RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (46) < ... 38 39 40 41 42 [43] 44 45 46 >   
  Topic: Can you do geology and junk the evolution bits ?, Anti science.< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2010,18:28   

Can we bear this kind of discussion? Or will it cause polarization, and thus seal our fate?

  
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2010,19:07   

Page fault?

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2010,19:09   

Quote (khan @ Mar. 16 2010,01:07)
Page fault?

Definitly...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Robert Byers



Posts: 160
Joined: Nov. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2010,01:42   

Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 12 2010,18:05)
Code Sample
In fact probably seals are from, perhaps, the same kind as dogs.

Well, they are placed in the caniformia rather than the feliformia. But they are a sister group to a clade composed on one had of skunks and such and on the other bears. See:



But please do enlighten us as to how you reached this conclusion.

These charts are old ideas without evidence.
I simply see kinds as needing to include many creatures because they must of been dramatic different types of creatures. So dogs and bears and even seal, perhaps, are so alike in looks that one can simply speculate they are from a original kind. of coarse I see water mammals as all post flood adaptations unlike most creationists.
Seals seem very like bears/dogs/others and so probably they are all related and just the result of a great diversity explosion after the flood.
Anatomy and behaivors and other clues can lead to this conclusion. I know marsupials are placentals and it is easy to keep on this trail of scoring creatures by the greater number of points of likeness and not by the few, even if notable, differences.
Creatures should not be seen as fixed but as in a continium until hiting the real walls of the original kinds God created.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2010,02:09   

Robert Byers:

Quote

Creatures should not be seen as fixed but as in a continium until hiting the real walls of the original kinds God created.


The question, Robert, is why should others see things that way? Is it because it accords with your narrow interpretation of scripture? If so, you should adopt a stance like that of Kurt Wise, who admits that if he weren't committed to young-earth creationism that the evidence would be convincing that the earth is old and evolution, including common descent, was a fact.

If, on the other hand, you are trying to assert that it is because the evidence supports seeing it that way, you've done nothing in the way of actually explicating anything to do with any standard of evidence that would allow someone else to see a coherent point to your assertion. When you claim that phylogenies have "no evidence" out of hand, it just makes you look completely ignorant.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2010,02:22   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 17 2010,00:09)
When you claim that phylogenies have "no evidence" out of hand, it just makes you (Robert Byers) look completely ignorant.


And I'll add, stupid.

This is not a new problem. In fact, it is an ancient problem.

Augustine of Hippo (A.D. 354-430) advised Christians trying to interpret Scripture in the light of scientific knowledge in his work "The Literal Meaning of Genesis" (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim). The following translation is by J. H. Taylor in Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41.

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. {Augustine here has referred to 1 Timothy 1.7}”

“It is therefore, causally that Scripture has said that earth brought forth the crops and trees, in the sense that it received the power of bringing them forth. In the earth from the beginning, in what I might call the roots of time, God created what was to be in times to come.”
-- Augustine of Hippo, On the literal meanings of Genesis, Book V Ch. 4:11

Or, if you prefer later Protestant theologians:

John Calvin (1509 – 1564)  on Genesis

"For to my mind this is a certain principle, that nothing is here treated of but the visible form of the world. He who would learn astronomy and the other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere.” And later he stated, “It must be remembered, that Moses does not speak with philosophical acuteness on occult mysteries, but states those things which are everywhere observed, even by the uncultivated, and which are in common use." (Calvin J., Genesis, I, 79 & 84 (1554)

Edited by Dr.GH on Mar. 17 2010,00:24

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1036
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2010,09:35   

Meanwhile, over at The Panda's Thumb Byers undermines his argument:

Quote
In any issue of determining if old bones are of humans and not apes there is a clue. The bible teaches that women uniquely have great pain at childbirth. Animals do not. This is a great anatomical reality of our women’s skeleton and so if there is a female hobbit one just needs to examine, if possible, whether she had pain at childbirth by looking at her skeleton. If so we got a daughter of Adam. if not we got a dumb old monkey.


So we can tell the difference between "monkey" and human by looking at reproduction, but not marsupial and placental?

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
tsig



Posts: 339
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2010,10:18   

Quote (Quack @ Mar. 11 2010,05:13)
I thought about posting a basic lesson in genetics for Robert but decided it would be a wasted effort. He's got a trapdoor in his brain.

Actually it's a god sized hole.

  
tsig



Posts: 339
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2010,10:26   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Mar. 12 2010,12:10)
Quote (didymos @ Mar. 12 2010,17:59)
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 12 2010,09:46)
(Wonder where he thinks monotremes fit in all this?)

They're probably in the fucking "dog kind" too.

Yeah, probably the bloody egg-laying mo-fo "dog kind"!

And watch out for those thylacines, they are probably venimous as well!

But hey! All doggy so far!

Them doggies do it all!!

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2010,11:28   

Wellllllll, doggies!

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2010,12:31   

Quote (tsig @ Mar. 20 2010,08:26)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Mar. 12 2010,12:10)
 
Quote (didymos @ Mar. 12 2010,17:59)
 
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 12 2010,09:46)
(Wonder where he thinks monotremes fit in all this?)

They're probably in the fucking "dog kind" too.

Yeah, probably the bloody egg-laying mo-fo "dog kind"!

And watch out for those thylacines, they are probably venimous as well!

But hey! All doggy so far!

Them doggies do it all!!

Someone has to say it: They do it doggie style.

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2010,17:15   

Quote (tsig @ Mar. 20 2010,10:18)
 
Quote (Quack @ Mar. 11 2010,05:13)
I thought about posting a basic lesson in genetics for Robert but decided it would be a wasted effort. He's got a trapdoor in his brain.

Actually it's a god sized hole.

Black body radiating?

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2010,18:22   

Quote (Quack @ Mar. 21 2010,17:15)
Quote (tsig @ Mar. 20 2010,10:18)
Quote (Quack @ Mar. 11 2010,05:13)
I thought about posting a basic lesson in genetics for Robert but decided it would be a wasted effort. He's got a trapdoor in his brain.
Actually it's a god sized hole.
Black body radiating?

I doubt it.

Even a Black Body emits information of some sort.

There doesn't seem to be any information emitted from that hole.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Robert Byers



Posts: 160
Joined: Nov. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2010,03:06   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 17 2010,02:09)
Robert Byers:

 
Quote

Creatures should not be seen as fixed but as in a continium until hiting the real walls of the original kinds God created.


The question, Robert, is why should others see things that way? Is it because it accords with your narrow interpretation of scripture? If so, you should adopt a stance like that of Kurt Wise, who admits that if he weren't committed to young-earth creationism that the evidence would be convincing that the earth is old and evolution, including common descent, was a fact.

If, on the other hand, you are trying to assert that it is because the evidence supports seeing it that way, you've done nothing in the way of actually explicating anything to do with any standard of evidence that would allow someone else to see a coherent point to your assertion. When you claim that phylogenies have "no evidence" out of hand, it just makes you look completely ignorant.

Its a general comment that I can't get into. its a alternative idea to justify other ideas that come up here.
I don't know if this creationist meant what he said like you said but if so he's wrong. Organized creationism has full confidence that no evidence is contrary to scripture and we can take on everything.

Yes origins is about evidence. Yet everyone does hypothesis with first a creative insight. Then later fill it out.
One can offer ideas without heaps of data behind one.

  
Robert Byers



Posts: 160
Joined: Nov. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2010,03:10   

Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 20 2010,09:35)
Meanwhile, over at The Panda's Thumb Byers undermines his argument:

 
Quote
In any issue of determining if old bones are of humans and not apes there is a clue. The bible teaches that women uniquely have great pain at childbirth. Animals do not. This is a great anatomical reality of our women’s skeleton and so if there is a female hobbit one just needs to examine, if possible, whether she had pain at childbirth by looking at her skeleton. If so we got a daughter of Adam. if not we got a dumb old monkey.


So we can tell the difference between "monkey" and human by looking at reproduction, but not marsupial and placental?

Reproduction can be different and yet not is evidence of segregated kinds.
Snakes can bear live young or by eggs yet they are still snakes.
With people there is a express intervention in nature by God to make a difference in reproduction. Animals are not affected.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2010,03:34   

Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 24 2010,03:10)
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 20 2010,09:35)
Meanwhile, over at The Panda's Thumb Byers undermines his argument:

 
Quote
In any issue of determining if old bones are of humans and not apes there is a clue. The bible teaches that women uniquely have great pain at childbirth. Animals do not. This is a great anatomical reality of our women’s skeleton and so if there is a female hobbit one just needs to examine, if possible, whether she had pain at childbirth by looking at her skeleton. If so we got a daughter of Adam. if not we got a dumb old monkey.


So we can tell the difference between "monkey" and human by looking at reproduction, but not marsupial and placental?

Reproduction can be different and yet not is evidence of segregated kinds.

What criteria are evidence for segregated kinds?

  
Bjarne



Posts: 29
Joined: Dec. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2010,03:39   

Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 24 2010,10:10)
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 20 2010,09:35)
Meanwhile, over at The Panda's Thumb Byers undermines his argument:

 
Quote
In any issue of determining if old bones are of humans and not apes there is a clue. The bible teaches that women uniquely have great pain at childbirth. Animals do not. This is a great anatomical reality of our women’s skeleton and so if there is a female hobbit one just needs to examine, if possible, whether she had pain at childbirth by looking at her skeleton. If so we got a daughter of Adam. if not we got a dumb old monkey.


So we can tell the difference between "monkey" and human by looking at reproduction, but not marsupial and placental?

Reproduction can be different and yet not is evidence of segregated kinds.
Snakes can bear live young or by eggs yet they are still snakes.
With people there is a express intervention in nature by God to make a difference in reproduction. Animals are not affected.

Please, do you have any concrete idea, how snakes give birth? You might see that the difference between vivipary (actually ovivivipary in snakes) and ovipary is minuscule.
The difference between placental and marsupial reproduction on the other hand is less so.


And Mr.Byers, how are proteins produced in cells, if DNA does not do what we think it to do?

   
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2010,10:39   

Quote (Bjarne @ Mar. 24 2010,02:39)
And Mr.Byers, how are proteins produced in cells, if DNA does not do what we think it to do?

It's grown in pouches, of course. :p

  
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1036
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2010,20:07   

Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 24 2010,03:10)
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 20 2010,09:35)
Meanwhile, over at The Panda's Thumb Byers undermines his argument:

 
Quote
In any issue of determining if old bones are of humans and not apes there is a clue. The bible teaches that women uniquely have great pain at childbirth. Animals do not. This is a great anatomical reality of our women’s skeleton and so if there is a female hobbit one just needs to examine, if possible, whether she had pain at childbirth by looking at her skeleton. If so we got a daughter of Adam. if not we got a dumb old monkey.


So we can tell the difference between "monkey" and human by looking at reproduction, but not marsupial and placental?

Reproduction can be different and yet not is evidence of segregated kinds.
Snakes can bear live young or by eggs yet they are still snakes.
With people there is a express intervention in nature by God to make a difference in reproduction. Animals are not affected.

Umm, there is this from Ankel-Simons Primate Anatomy:

Quote
This condition is especially demanding in those primates in which the inner diameter of the female pelvis and the circumference of the fullterm newborn offspring are critically close to each other - for example, in some macaques, in some New World Monkeys (Namely Saimiri and Cebus)..., and in Homo sapiens. In such primates the infant may be unable to pass through the canal during labor and both mother and infant may die because of this. Only humans are able to remedy this critical situation by means of surgical interference (cesarean section). This crucial "bottleneck" situation exists in other nonhuman primates that combine single births, highly developed brains, and newborns that are relatively large in correlation to the sacroiliac articulation.
(All bolding and emphasis in the above quote were added by me.)

So, there you have it, a number of female primates feel pain during childbirth for exactly the same reason human females do - it is caused by a trade off between locomotion, birth, and resting posture. Apparently no intervention by god(s) is needed.

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2010,20:27   

Although, the named examples are all in the same order as us, if that matters. (Would that put them in the same "kind"?)

  
ppb



Posts: 325
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2010,20:43   

Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 24 2010,21:07)
Umm, there is this from Ankel-Simons Primate Anatomy:

 
Quote
This condition is especially demanding in those primates in which the inner diameter of the female pelvis and the circumference of the fullterm newborn offspring are critically close to each other - for example, in some macaques, in some New World Monkeys (Namely Saimiri and Cebus)..., and in Homo sapiens. In such primates the infant may be unable to pass through the canal during labor and both mother and infant may die because of this. Only humans are able to remedy this critical situation by means of surgical interference (cesarean section). This crucial "bottleneck" situation exists in other nonhuman primates that combine single births, highly developed brains, and newborns that are relatively large in correlation to the sacroiliac articulation.
(All bolding and emphasis in the above quote were added by me.)

So, there you have it, a number of female primates feel pain during childbirth for exactly the same reason human females do - it is caused by a trade off between locomotion, birth, and resting posture. Apparently no intervention by god(s) is needed.

I think it must be part of that "Intelligent" Design we keep hearing about.

ETA:   OK, I jest, but here is a perfect example of real science explaining a particular phenomenon (painful and dangerous childbirth) by looking at the data from anatomy, physiology, etc.  Creation "Science" gives us a story about Eve being naughty and all her female descendants having to pay the consequences.

Which is more evidence based?

--------------
"[A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd."
- Richard P. Feynman

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2010,19:10   

Quote (ppb @ Mar. 24 2010,20:43)
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 24 2010,21:07)
Umm, there is this from Ankel-Simons Primate Anatomy:

 
Quote
This condition is especially demanding in those primates in which the inner diameter of the female pelvis and the circumference of the fullterm newborn offspring are critically close to each other - for example, in some macaques, in some New World Monkeys (Namely Saimiri and Cebus)..., and in Homo sapiens. In such primates the infant may be unable to pass through the canal during labor and both mother and infant may die because of this. Only humans are able to remedy this critical situation by means of surgical interference (cesarean section). This crucial "bottleneck" situation exists in other nonhuman primates that combine single births, highly developed brains, and newborns that are relatively large in correlation to the sacroiliac articulation.
(All bolding and emphasis in the above quote were added by me.)

So, there you have it, a number of female primates feel pain during childbirth for exactly the same reason human females do - it is caused by a trade off between locomotion, birth, and resting posture. Apparently no intervention by god(s) is needed.

I think it must be part of that "Intelligent" Design we keep hearing about.

ETA:   OK, I jest, but here is a perfect example of real science explaining a particular phenomenon (painful and dangerous childbirth) by looking at the data from anatomy, physiology, etc.  Creation "Science" gives us a story about Eve being naughty and all her female descendants having to pay the consequences.

Which is more evidence based?

It's not even "Eve being naughty" - by their own mythology, the tree was the one that gave "knowledge of good and evil" - so how was she to know that eating the tree was wrong if they lacked the ability to distinguish right and wrong?  It was a set up, and if there were a good lawyer handy, they'd have gotten her off on entrapment.

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Robert Byers



Posts: 160
Joined: Nov. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2010,03:11   

Quote (Bjarne @ Mar. 24 2010,03:39)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 24 2010,10:10)
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 20 2010,09:35)
Meanwhile, over at The Panda's Thumb Byers undermines his argument:

   
Quote
In any issue of determining if old bones are of humans and not apes there is a clue. The bible teaches that women uniquely have great pain at childbirth. Animals do not. This is a great anatomical reality of our women’s skeleton and so if there is a female hobbit one just needs to examine, if possible, whether she had pain at childbirth by looking at her skeleton. If so we got a daughter of Adam. if not we got a dumb old monkey.


So we can tell the difference between "monkey" and human by looking at reproduction, but not marsupial and placental?

Reproduction can be different and yet not is evidence of segregated kinds.
Snakes can bear live young or by eggs yet they are still snakes.
With people there is a express intervention in nature by God to make a difference in reproduction. Animals are not affected.

Please, do you have any concrete idea, how snakes give birth? You might see that the difference between vivipary (actually ovivivipary in snakes) and ovipary is minuscule.
The difference between placental and marsupial reproduction on the other hand is less so.


And Mr.Byers, how are proteins produced in cells, if DNA does not do what we think it to do?

As I understand it. Some snakes deliver with eggs and some by live birth. The latter even have placental or close. In fact I was told this by evolution folks.

  
Robert Byers



Posts: 160
Joined: Nov. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2010,03:25   

Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 24 2010,20:07)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 24 2010,03:10)
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 20 2010,09:35)
Meanwhile, over at The Panda's Thumb Byers undermines his argument:

   
Quote
In any issue of determining if old bones are of humans and not apes there is a clue. The bible teaches that women uniquely have great pain at childbirth. Animals do not. This is a great anatomical reality of our women’s skeleton and so if there is a female hobbit one just needs to examine, if possible, whether she had pain at childbirth by looking at her skeleton. If so we got a daughter of Adam. if not we got a dumb old monkey.


So we can tell the difference between "monkey" and human by looking at reproduction, but not marsupial and placental?

Reproduction can be different and yet not is evidence of segregated kinds.
Snakes can bear live young or by eggs yet they are still snakes.
With people there is a express intervention in nature by God to make a difference in reproduction. Animals are not affected.

Umm, there is this from Ankel-Simons Primate Anatomy:

Quote
This condition is especially demanding in those primates in which the inner diameter of the female pelvis and the circumference of the fullterm newborn offspring are critically close to each other - for example, in some macaques, in some New World Monkeys (Namely Saimiri and Cebus)..., and in Homo sapiens. In such primates the infant may be unable to pass through the canal during labor and both mother and infant may die because of this. Only humans are able to remedy this critical situation by means of surgical interference (cesarean section). This crucial "bottleneck" situation exists in other nonhuman primates that combine single births, highly developed brains, and newborns that are relatively large in correlation to the sacroiliac articulation.
(All bolding and emphasis in the above quote were added by me.)

So, there you have it, a number of female primates feel pain during childbirth for exactly the same reason human females do - it is caused by a trade off between locomotion, birth, and resting posture. Apparently no intervention by god(s) is needed.

Stilling trying to say animals have pain at birthing. They don't. there are reasons that are accepted for this.
The pain by our women is from well understood reasons. In fact they go further and try to say evolution is the origin of it. Standing upright and getting bigger heads/shoulders .
Its not true that apes etc have like pain , like duration, like percentages.
They don't for the very reasons that even evolution invokes to explain things here.
If apes did have like pain then uprightness/head size etc would not be the reason and origin of the reasons for birth pains.
Mankind is unique from animals in this and everything.
The bible says clearly why women got pain. A punishment.

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2010,03:38   

Robert, you have studied this? Please say you have studied the birth process of apes.

You are not just saying things you happen to believe, you study the subject first to learn how it is, don't you?

I've been told the bible says rabbits chew cud, you believe that, don't you?

If you have not yet performed the required study of ape birth, please get it done then come back and report your findings.

You know, like study, like Galileo studied nature before he announced what he had learned. It usually was something the church denied possible from their understanding of the bible.

But you don't think study is required, you already know, like the sun orbits the Earth, not the other way around?

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Bjarne



Posts: 29
Joined: Dec. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2010,03:49   

Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 30 2010,10:11)
Quote (Bjarne @ Mar. 24 2010,03:39)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 24 2010,10:10)
 
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 20 2010,09:35)
Meanwhile, over at The Panda's Thumb Byers undermines his argument:

   
Quote
In any issue of determining if old bones are of humans and not apes there is a clue. The bible teaches that women uniquely have great pain at childbirth. Animals do not. This is a great anatomical reality of our women’s skeleton and so if there is a female hobbit one just needs to examine, if possible, whether she had pain at childbirth by looking at her skeleton. If so we got a daughter of Adam. if not we got a dumb old monkey.


So we can tell the difference between "monkey" and human by looking at reproduction, but not marsupial and placental?

Reproduction can be different and yet not is evidence of segregated kinds.
Snakes can bear live young or by eggs yet they are still snakes.
With people there is a express intervention in nature by God to make a difference in reproduction. Animals are not affected.

Please, do you have any concrete idea, how snakes give birth? You might see that the difference between vivipary (actually ovivivipary in snakes) and ovipary is minuscule.
The difference between placental and marsupial reproduction on the other hand is less so.


And Mr.Byers, how are proteins produced in cells, if DNA does not do what we think it to do?

As I understand it. Some snakes deliver with eggs and some by live birth. The latter even have placental or close. In fact I was told this by evolution folks.

If I am not totally mistaken, viviparous snakes are actually ovoviviarous. This means, that the already eggs breed on their way through the mothers body.
As far as I know, they do not have a placenta (a placenta is only found in  the clade Eutheria) , nor something close to it.
Thus all it takes to develop ovovivipary in a oviparous animal is  the eggs to be retained in the mother's body for a longer period of time. This is everything, but a drastic change.

And Mr.Byers, would you be so kind to explain how proteins are produced in cells? After all, according to your statements , they are not produced the way we do thing them to be produced.

   
Venus Mousetrap



Posts: 201
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2010,03:57   

Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 30 2010,03:25)
     
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 24 2010,20:07)
       
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 24 2010,03:10)
       
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 20 2010,09:35)
Meanwhile, over at The Panda's Thumb Byers undermines his argument:

           
Quote
In any issue of determining if old bones are of humans and not apes there is a clue. The bible teaches that women uniquely have great pain at childbirth. Animals do not. This is a great anatomical reality of our women’s skeleton and so if there is a female hobbit one just needs to examine, if possible, whether she had pain at childbirth by looking at her skeleton. If so we got a daughter of Adam. if not we got a dumb old monkey.


So we can tell the difference between "monkey" and human by looking at reproduction, but not marsupial and placental?

Reproduction can be different and yet not is evidence of segregated kinds.
Snakes can bear live young or by eggs yet they are still snakes.
With people there is a express intervention in nature by God to make a difference in reproduction. Animals are not affected.

Umm, there is this from Ankel-Simons Primate Anatomy:

       
Quote
This condition is especially demanding in those primates in which the inner diameter of the female pelvis and the circumference of the fullterm newborn offspring are critically close to each other - for example, in some macaques, in some New World Monkeys (Namely Saimiri and Cebus)..., and in Homo sapiens. In such primates the infant may be unable to pass through the canal during labor and both mother and infant may die because of this. Only humans are able to remedy this critical situation by means of surgical interference (cesarean section). This crucial "bottleneck" situation exists in other nonhuman primates that combine single births, highly developed brains, and newborns that are relatively large in correlation to the sacroiliac articulation.
(All bolding and emphasis in the above quote were added by me.)

So, there you have it, a number of female primates feel pain during childbirth for exactly the same reason human females do - it is caused by a trade off between locomotion, birth, and resting posture. Apparently no intervention by god(s) is needed.

Stilling trying to say animals have pain at birthing. They don't. there are reasons that are accepted for this.
The pain by our women is from well understood reasons. In fact they go further and try to say evolution is the origin of it. Standing upright and getting bigger heads/shoulders .
Its not true that apes etc have like pain , like duration, like percentages.
They don't for the very reasons that even evolution invokes to explain things here.
If apes did have like pain then uprightness/head size etc would not be the reason and origin of the reasons for birth pains.
Mankind is unique from animals in this and everything.


Well, that's a fairly reasonable argument, and I would say that

Quote (Robert Byers @ ,)
The bible says clearly why women got pain. A punishment.


Oh, sorry. Never mind about the reasonable part.

  
Wolfhound



Posts: 468
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2010,07:12   

Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 24 2010,04:10)
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 20 2010,09:35)
Meanwhile, over at The Panda's Thumb Byers undermines his argument:

 
Quote
In any issue of determining if old bones are of humans and not apes there is a clue. The bible teaches that women uniquely have great pain at childbirth. Animals do not. This is a great anatomical reality of our women’s skeleton and so if there is a female hobbit one just needs to examine, if possible, whether she had pain at childbirth by looking at her skeleton. If so we got a daughter of Adam. if not we got a dumb old monkey.


So we can tell the difference between "monkey" and human by looking at reproduction, but not marsupial and placental?

Reproduction can be different and yet not is evidence of segregated kinds.
Snakes can bear live young or by eggs yet they are still snakes.
With people there is a express intervention in nature by God to make a difference in reproduction. Animals are not affected.

We've gone over your nonsense about non-human animals experiencing no pain during birth on other boards.  Remember the spotted hyena debacle, in which you were handed your ass?  Of course you don't; you are impervious to evidence, logic, and reason.

Also, my old Borzoi brood bitch, Lindy, would very much like to bite you as she had a bit of an owie with the delivery of her last litter.  Her pain was real.  As yours shall be if her teeth manage to make contact with your ass.  I shall keep her from you, though, since it is doubtful you have had all of your vaccinations and I value her health greatly.

--------------
I've found my personality to be an effective form of birth control.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2010,07:16   

Oh come on now Wolfhound, you know you ladies should know your place and not comment on the pains and what have you. After all, the world's ills can be laid at your door for eating a snake after listening to a talking apple or something.

Naughty womens! Hush now. Back in the kitchen! And don't forget to add the Jesus.

;-)

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Wolfhound



Posts: 468
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2010,07:46   

Quote (Louis @ Mar. 30 2010,08:16)
Oh come on now Wolfhound, you know you ladies should know your place and not comment on the pains and what have you. After all, the world's ills can be laid at your door for eating a snake after listening to a talking apple or something.

Naughty womens! Hush now. Back in the kitchen! And don't forget to add the Jesus.

;-)

Louis

I just got out of the kitchen a moment ago after preparing a Jesus-free breakfast for my elderly grandfather and now my place is here, nattering away at my betters (those who own a penis, according to Bobby-B and his celestial bully-boy).

Now, about them thar girlie-pains... Well, I've had some over the years although I probably should be a good little woman and accept my share of the Curse of Eve by squeezing out a whelp or two.  Any volunteers to help me with this?  I haven't yet mastered that whole parthenogenesis thang so need some help with the spermies, I reckon.  I'll never get to Heaven if I don't suffer properly and from what I understand the agony of childbirth draws out about 18-30 years.  Longer if you name the lil' nipper Louis.  :D

--------------
I've found my personality to be an effective form of birth control.

  
  1350 replies since Sep. 08 2009,09:59 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (46) < ... 38 39 40 41 42 [43] 44 45 46 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]