|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined:
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
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.
How does denying the theory of universal common descent prevent "useful medical research"? Dredge writes:
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. I don't recall denying universal common descent. My position is, I neither deny UCD nor accept it."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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Dredge writes:
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.
No contradiction. According to taxonomy and physiology, humans are obviously more closely "related" to other mammals than they are tonon-mammals like mollusks and fish ... regardless of being "related" according to the theory of UCD. Dredge writes:
That IS the theory of UCD.
A scientist with any common sense would first experiment with insulin from mammals. ... no need for the theory UCD. Dredge writes:
Why would anybody deny science? Stupidity, I guess. Why would anyone experiment with octopus or fish insulin if they were considered toxic to humans?"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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
And a theory is an explanation of the facts. No facts --> no theory. That's mathematics, boy. You can't argue with mathematics. What I should have said is, "evolutionary relatedness" is a theory."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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5
|
You can't argue with mathematics. You underestimate the trolling ability of trolls.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
That's mathematics, boy. You can't argue with mathematics. Nah, he'll just say, "Mathematics doesn't prove anything!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Depletion deletion
Edited by Dredge, .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
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: 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:
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:
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, .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13042 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
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. Not mysterious magic ... DNA ... but, yeah that's about right, give or take a detail or two 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Not a good look admittedly, but I'm looking forward to having my editing privliges restored in the fullness of time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.4
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
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!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024