Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolving the Musculoskeletal System
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 271 of 527 (581648)
09-16-2010 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by ICdesign
09-16-2010 5:48 PM


Re: moving along
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by ICdesign, posted 09-16-2010 5:48 PM ICdesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by ICdesign, posted 09-16-2010 6:07 PM Coyote has replied

  
Strongbow
Junior Member (Idle past 4910 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 09-16-2010


Message 272 of 527 (581649)
09-16-2010 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by ICdesign
09-16-2010 5:48 PM


Re: moving along
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by ICdesign, posted 09-16-2010 5:48 PM ICdesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by ICdesign, posted 09-16-2010 6:13 PM Strongbow has replied

  
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 4797 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 273 of 527 (581650)
09-16-2010 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by Coyote
09-16-2010 5:51 PM


Re: moving along
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Coyote, posted 09-16-2010 5:51 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Coyote, posted 09-16-2010 6:29 PM ICdesign has not replied

  
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 4797 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 274 of 527 (581651)
09-16-2010 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by Strongbow
09-16-2010 5:56 PM


Re: moving along
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Strongbow, posted 09-16-2010 5:56 PM Strongbow has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Strongbow, posted 09-16-2010 10:42 PM ICdesign has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 275 of 527 (581652)
09-16-2010 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by ICdesign
09-16-2010 6:07 PM


Re: moving along
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by ICdesign, posted 09-16-2010 6:07 PM ICdesign has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 276 of 527 (581655)
09-16-2010 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by ICdesign
09-16-2010 4:39 PM


Re: Round two
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by ICdesign, posted 09-16-2010 4:39 PM ICdesign has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 277 of 527 (581656)
09-16-2010 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by ICdesign
09-16-2010 5:23 PM


Re: No. Not move on
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by ICdesign, posted 09-16-2010 5:23 PM ICdesign has not replied

  
Strongbow
Junior Member (Idle past 4910 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 09-16-2010


Message 278 of 527 (581685)
09-16-2010 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by ICdesign
09-16-2010 6:13 PM


Re: moving along
quote:
No you misunderstand the question. Please revisit Message 265
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by ICdesign, posted 09-16-2010 6:13 PM ICdesign has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 279 of 527 (581711)
09-17-2010 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by ICdesign
09-16-2010 2:29 PM


Re: Round two
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:
  1. Never include material not your own without attribution to the original source.
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:
  • two rRNAs with a total size of at least 1000 nucleotides
  • ~10 primitive adaptors of ~30 nucleotides each, in total, ~300 nucleotides
  • at least one RNA encoding a replicase, ~500 nucleotides (low bound)is required. In the above notation, n = 1800, resulting in E <10-1018.
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:
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.
NO he isn't;
"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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by ICdesign, posted 09-16-2010 2:29 PM ICdesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by ICdesign, posted 09-17-2010 7:57 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 280 of 527 (581712)
09-17-2010 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by ICdesign
09-16-2010 4:58 PM


Re: Seeking to understand basis for incredulity
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by ICdesign, posted 09-16-2010 4:58 PM ICdesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by ICdesign, posted 09-17-2010 8:11 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 283 by ICdesign, posted 09-17-2010 8:45 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 4797 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 281 of 527 (581724)
09-17-2010 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by Percy
09-17-2010 5:11 AM


Re: Round two
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Percy, posted 09-17-2010 5:11 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Percy, posted 09-17-2010 8:51 AM ICdesign has replied

  
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 4797 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 282 of 527 (581726)
09-17-2010 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by Percy
09-17-2010 5:39 AM


Re: Seeking to understand basis for incredulity
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Percy, posted 09-17-2010 5:39 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 4797 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 283 of 527 (581733)
09-17-2010 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by Percy
09-17-2010 5:39 AM


Re: Seeking to understand basis for incredulity
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Percy, posted 09-17-2010 5:39 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 284 of 527 (581735)
09-17-2010 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by ICdesign
09-17-2010 7:57 AM


Re: Round two
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by ICdesign, posted 09-17-2010 7:57 AM ICdesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by ICdesign, posted 09-17-2010 9:42 AM Percy has replied
 Message 290 by Wounded King, posted 09-17-2010 11:52 AM Percy has replied

  
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 4797 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 285 of 527 (581741)
09-17-2010 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by Percy
09-17-2010 8:51 AM


Re: Round two
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Percy, posted 09-17-2010 8:51 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Percy, posted 09-17-2010 10:12 AM ICdesign has not replied
 Message 287 by Theodoric, posted 09-17-2010 10:23 AM ICdesign has not replied
 Message 289 by Huntard, posted 09-17-2010 10:52 AM ICdesign has not replied
 Message 296 by Dr Jack, posted 09-17-2010 1:35 PM ICdesign has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024