equine ancestors used to have multiple digits and every once in a while the DNA that codes for that structure gets "turned on" again?

quote:

---

I say:
'Some humans are born with 6 fingers, or with facial hair. It has nothing to do with atavistic traits. It could be explained as deregulations of genes involved in developmental control, or even redundant genes that are activated in response to some external signals.
Also, some humans grow hairs on the middle-bone of their fingers other haven't, or some are able to curl their tongs while others can't. This reflect genetic variation of the multipurpose genome.'

---

You are ignoring the fossil evidence. Horse-like creatures had multiple toes. Modern horses have vestigial structures which correspond to the location of these multiple toes.How, exactly, do you explain this in non-evolutionary terms?

quote:

---

I say:
"With a multipurpose genome."

---

Then you explain everything and therefore nothing.The genome is not the be-all and end-all of evolution. There is the fossil evidence.Here is a link to a wonderful radiograph of vestigial toes in a modern horse:http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/...leo/pony11_1/Pe111.html#AtavismsAlso, why do you think that the splint bones articulate the knee joint if they never a weight-bearing part of the leg? How do you explain this without using evolutionary mechanisms?

quote:

---

I say:
"Activation of the wrong (redundant) genes during development. If activation of these genes don't jeopardize the reproduction of the organism, why not. Eventually, these redundant genes may decay away, and will shape the ultimate form of the hippus. Than the organism is finished"

---

The "ultimate form"? Please define this term.The organism is "finished?"Tell me, Peter, when an organism is "finished", will they somehow only reproduce exact copies of themselves by cloning? Because if they are going to continue to breed in the usual fashion, change is inevitable.Goodness, you are starting to spew even more nonsense.

Dear whoever,Inresponse to:"JM: Of course, the alternative answer is that your paper was not Nature material. Nature rejects many manuscripts, there are other places one can publish. Don't start with the conspiracy because you got a paper rejected. You'll quit before you start. Did Nature send your article out for review or was it rejected by the board? If you got reviews, you can use the critiques to sharpen your argument. If the board rejected it, why not try a different journal. Don't resort automatically to conspiracy.You say:
"Like most creationists he likes to start at the top instead of working his way up through a gradual process and adapting his paper because it is perfect already. "My response:
"If one finds something new, than it is a common thing in science to send it in as high as possible, and work downwards. I seems that you are not in science, since you would start submitting your findings as low as possible and than work upwards (sound like evolutionism) sorry to disappoint you, but that's not the way it works in science. It may be that you start submitting your manuscrips to the "Journal of Irreproducable Results", I don't. Besides, you can't work upwards. So, if you have a sensible contribution to the discussion, go ahead, otherwise be silent. And, thanks for the label (pretty predictive)".And you say:
"Unlike a Creationist's journal Nature does have standards and they won't publish just any thing sent to them."I say:
"Correct. So now I work downwards. Anyway, it was just a hypothesis".best wishes
Peter