|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4826 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolving the Musculoskeletal System | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I know we have more bones in our feet. Sounds like this is on topic then. Could you cite for me the additional bones in our feet that were not in ape feet? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Strongbow Junior Member (Idle past 4938 days) Posts: 26 Joined: |
I'm not sure I accept the initial claim. You can't say that something doesn't have a competitive advantage without knowing the selection pressure.
Having said that we have the same basic body plan as lobefin fish. We don't have any body "parts" (based, at least, on my definition of such a vague word) that can't be traced directly to an analogous structure in fish.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICdesign Member (Idle past 4826 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined: |
Coyote writes: Could you cite for me the additional bones in our feet that were not in ape feet? Your right and I was wrong on this one Coyote. I was thinking we had MORE bones but they are just shaped different....my bad Here is an interesting site that explains the differences; Just a moment... Thanks,IC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICdesign Member (Idle past 4826 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined: |
Strongbow writes: We don't have any body "parts" (based, at least, on my definition of such a vague word) that can't be traced directly to an analogous structure in fish. No you misunderstand the question. Please revisit Message 265 Respectfully,IC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Your right and I was wrong on this one Coyote. I was thinking we had MORE bones but they are just shaped different....my bad Bones are one of my specialties. In my beginning osteology class I learned to identify all the bones of the wrist and ankle (identifying which bone and which side) behind my back from feel alone. Primate bones are remarkably similar to one another.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
Yeah, OK Crashfrog whatever you say. Look, it's not me, it's Koonin. It's a direct quote from the paper you cited approvingly. You did read the paper, didn't you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
If you guys disagree the chance of life occurring by natural processes is 1 in 10 followed by 1018 zeros then post what you come up with. This paper does not present a "chance of life", it presents a chance of protein-based life occurring spontaneously, which basically nobody is saying happened except Koonin. And Koonin believes that despite being so unlikely, it happened an infinite number of times. Are you so sure you want to hang your hat on this Koonin paper? Think carefully.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Strongbow Junior Member (Idle past 4938 days) Posts: 26 Joined: |
quote: No.... I don't think so..... The quote you posted said no "new body parts" would evolve on complex creatures since they wouldn't offer a competitive advantage. You doubted such a claim since fish and apes are complex creatures, and yet they have descendant species. I gather that you are implying that "new body parts" HAVE evolved. First off, I find the original post troublesome for three reasons. 1) What constitutes a "new body part?" Does an extra digit count? 2) What constitutes a "complex" creature? and 3) How can anyone say anything doesn't offer a competitive if one does not know the selective pressures? You make the error, I think, of assuming he was saying body parts wouldn't evolve. If that's not what you're saying, please clarify, as that's all I can imagine you were asserting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Wow, ICDESIGN, what a spectacular collection of errors!
Let me start by addressing your most egregious error, which was posting a cut-n-paste as if it were your own. The three paragraphs after the quote from me are a cut-n-paste from this webpage at Intelligent Design Evidence:
This is rule 7 from the Forum Guidelines:
Your next error was to not check your source. The paper did not appear in Biology Today. I think there may have been a magazine called Biology Today years ago, but whatever the case, it no longer exists. Biology-Today.com is a website containing a number of short unattributed articles about biology. It is not a peer reviewed journal, and you can't find Koonin's paper there anyway. Koonin's paper is at Biology Direct, which is an on-line open source journal with no real peer review and whose Editor-in-Chief is (gasp!) Eugene V. Koonin himself! My God, this is like a Russian enigma but done with chicanery instead of mystery. You post an unattributed cut-n-paste of an erroneous attribution of a paper published at a website run by the paper's author and where in the paper he just makes things up (more about this in a second). What an unbelievable chain of, uh, I'll be polite, errors! You can't make up stuff like this. Onifre, get over here, lots of material for your next routine! The paper itself can be found here:
Here's your quote from the paper, which your plagiarized text described as a conclusion but which actually appears in the appendix. I've taken the quote from the paper itself instead of your plagiarized version in order to give it the original formatting:
Koonin writes: The requirements for the emergence of a primitive, coupled replication-translation system, which is considered a candidate for the breakthrough stage in this paper, are much greater. At a minimum, spontaneous formation of:
Note that he's talking about "spontaneous formation." No one believes the first replicator came about spontaneously. As we keep telling you over and over and over again, the evolution of life, including the development of pre-life prior to what could properly be called life, occurred gradually. No serious origins-of-life researcher believes there were huge, sudden and very unlikely leaps. Koonin, despite his position at the NCBI, cannot be considered a serious origins-of-life researcher. For proof I offer as evidence these pictures of Koonin and commedian Louis CK:
Coincidence? I don't think so! Koonin is obviously Louis CK pulling a fast one in the style of Andy Kaufman! Seriously, it is easy to believe that the spontaneous formation of anything complex is incredibly unlikely. That's why few believe it was a factor in the origin of life. By the way, when you say this in a subsequent reply to Nwr:
ICDESIGN writes: nwr writes:
NO he isn't;
I'm not sure why it is not clear to you, but what Percy is suggesting as a first "organism" is far more primitive than what Koonin is discussing. "That is, the chance of life occurring by natural processes is 1 in 10 followed by 1018 zeros." Both Percy and Koonin were talking about 1st life. So you are full of poopoo cahcah You're wrong about what I was saying, and you're even wrong about what Koonin was saying because your second quote is not of Koonin but of the website you plagiarized. Your determination to be wrong about so many things is awe inspiring! But this thread isn't about the origin of life. It's about the origin of complex structures like the musculoskeletal system, which however it happened all actual scientists believed occurred gradually in tiny steps. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar. Edited by Percy, : Fix superscript.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
ICDESIGN writes: OK, moving on... Moving on? YOU'RE MOVING ON!! After that spectacular display of plagiarism, misrepresentation and uncomprehension you're just going to ignore it and move on? Unable to comprehend Koonin (about whom Crashfrog is right when he says the site you plagiarized from misconstrued the point of the paper - I didn't bother you correcting you on that point because my post was already running long) and apparently totally uninterested in reading the paper yourself you instead just quote him over and over again as if senselessly wielding a cross to ward off the devil. And now you're just going to toss it all and move on? If nothing else could you at least learn from this that you should verify your sources, and read and understand what you're referencing. Seriously, do you really expect to get anywhere when you so determinedly fail to understand what you're talking about? Ignorance never wins any arguments, although the other side often just has to throw up their hands and give up.
I am curious about this statement. Isn't a fish a complex creature? Wasn't the Ape already complex when we evolved from it? Why don't you find something in apes that doesn't exist in fish and we'll talk about that. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICdesign Member (Idle past 4826 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined: |
Percy writes: Never include material not your own without attribution to the original source. Wow Percy, I couldn't help but wonder if you were actually crying as you posted your venom.If you look at Message 267 you'll see that I did list the source I was quoting from. which is an on-line open source journal with no real peer review
I see 4 peer reviews listed.
[qs]Note that he's talking about "spontaneous formation." No one believes the first replicator came about spontaneously.[qs]
OK, I thought that is what you were trying to say in Message 172[qs]The first "organism" was probably just a collection of chemicals held within some kind of membrane, and that "organism" was "fully formed."[qs] You weren't saying this collection of chemicals spontaneously formed this organism then? IC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICdesign Member (Idle past 4826 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined: |
Percy writes: Why don't you find something in apes that doesn't exist in fish and we'll talk about that ....I would have to look into that. I know their are some pretty weird fish. ...all I had stated was I didn't understand what you had meant by that statement about complex creatures not evolving body parts......you guys need to lighten up a little around here. IC Edited by ICDESIGN, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICdesign Member (Idle past 4826 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined: |
Percy writes: Why don't you find something in apes that doesn't exist in fish and we'll talk about that We could start with earlobes, eyelids and a nose. IC Edited by ICDESIGN, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
ICDESIGN writes: Wow Percy, I couldn't help but wonder if you were actually crying as you posted your venom. You commit plagiarism and this is the closest you can come to contrition? Tell me, do you really have no sense of right or wrong? No conscience?
If you look at Message 267 you'll see that I did list the source I was quoting from. Aren't you forgetting to mention that Theodoric had already called you out on your plagiarism? I guess we can now add dissembling to the list. ICDESIGN, I'm sure you consider yourself an honest and responsible person, but if you want other people to think the same then you have to behave that way. No more plagiarism, okay? No more quoting sites without first vetting what they say, okay?
I see 4 peer reviews listed. I know Koonin's website calls them peer reviews, but those are just reviews. Peer reviews are conducted prior to publication and play a significant role in whether a paper is published, the reviewers are anonymous, and their comments are not made public. Plus Koonin is editor-in-chief of Biology Direct. What is your problem that you see no shenanigans? Has anyone else here ever cited a paper whose author was also editor-in-chief of the journal that published it? Just you so far, right?
OK, I thought that is what you were trying to say in Message 172 The first "organism" was probably just a collection of chemicals held within some kind of membrane, and that "organism" was "fully formed." You weren't saying this collection of chemicals spontaneously formed this organism then? Something as complex as that? Of course I wasn't saying it formed spontaneously. How many times in this thread have I (and everyone else) told you that things happen gradually and not in sudden large leaps? This "organism" had a simpler predecessor which itself had a simpler predecessor which itself had a simpler predecessor and so on. The sudden leap that Koonin postulates is a creationist idea. The only thing I can say in his defense is that he probably wanted as unlikely a scenario as possible in order to best make the point that in an infinite number of universes it would make no difference how unlikely it might be, it would still be inevitable. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICdesign Member (Idle past 4826 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined: |
No more plagiarism, okay? I wasn't purposely committing plagiarism. You guys act like I was trying to pull a fast one and I wasn't at all. I thought I gave the necessary references but I was obviously wrong. That seems to be the unpardonable sin around here. It seems to be no problem to blaspheme the Holy Spirit left and right around here but hey, don't you ever post information without showing where it came from. I will just retract that submission altogether. Its not a major issue to me. I do have other questions about the first fully formed organism but it is too far off topic for this thread.
I'm sure you consider yourself an honest and responsible person Yes I do. I would have a stroke if I ever heard one of you evolutionists admit to being wrong about anything or admitting there is something you don't know. IC
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024