Joined: Jan. 2008
Classic exchange at UD starting here:
DO'L mocks something that "Darwinists" allegedly believe:
|Also, the primitively evolved “reptilian brain” guarantees that the cow alligator shows no* concern for her eggs.|
Oh, wait … if you decide to test that last one, make sure you have left your legal and financial affairs in good order, and have a Cadillac health plan.
Darwin and his supporters are, of course, always right, except where they are simply wrong. But that doesn’t matter if they have got the law and the tax funding on their side.
* link to her blog where she links to this site at McGill's where the "conventional science explanation" (according to her) is given:
| The most efficient model for understanding the brain in terms of its evolutionary history is the famous triune brain theory developed by Paul MacLean. According to this theory, the following three distinct brains emerged successively in the course of evolution and now co-inhabit the human skull:|
The reptilian brain, the oldest of the three, controls the body's vital functions such as heart rate, breathing, body temperature and balance. Our reptilian brain includes the main structures found in a reptile's brain: the brainstem and the cerebellum. The reptilian brain is reliable but tends to be somewhat rigid and compulsive.[...]
Even if you didn't realize that this is a very simplistic pop science explanation it still should be obvious that this isn't a statement about the brains of reptiles but rather about the functions these evolutionary oldest structures in the human brain have in humans.
0815hrun calls her up on her equivocation:
| Or… one has to take the term reptilian brain and try to understand it better (something that is most likely done in that particular lecture at McGill). Maybe they are not talking at all about the brain of any particular reptilian but about a particular aspect of the brain where memory formation is not necessary.|
DO'L responds by linking to a lot of snippets that all pertain to the "reptilian brain" in humans and not to the brains of reptiles. Her main claim:
| I do not claim that all or most reptiles show concern for their offspring. Probably, the majority do not, as there is no need. Many young reptiles are live born replicas of their parents.|
But if any reptiles do, claims for the “reptilian brain only” as preventing the show of emotion must be appropriately qualified.
Again, she confuses what the reptilian brain in humans does and what reptiles do.
In her next comment she treats us with this beautiful non sequitur:
|“Maybe they are not talking at all about the brain of any particular reptilian but about a particular aspect of the brain where memory formation is not necessary.”[quoting hrun]|
[Wake up, hrun! Many people have got themselves killed or maimed trying to outsmart an adult breeding reptile in its own territory, so I would not suggest that anyone count on the idea that reptiles do not have memory.]
And continues to ask hrun:
|By the way, just so I know, are you funded by taxpayers? I'm not.|
Hrun is puzzled:
| How does this matter? Have my arguments more or less merit if I am funded by taxpayers? Does it matter to your arguments who funds you?|
|2. Like many pop authors, you need to believe in a construct called “the reptilian brain.”|
I don’t care, as long as it does NOT find its way into public policy, as it threatens to do. As understood in popular culture, it is a myth, period.
Also, hrun at 11: It matters to me because I must shortly file my tax return. I resent paying for publicly funded nonsense about the natural world – on behalf of all good citizens of the Western world, only to support the worthless ideology of Darwinism and fund the persecution of dissenters.
ARE you funded by my – or any citizen of a liberal democratic society’s – taxes?
Yes, it DOES matter.
Again, WTF? In the comment preceding this one she argued that some reptiles do care for their young which in her mind apparently proves that neuroscientists are wrong in talking about a reptilian brain when referring to the brainstem and cerebellum. Which public policy depends on reptiles not caring for their young? Or on neuroscientists calling that part of the human brain "reptilian"? Or that in humans emotions are apparently not located in this part of the brain?
Batshit77 chimes in with something completely irrelevant:
If you are trying to ultimately establish consciousness “emerged” from a material basis, you may want to carefully consider this following evidence:
DO'L is reduced to incoherent muttering:
|hrun0815, whoever you are, if you live in my country (Canada) and you are funded by taxes, you eat, sleep, and clothe and entertain yourself at my expense. |
Be warm, well fed, sleep well, and enjoy yourself.
But don’t ask ME to take your opinions seriously. I just got another demand letter from the government, NOT a cheque from a government-funded agency like a university.
Do YOU get that? Wow …
And if anyone does not understand what the difference means, … they need remedial arithmetic.
Anyway, exploding this point: It means the government forces me to support all kinds of people who are contrary to my interests and welfare. That’s okay, until the government starts demanding support for worthless causes and projects like Darwinism, recovered memories, and human-caused global climate change, which are obviously ill-founded and could cause misery to thousands or millions.
My brain hurts. All parts.
But DO’L isn’t finished, yet. Her next comment:
| “Is my argument more or less valid if I am funded by taxpayers? Is your argument more or less valid if you are not?” Nothing else should matter as far as this discussion is concerned.”|
Okay, hrun [why don't these people use names and locations?]: Are you a Canadian citizen?
Yes or no?
Surely no Canadian would refuse to answer.
I myself would rather be a Canadian than have five earned doctorates and ten honorary doctorates.
Go read the rest of her comment if you want to kill some more brain cells.
At this point: Congrats to Hrun. The last 4 comments of his were just variations of this:
|If I am funded by your tax dollar or not does not matter. Your argument is false. As simple as that.|
That's efficient DO'L baiting. And it ends with DO’L flouncing:
| hrun0815 at 27, who does not wish to reveal name, citizenship, or tax burden status (obviously not a proud Canadian, but probably a tax burden somewhere): |
No one would pull off their boots to walk any distance across pack ice, if they hoped to save their toes.
Also, it is unwise to assume that we can run faster than all types of animals. Many have died assuming they can run faster than a bear or an alligator. The fact that the animal appears sluggish when he is at rest and unchallenged is NOT a good indicator.
Anyway, I must now leave this discussion, due to work-related issues – with the following observations:
- Tax funding matters a great deal to the question of whether nonsense can be retailed as sense.
The “reptiles show no care for young,” thesis due to tri-partite evolution of the brain – as a blanket statement – is a good example of Darwinism-based nonsense, easily refuted by an Internet search.
Again, I implore all to beware the alligator death roll and also the king cobra family, whom you do NOT want to visit any time near the natal day.
Or any time at all, actually, but especially not when they are hatching dozens of young cobras.
I apologize for any brain damage these DO’L quotes might’ve caused. But by reading this exchange I realized that this is how most of the discussions at UD go, it’s just usually not that obvious:
Some statement in a pro-ID post/comment is criticised.
Instead of answering the criticism the criticised statement is repeated, or it’s declared a joke, or all answers focus on some minor point in the criticising comment, or the commenter is drawn into a discussion of absolute objective morals/computer programs/frozen toes, or treated with 20 links to irrelevant YouTube videos. All in the same comment if it is KF.
But the initial criticism is never ever EVER answered. Never ever.
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner