Vestiges for Peter B.

I am sure that John's choice of title for his essay on the age of consent is one that he chose to catch people's eye and make them read it, althouh I think it probably attracts many more males than females. Most women I know would automatically skip over it because it is immediately repugnant and implies writing that is probably going to be distasteful to women, true or not. I know I did just that when I went to his website for the first time.Oh, and John, I have to say that the picture of your demon/hot chick is the kind of thing sold at gaming conventions that geeky computer nerds who can't get a date have hanging in their bedrooms. Not horribly offensive to me, but still pretty cartoonish and the kind of thing that I tend to think appeals to men who still have um, teenage-type sex fantasies.Sorry.As for the age of consent stuff...http://www.darkness2light.org/generic.jhtml?pid=74"Teen Pregnancy and Child Sexual AbuseA number of studies have documented the connections between child sexual exploitation/abuse and teen pregnancy. Data from the National Survey of Children indicate that about 18 percent of women 17 and younger who had intercourse had been forced to do so at least once (Nonvoluntary Sexual Activity Among Adolescents, 21 Family Planning Perspectives 110, 1989). A 1992 report of a Washington state study of 535 teen mothers revealed that the first pregnancies of 62 percent of the participants were preceded by experiences of molestation, rape, or attempted rape. The mean age of their offenders was 27.4 years ("Sexual Abuse as a Factor in Adolescent Pregnancy and Child Maltreatment," 24(1) Family Planning Perspectives 4, Jan./Feb. 1992). A 1986 study of 445 teen mothers in Chicago reported that 60 percent claimed they had been forced to have an unwanted sexual experience, with a mean age for the first incidence of abuse being 11 ("The Prevalence of Coercive Sexual Experiences Among Teenage Mothers," Journal of Interpersonal Violence 4:204 (1989). The Alan Guttmacher Institute reports that over 40 percent of mothers aged 15-17 had sexual partners three to five years older; almost one in five had partners six or more years older. With teen mothers in the 15-17 age range, 49.2 percent of the fathers were between ages 20 and 29 (Family Planning Perspectives, July/August 1995). The National Center for Health Statistics reported that based on 1991 data, almost 70 percent of babies born to teenage mothers were fathered by men 20 years of age or older (Advance Report of Final Natality Statistics, 1991. Monthly Vital Statistics Report, vol. 42, no. 3, Supplement 9. National Center for Health Statistics, Sept. 1993). A 1990 study of births to California teens reported that the younger the adolescent mother, the greater the age gap with her male partner. For example, among mothers aged 11- 12, the average age of the fathers was nearly 10 years older (California Resident Live Births, 1990, by Age of Father, by Age of Mother, California Vital Statistics Section, Department of Heath Services, 1992). The Bureau of Justice Statistics reported in 1994 that in the 12 states with sufficient information to distinguish juvenile from adult rape victims, the majority (51 percent) of female rape victims were under age 18, more than twice their representation in the nation's population. In the three states that kept data on relationships between victims and offenders in rape cases with victims ages 12-17, a full 20 percent of perpetrators were identified as family members, while 65 percent were acquaintances or "friends" of the child victim (Child Rape Victims, 1992, U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, June 1994)."[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-12-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
Hi Schraf,

​

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Oh, and John, I have to say that the picture of your demon/hot chick is the kind of thing sold at gaming conventions that geeky computer nerds who can't get a date have hanging in their bedrooms. Not horribly offensive to me, but still pretty cartoonish and the kind of thing that I tend to think appeals to men who still have um, teenage-type sex fantasies.

---

​

I have no problem with that actually. I realize the stupidity of it. I've learned not to take myself too seriously. I can get very arrogant, so I tone myself down with cheesie stuff.

​

quote:

---

As for the age of consent stuff...

---

​

Several of the items you posted involved rape-- forced sex not statutory rape. Rape ranks with murder in my book and I support vicious punishments for it. I don't understand the inclusion of this material. I haven't written a treatise in support of forced sex. The intent is not to legalize or encourage predation but to disconnect maturity from physical age.

​

Teen pregnancy is a real problem, but not one tied to the age of consent. Consent, in giving some power to teen girls, might actually help curb teen pregnancy. Just a thought. It seems that, within limits, the more you treat kids/teens like adults, the more they act like adults.

​

Nos posted something to the effect that a high age of consent serves as a form of birth control. This is essentially what exists now and it hasn't worked so far has it?

​

I am confused as to exactly what your position is on this.

​

Take care.

​

---

Let me put it this way...Should it be automatically legal for a man to have sex with a 6 year old girl? What about a 7 year old? Is 8 years old old enough? 9? 10? 11?We have to draw the line somewhere, don't we?Age of consent laws are out there, I am sorry to say, because without them, I think that the coercive and and predatory instincts of boys and men would have even freer reign than they already have.I am not saying that all men and boys are predatory. But I, literally, do not know of a single female friend I have ever known who wasn't the recipient of unwanted sexual contact or comments delivered by a male at some point in their lives. It happens to the vast, vast majority of women and girls.I led a fairly sheltered life, but I had some pretty scary moments growing up. Remember, girls and women can be "made" to engage in intercourse where men have to be able to "perform".I remember hearing about some study...the Hite Report? (how's that for evidence? ) in which women were asked if they had ever felt pressure or coersion to have sex, and the men were asked if they had ever pressured or coerced anyone to have sex. The women reported a significantly higher percentage of having felt coreced or pressured. The men's number was significantly lower than the womens', which implies that the men were not recognizing when they were using coercive or pressuring tactics to make the women have sex with them.It is easier to manipulate the feelings and emotions of young people than older people. Many men find much. much younger girls attractive because they are socialized to and because it is just asier to get into a child's pants because she doesn't know what it's all about until it's too late.It would be great, believe me, if our clture was ready to celebrate girl's sexuality, but it isn't. It is all we can do to keep girls from being abused and raped in their own homes.

I don't think that a person's age is entirely arbitrary when it comes to being able to give consent.That's why I asked if it was OK for an adult to get consent from a 6 year old, etc.I do think that two 16 year olds having sex is very different from an 11 year old and a 19 year old.How do we judge if a person has the ability to consent, though, without lengthy sessions with a therapist? How do you know if the 14 year old girl can talk a really good game and "pass the test" just so she can go and have sex with the 24 year old guy who promises to "be hers forever" if she does.BTW, I do of course know that men can be victims of rape. It should also be noted that the vast, vast majority of rape victims are female.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
[B]

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
I don't think that a person's age is entirely arbitrary when it comes to being able to give consent.

---

​

Not entirely, but it is no determinant of maturity either.[/QUOTE]

​

But it is in part a determinant of maturity. That's why it isn't OK for an adult to have sex with a 6 year old, ever. (I know you weren't saying this)

​

All I am saying is that when we are making laws that are supposed to prevent adults from manipulating children sexually, we are going to have to err on the side of "a little bit older than is probably necessary", and we are going to have to make it pretty firm.

​

quote:

---

I do think that two 16 year olds having sex is very different from an 11 year old and a 19 year old.

---

​

Sure, but if that 19 year old had sex with a 17 year old in D.C. everything would be fine. However, if they were in California that 19 year old is going to jail. Does that really make sense to you? OR New Hampshire, a person is mature enough to consent to heterosexual activity at 16, but isn't mature enough to consent to homosexual activity until 18. Or New Mexico, one must be 17 to consent to heterosexual activity, but can consent to homosexual activity at 13? Do people truly mature at these disparate rates?

---

I do agree that this kind of thing is arbitrary and probably lags behind current developmental psychology in most cases.

quote:

---

How do we judge if a person has the ability to consent, though, without lengthy sessions with a therapist? How do you know if the 14 year old girl can talk a really good game and "pass the test" just so she can go and have sex with the 24 year old guy who promises to "be hers forever" if she does.

---

This is the most difficult question to answer.Look at it from the other direction. How do we know that a 16 year old IS capable of consent? We don't, but at that age she or he is fair game in a lot of states. Hell, I know thirty year olds not capable of consent by any standards reasonable to me.This is complicated by the fact that in Vermont, for example, "45% of child sexual abuse" is "perpetrated by children and teens." Forbidden[/QUOTE]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.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-13-2002]

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
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]

---

I agree.

Oh, oh, oh! Are we talking about horse anatomy and evolution? I have a degree in Equestrian Studies and have worked with horses for about 20 years now.Horses have a lot of obvious vestigial structures, such as the splint bones on either side of the cannon bones. They are vestigial tarsal bones left over from when horses used to have multiple digits. In fact, they articulate the knee joint at the top, but then taper away to nothing about 2/3 down the leg.A picture: Missing Link | Answers in Genesis (31)a.gifHere is what AiG says about splint bones in horses, with my comments:

quote:

---

"In particular, the horse?s splint bones serve several important functions. They strengthen the leg and foot bones, very important because of the enormous stress that galloping puts on the legs.

---

The splint bones, unless they have been through stress or traumatic injury and have therefore become calcified and fused to the cannon bone, do not provide any strength to the cannon bone because they are only floating beside the cannon, attached with connective tissue. An injury and inflammation in this area is common in young horses and is very painful.I have no idea how the splint bones could strengthen the foot bones, either, because they are nowhere near the foot bones.

quote:

---

"They also provide attachment points for important muscles. And they form a protective groove that houses the suspensory ligament, a vital elastic brace that supports the horse?s weight as it walks.24"

---

Horses can get along just fine without their splint bones, and I know this from first hand experience. In some horses the splint bones are so fine and thin that they would not provide much protection.I notice that nowhere in AiG's article do they discuss why a bone that tapers away to nothing would articulate in a joint, and they do not discuss the common inflammation and injury to splint bones in horses.Big surprise.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-24-2002]

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 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.

So, Peter, what other journals are you going to submit your letter to?Which Biology journal do your peers in the field consider to be most prestigious?Which journal did you publish your first paper in?

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Schraf,

​

Your doubt is amazing. Nothing wrong with doubt, I doubt myself a lot too. However, the first paper I published (as a second author) was in 1992 (if I recall properly). I was still a student and I did my honours on IL-4 receptor gene expression. It was published in Blood. I think it is one of the best journals on blood-related topics.
Best wishes,

​

Peter

---

So, what journals are you going to submit your current Biology work to, other than "Science"?

quote:

---

I say:
You really like to label me "creationist", isn't it. Well, maybe it is time for you to come out too. Then we can call each other "creationist" and "atheist". That would be fun!

---

Again, your Creationist slip is showing, Peter!The opposite of a Creationist is a scientist, or maybe an empiricist, not an Atheist.There are plenty of Theist scientists that reject Creationism in favor of real science.This false "either/or" dichtomy is common to Creationists.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"There are plenty of Theist scientists that reject Creationism in favor of real science."
--Without objecting to the point of your statement, I think you mean 'there are plenty of Theist scientists that reject Young Earth creationism in...'. Creationist simply (or is it majorly?)implies theist.

​

---

Actually, in the way this board and most discussions use the word, "Creationist" means someone who agrees with AIG or the ICR and is a YEC.However, yes, you are right that someone could technically be defined as a Creationist if they believe in, say, Theistic evolution, or in Deism.

Deism is the notion that God created/set the universe in motion at the begining and then let 'er rip.