Coccyx - tale of a creationist disinformation post

[Brightmoon]

So I must have missed it - did ANY creationists actually deal with the facts presented in the OP?

There’s this song from the 80s called “ King of Wishful Thinking by Go West. As soon as I read this, that song started playing in my head . Thanks for the earworm!

 

[Brightmoon]

I like to see any YEC creationists( try to) explain this vertical wall with Dinosaur tracks

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

The sentence RIGHT BEFORE what you quoted:

"Sacral [or lumbosacral agenesis in severe cases where lumbar spine is also involved] characterized by absence of the variable portion of the portion of the spine. It is a very rare deformity."

Oops. Looks like the devotees of biblical apologetics get it wrong again. They should stop with their silly keyword searches in which they do not bother to read the context. It makes them look... Ignorant.
Had this creationist read beyond the quote, they would have seen that there are many types of this issue, and as one can see in the relevant quote I provided:

"The clinical appearance of sacral agenesis patient ranges from one of severe deformities of the pelvis and lower extremities to no deformity at all.

Patients with with partial sacral or coccygeal agenesis may have no symptoms."

But that doesn't fit the narrative, so...

Uh what? So it only causes a deformity sometimes? Nope. Sorry. A vestigial organ is one with no use at all, not no use sometimes. Stop trying to switch the definition.

 

[Shemjaza]

Uh what? So it only causes a deformity sometimes? Nope. Sorry. A vestigial organ is one with no use at all, not no use sometimes. Stop trying to switch the definition.

You are the one making up a definition. The definition you quoted before offered a spectrum of possible vestigial organs.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

For Pete's sake, I know what Luskin wrote, I've read it every time you linked to it.

I asked you what was incorrect about what Mader wrote about the embryology and what is anatomically incorrect about the illustrations she used.

It has become obvious that you are just going to parrot Luskin though rather than bother looking for yourself.

I stand by my original statement, which was:

"Hackel's drawings lingered in textbooks as late as 2015; and many evolutionists still refuse to let go."​

I based that statement on Casey's article, which I find credible, and on my own experience of being brainwashed by evolutionism fraud.

Besides, it seems to me that Luskins three points are rather spurious.

(1) Show embryo drawings that are either Haeckel’s originals or highly similar or near-identical versions of Haeckel’s illustrations — drawings that downplay and misrepresent the differences among early stages of vertebrate embryos;

If the point of these drawings in the text book is to illustrate the similarities that modern embryology describes they need to be drawn in such a way as to clearly depict those similarities surely, as any illustrative drawing used as a teaching aid would do.

And they are not Haeckel's drawings as you first claimed, but modern versions.

The point is, do not to misrepresent the facts. From what I have read, those listed, including those who presented "modern versions", misrepresented the facts. You are welcome to present evidence to the contrary.

(2) Have used these drawings as evidence for current evolutionary theory and not simply to provide some kind of historical context for evolutionary thinking;

Not Haeckel's drawings. See above.

And you, or Luskin have yet to mention that modern embryology is an established part of current developmental biology and as such should be mentioned in textbooks.

It should be mentioned accurately, not speculatively. That is all we are asking.

(3) Have used their Haeckel-based drawings to overstate the actual similarities between early embryos, which is the key misrepresentation made by Haeckel, even if the textbooks do not completely endorse Haeckel’s false “recapitulation” theory. They then cite these overstated similarities as still-valid evidence for common ancestry.

Ah, "Haeckel based" now is it? At least now you can stop saying they use Haeckel's drawings as you originally did.

There is nothing wrong with Casey's statement.

See point (1).

As for the "the textbooks do not completely endorse Haeckel’s false “recapitulation” theory" bit, what a typically mealy-mouthed bit of creationist propaganda. They don't endorse Haeckel's recapitulation theory at all.

Are you claiming that Casey's statement, "They then cite these overstated similarities as still-valid evidence for common ancestry", is incorrect?

All Casey is "guilty" of is pointing out that mealy-mouthed propaganda could be found in some texts on evolutionism "embryology" as late as 2015. Creation scientists are simply trying to get that propaganda out of our children's textbooks.

Evolutionary developmental biology is a thing you know.... and it has nothing to do with recapulation theory.

Conclusion: You're tilting at windmills Don Quixote, maybe you'd be better off demonstrating the flaws of modern embryology if you want to claim that it provides no evidence or insights into the TOE.

Please provide proof that there is evolutionary correlation among embryos.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Only in your imagination has it done any harm to Western civilization.

You cannot be serious? Darwinism has been, by far, the most destructive force against western culture. It was Darwinism that resulted in the rewriting of the Constitution to read, "separation of church and state", which did not exist for the first 150 years of our nation. It was Darwinism that caused such traditional, moral guideposts as the "10 Commandments", "Be ye kind one to another", and "Love thy neighbor as thyself", to be taken down from the halls of our children's schools.

Do you really believe that children who have been brainwashed into believing they are cousins of chimpanzees give a darn about the lives of other children? Do you really believe that thugs like Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot recognized any power higher than themselves?

No free society can remain free, if it can even survive. without the belief by both citizens and leaders that they will be held accountable in the afterlife for their sins (which they will!) Our nation's Founding Fathers recognized that fact -- that our nation could not survive absent a moral and religious citizenry.

Quotes from the Founding Fathers, on the Importance of a Moral Society!​

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Edit: Apologies, I seem to be having a bit of trouble posting images at the moment. For the record it should have been a hastily photoshopped picture of an angry old man shaking his fist and shouting "HAECKEL!!!!" .

Apologies unnecessary, but accepted.

Dan

 

[pitabread]

Darwinism has been, by far, the most destructive force against western culture. It was Darwinism that resulted in the rewriting of the Constitution to read, "separation of church and state", which did not exist for the first 150 years of our nation. It was Darwinism that caused such traditional, moral guideposts as the "10 Commandments", "Be ye kind one to another", and "Love thy neighbor as thyself", to be taken down from the halls of our children's schools.

What sort of definition of "Darwinism" are you using here?

Because if you're referring to Darwinian evolution as originally proposed by Charles Darwin, that has absolutely nothing to do with separation of church and state as mandated by your own countries' Constitution. Especially considering the 1st Amendment was adopted in 1791; whereas Darwin's On the Origin of Species wasn't published until 1859.

 

[Ophiolite]

You cannot be serious? Darwinism has been, by far, the most destructive force against western culture. It was Darwinism that resulted in the rewriting of the Constitution to read, "separation of church and state", which did not exist for the first 150 years of our nation. It was Darwinism that caused such traditional, moral guideposts as the "10 Commandments", "Be ye kind one to another", and "Love thy neighbor as thyself", to be taken down from the halls of our children's schools.

One of the most damaging impacts on Western culture has been the arrogant, self-centred belief of a proportion of Americans that their nation is Western Culture.

Do you really believe that children who have been brainwashed into believing they are cousins of chimpanzees give a darn about the lives of other children?

Of course they do. They also care about chimpanzees.

Understanding the evolutionary relationship between all life on the planet encourages a caring and empathetic attitude to all. Your suggestion that it is otherwise is both ignorant and offensive. However, since I always stand ready to proven wrong, simply provide a citation to a bona fide study that supports your otherwise unsupported assertion.

Do you really believe that thugs like Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot recognized any power higher than themselves?

Irrelevant. I agree they were thugs, probably psychopaths. That condition had nothing to do with Darwinism. It is rather silly to suggest it did.

No free society can remain free, if it can even survive. without the belief by both citizens and leaders that they will be held accountable in the afterlife for their sins (which they will!)

You really are intent on being seriously offensive. How dare you suggest that I lack the integrity to behave in a moral fashion? How dare you suggest that I require the fear of a post-death judgement to keep me in line? Like many, probably all, of the atheists and agnostics on this forum I seek to behave in a moral fashion, with respect for my fellows, because it is the right thing to do, not because I fear punishment. I suggest you offer an apology now to all of those who you have potentially offended by your remarks.

 

[Jimmy D]

I stand by my original statement, which was:

"Hackel's drawings lingered in textbooks as late as 2015; and many evolutionists still refuse to let go."
I based that statement on Casey's article, which I find credible, and on my own experience of being brainwashed by evolutionism fraud.

And I showed you that they weren't Haeckel's drawings. Even Luskin had to say "based on" Haeckel's drawings.

Why not check for yourself?*

The point is, do not to misrepresent the facts. From what I have read, those listed, including those who presented "modern versions", misrepresented the facts. You are welcome to present evidence to the contrary.

No problem Dan, exactly what facts do you feel are being misrepresented?*

It should be mentioned accurately, not speculatively. That is all we are asking.

I agree, as do the authors of those textbooks apparently. Maybe you could point out any inaccuracies.*

Are you claiming that Casey's statement, "They then cite these overstated similarities as still-valid evidence for common ancestry", is incorrect?

I see no problem with claiming that developmental similarities evidence common ancestry.

All Casey is "guilty" of is pointing out that mealy-mouthed propaganda could be found in some texts on evolutionism "embryology" as late as 2015. Creation scientists are simply trying to get that propaganda out of our children's textbooks.

I would agree with him then, but the pair of you are yet to show exactly what is inaccurate about what is presented in textbooks.

Please provide proof that there is evolutionary correlation among embryos.

Woah, steady on! I'm not going there!

There is no more futile an exercise than attempting to "prove" things to creationists.

I'm happy for you to believe what you like, my issue was with your slanderous assertions, which I feel have been dealt with.

Besides, it's Friday afternoon and I'm just about to shut down my PC.

Have a good weekend.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

It's always fun to watch.

C - Darwin was racist!
SA - No he wasn't or if so he was, he was much less of a racist than the hundreds of thousands of American's who went to war in order to prove that blacks were inferior and worthy of slavery.
C - {crickets}

As a American history buff, I can assure you the war was about Lincoln and his desires, and not slavery. Even Lincoln admitted to the latter:

"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be"the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views." [Abraham Lincoln, "Letter to Horace Greeley." Abraham Lincoln Online, 1858] ​

Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley​

In hindsight, it appears Lincoln's primary focus was to keep the South in the Union, but in particular to preserve and extend the high tariffs, which hurt the South far more than the North. Lincoln needed all the money in the treasury he could get to fulfill his dream of a transcontinental railroad, beginning in Council Bluffs, Iowa, where he just happened to be a property holder (imagine that?). You are aware that Lincoln was a high-powered railroad lawyer at one time, are you not?

You may recall that Lincoln did not present the Emancipation Proclamation until about half-way through the war; and even then the northern states were exempt from releasing their slaves -- the proclamation was only against the "rebellious" states. The emancipation was strictly a propaganda move on Lincoln's part to change the focus of the war from "Preserving the Union", to a "Moral Duty".

C - Origin was racist!
SA - Humans weren't mentioned in Origin so how could it be racist.

Some consider natural selection to have racist overtones.

C - Er, um, Descent was racist!
SA - See above, merely mentioning race isn't racist in and of itself and most of the "racist" stuff in it was predictions. based on what he'd been observing and reading about rather than a recommendation or directive.

It is somewhat more complex than that.

C - But, but but! Evolution is still racist because... reasons.
SA - How about this, I concede to you that evolution is racist and you actually try and falsify it or show that it's wrong instead of a silly ad hominem attack?
C - {crickets}

Evolutionism has already been falsified a gazillion times. But as long as there is someone around who is willing to move the goalposts, the odor will continue to linger.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

View attachment 230709 Here! Since you don’t like the pharyngeal stage this is an earlier stage of development before limbs show up. As you can see tunicates and echinoderms are vertebrates closest relatives and this is confirmed by genetics . No one uses Haeckel’s drawings . They use modern more accurate drawings or they use photos. The only quibble I have with this is that it’s in German and if you don’t know the scientific terminology or are unfamiliar with the animal, you’d have problems understanding it. The Polychaeta example is a ragworm, and the Pogonophoran is a deep sea tubeworm.

Is there any truth to the statement that similar species do not share similar genes?

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Nice topic. Can you be more specific? Not all sedimentary layers have a high degree of lamination; many layers have extensive bioturbation, so I'm not really sure what you are asking. Indeed, as I type this, I'm wondering what you are thinking of as a layer - a sequence tens of thousands of feet thick, or a thousand feet of turbidites, or a hundred feet or so of a cyclothem?

The generic answer to your question is that there is much lamination, because sedimentation was cyclic, or certainly intermittent. And bioturbation is commonplace in many sediments, so that question doesn't make sense as written.

What I am saying is, some pretty dedicated geologists have stated that lamination is commonplace in the pre-modern (and post-Precambrian) geological column; and that complete bioturbation of layers is rare. If sediment layers were deposited over millions of years, completely bioturated layering should be commonplace, and lamination should be rare.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

There is no proof because science doesn't prove anything nor is there any such thing as scientific proof.
Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”

That said, have we conclusive evidence for them? Yes. But but why didn't you ask Steve himself?

You posted the link. What is the evidence for pseudogenes?

Dan

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You cannot be serious? Darwinism has been, by far, the most destructive force against western culture. It was Darwinism that resulted in the rewriting of the Constitution to read, "separation of church and state", which did not exist for the first 150 years of our nation. It was Darwinism that caused such traditional, moral guideposts as the "10 Commandments", "Be ye kind one to another", and "Love thy neighbor as thyself", to be taken down from the halls of our children's schools.

Except that very idea of the separation of church and state was already in the first draft of the constitution. You know, this little line: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Do you really believe that children who have been brainwashed into believing they are cousins of chimpanzees give a darn about the lives of other children? Do you really believe that thugs like Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot recognized any power higher than themselves?

Not a single person in history has been able to show how 'Darwinism' can be linked to any of those monsters in history apart from in their own, and by extension your own, sordid little ideas.

No free society can remain free, if it can even survive. without the belief by both citizens and leaders that they will be held accountable in the afterlife for their sins (which they will!) Our nation's Founding Fathers recognized that fact -- that our nation could not survive absent a moral and religious citizenry.

Quotes from the Founding Fathers, on the Importance of a Moral Society!​

Dan

At the time of the writing of the Constitution, it was considered quite easily that black people were inferior to white people.
Morals and views change, with or without the guidance of religion.

 

[Ophiolite]

What I am saying is, some pretty dedicated geologists have stated that lamination is commonplace in the pre-modern (and post-Precambrian) geological column; and that complete bioturbation of layers is rare. If sediment layers were deposited over millions of years, completely bioturated layering should be commonplace, and lamination should be rare.Dan

Please provide a citation in support of your first statement.

"Complete bioturbation of layers is rare." I should imagine that it is. Bioturbation, on the other hand is not unusual in a variety of sediments (while unusual or absent in others).

Individual layers, i.e. individual laminae, are not deposited over millions of years. Thick sequences of such layers are deposited over millions of years. Individual layers may be deposited in an hour, a day, a week, a year, depending upon the sedimentary environment. That environment will determine whether it is suitable for lifeforms and the duration of the sedimentary process and character of the lifeforms will determine the extent of bioturbation. What we would therefore expect is a specturm of bioturbation form wholly absent to complete, with everything in between. And that is exactly what we do see.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Irrelevant. You implied that the "favoured races" in the title of On the Origin of Species had something to do with human races and racism. That implication was wrong. Like every other creationist I've seen make that connection, you haven't withdrawn your statement.

I personally do not know one way or the other about Darwin's views on race. Many say he was opposed to slavery and was concerned about the poor, which I do not dispute, and which I believe to be a Christian attribute.

But there is little doubt that white supremacy was commonplace in his day and age. The "Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex", which focused on our species, should have cleared up any misconceptions about Darwin's views on race; or at least those which he wished to publicize at the time.

How do you interpret these passages?

"The sense of smell is of the highest importance to the greater number of mammals—to some, as the ruminants, in warning them of danger; to others, as the carnivora, in finding their prey; to others, again, as the wild boar, for both purposes combined. But the sense of smell is of extremely slight service, if any, even to the dark coloured races of men, in whom it is much more highly developed than in the white and civilised races." [Charles Darwin, "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex." John Murray, 2nd Ed, 1888, Chap I, pp.17-18] ​

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." [Charles Darwin, Affinities and Genealogies, "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex." John Murray, 2nd Ed, 1888, Chap VI, p.156]​

"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man." [Charles Darwin, Civilised Nations, "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex." 1981, Chap V, p.168] ​

One thing I am certain of is the removal of Christian doctrine from the halls of our schools -- at the behest of atheists and evolutionists, as well as the voluntary removal from our media and entertainment, has led to a cultural rot in western civilization that will be difficult to repair.

This is a pretty good historical analysis of the situation, titled "Darwinism and the teaching of racism and eugenics in biology textbooks":

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j18_1/j18_1_65-70.pdf​

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Great -- show your calculations (noting that the differences don't have to be fixed -- we're comparing representative genomes, not fixed differences). Try a mutation rate of 1.4 x 10^-8/bp/generation, a generation time of 25 years, a species divergence time of 7 million years and an ancestral population size of 50,000. Let me know what you come up with.

You know the old saying, Stephen, "garbage in, garbage out". Besides, there is simply too much variation between the species to rule out a common designer, no matter how scientific your assumptions and methods appear to be.

Of course, in my case, there is nothing to rule out. My focus is on how he created us and the heavens, and not if.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

This is hilarious.

You've gotten everything you know about evolution from creationist sources, haven't you?

No. But I'll bet you got everything you know from evolutionism sources. Did I win the bet?

Dan

 

[USincognito]

You posted the link. What is the evidence for pseudogenes?

Their existence.