Coccyx - tale of a creationist disinformation post

[Bible Research Tools]

Yes - that is why it seems you do not.

The FACTS are:

1. The coccyx contains reduced vertebrae. Their articulation resembles that seen in tailed mammals.

2. The coccyx has a muscular attachment, the extensor coccygis (NOT the coccygeus as many creationists dishonestly try to counter with – that is a different muscle), whose origin is on the distal, dorsal sacrum and which inserts on the coccyx, crossing the sacrococcygeal joint. As such, this muscle’s ONLY possible function is to extend the coccyx. That is, to make it stick out posteriorly. And yet we cannot do this. The same muscle exists in tailed primates. And they Can extend their tails (their EC is more extensive than ours – say, that is totally like a rudiment! Just like in the definition of vestigial!). Why Design a muscle for humans that they cannot use?

3. People born without a coccyx generally do not exhibit detrimental symptoms – their ‘autonomic reproductive functions’ and bladder control etc. work fine. So much for this ‘supported by the coccyx’ gibberish.

4. I have seen no documentation indicating that humans born with tails are used as evidence that THE COCCYX is vestigial.

5. There is no creationist explanation for the extensor coccygis, for why we would have been ‘designed’ with a muscle that we cannot actually use, whose only possible function is to extend the coccyx.

6. Creationists never offer evidence FOR creation, just these sad, pathetic, desperate attacks on evolution and evolutionists to try to generate a fallacious false dichotomy argument.

What does that silly vestigial organ hypothesis have to do with the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution?

Dan

 

[Aman777]

Aman, those giants in Genesis 6 were real giants, as in BIG! They were the hybrid sons of the fallen angels and earthly women.

Dan

False, since Angels and Humans cannot produce children together since Angels are NOT made of flesh. Also, the fallen Angels are held in prison:

Jde 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, He hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

Do you think the Angels escaped?

 

[Bible Research Tools]

So no, you do NOT understand the issue, as I suspected.

Humor me.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

False, since Angels and Humans cannot produce children together since Angels are NOT made of flesh. Also, the fallen Angels are held in prison:

Jde 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, He hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

Do you think the Angels escaped?

They were placed in the chains of darkness because they left their first estate, as angels, and married earthly women. They and their hybrid children corrupted both the human race and the animal kingdom, forcing God to destroy them -- men and animals:

"And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth." -- Gen 6:12 KJV​

This page has links to some excellent biblical analysis on that chapter:

Spiritual Realm - Bible Research Tools​

The first one, David B. Curtis, gives simplified exegetical sermons that reference the more detailed scholarly works of the second, Dr. Michael S. Heiser.

Dan

 

[Brightmoon]

Nor is,

"Given enough time, our theories will be proven right!"

"How much time do you need?"

"More . . . "​

Pitiful. I was expecting more out of you.

Why should a scientist be required to tell a lab how old they think a rock is before it can be dated? And what if they do not know how old the rock is?

The answer is, "Radiometric dating is a scam -- a fraud". It is a perpetuation of the "Index Fossil" scam, where rocks were dated according to the guestimated dates of "Index Fossils", and fossils were dated according to the "date" of the rocks that were determined by the "Index Fossils" found in them. There are few better examples of circular reasoning than those used to "date" rocks and fossils.

For the record, Andrew Snelling didn't date anything because creation scientists do not have labs. They use secular labs. So please refrain from muddying the waters (I am trying to be kind).

Dan

How did I miss this !?!?!?!
Snelling dated a 50 year old rock with s technique used to date very old billion year old rocks . Yes he used a secular lab as you said . He asked the lab to use the old rock technique. Because he knew that the date the lab got would show up in the error bar . The lab gives you a date AND also tells you that due to the limitations of the technique used the date could be off - either younger or older. Those are the error bars . The oldest probable date they gave for the rock was 2.3 million years with the rock being as young as 0 . Snelling dishonestly reported this as ( paraphrased) That legitimate lab said this 50 year old rock is 2.3 million years old ! I did say he was incompetent and/or a liar

As I’ve stated before, using a technique for billion-year-old rock on a 50 year old rock is like using a yardstick to measure a bacterium . Youll get an answer like a bacterium is less than 1/16 of an inch long which is no where close to how tiny bacteria really are.

1/16 inch = 0.16 cm for you metric users

 

[Brightmoon]

“ prov[ing]”( as you call it) macroevolution is easy . Any polyploid species is macroevolution ,some even while we watched

 

[tas8831]

I am happy to hear you are at least possessing some creation science materials.

I am an old, retired engineer who foolishly, and unquestionably believed everything the evolution orthodoxy threw at me, until fairly late in life. It was then I began to seriously research the subject.

Yup. Whatever you say. 'Witnessing' and all that.

Odd that an engineer would have bothered with 'everything the evolution orthodoxy threw at' you. And then, more oddly, decided to "research" it. Hmmm.... It seems that this "research" consisted of reading creationist essays and taking them at face value with no skepticism at all. Now this 'research' came well after your conversion, right?

I had never heard of creationism, or knew of any creation websites, until I began to study evolution-ism literature.

LOL!

There it is.


Nothing to see here folks - just regurgitated YEC/ID propaganda, swallowed uncritically since it props up a right-wing 'Christian' agenda/ideology.

 

[tas8831]

Let me see if I can follow this. First, Martin's claim:

"Menton is a liar. He cannot possibly know anything about the pelvic fins of Tiktaalik. The two papers describing Tiktaalik offer absolutely no descriptions of the pelvic fin skeletons or girdle. I've seen the material first-hand and there are no such details of the pelvic fin." [Martin Brazeau, "Dr. David Mention is a Liar." The Lancet, 2007]​

I believe this is the Menton passage in question:

"The hind limbs [of tetrapods] in particular have a robust pelvic girdle securely attached to the vertebral column. This differs radically from that of any fish including Tiktaalik. Essentially all fish (including Tiktaalik) have small pelvic fins relative to their pectoral fins." [David Menton, "Tiktaalik and the Fishy Story of Walking Fish." Answers in Genesis, 2007] ​

And this is a passage from a Menton footnote of a Nature article by Ahlberg and Clack that supports Menton's statement:

"In some respects, Tiktaalik and Panderichthys are straightforward fishes: they have small pelvic fins, retain fin rays in their paired appendages and have well-developed gill arches, suggesting that both animals remained mostly aquatic. In other regards, Tiktaalik is more tetrapod-like than Panderichthys. The bony gill cover has disappeared, and the skull has a longer snout . . . The fossils [of the Tiktaalik] are earliest Late Devonian in age, making them at most 2 million or 3 million years younger than Panderichthys. With its crocodile-shaped skull, and paired fins with fin rays but strong internal limb skeletons, Tiktaalik also resembles Panderichthys quite closely." [Ahlberg & Clack, "A Firm Step From Water to Land." Nature, 2006]​

A Firm Step From Water to Land​

Wow, OK... This is going to take some deconstructing.

Reading the Ahlberg&Clack essay, they cite "The pelvic fin and girdle of Panderichthys and the origin of tetrapod locomotion", Boisvert, C. Nature 438, 1145–1147 (2005).
That paper came out in 2005, prior to the Tik papers, and ONLY mentioned Panderichthys.

Let me guess - in your desperation to protect YEC Menton, you looked at one of the papers he mentioned (but not the actual Tiktaalik papers?), keyword searched "pelvic", and thought you found a winner? Standard YEC "research" in action...

Anyway...

Here are the two Tiktaalik papers Ahlber & Clack refer to:


Nature. 2006 Apr 6;440(7085):757-63.
A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan.

and

Published: 06 April 2006
The pectoral fin of Tiktaalik roseae and the origin of the tetrapod limb

What is that??? PECTORAL fin???

Uh oh - I spoke too soon -

Pelvic girdle and fin of Tiktaalik roseae
Neil H. Shubin, Edward B. Daeschler, and Farish A. Jenkins, Jr.

Never mind - that didn't come out until 2013, but in it we see:

"The discovery of pelvic material of the finned elpistostegalian, Tiktaalik roseae, bridges some of these differences. Multiple isolated pelves have been recovered, each of which has been prepared in three dimensions. Likewise, a complete pelvis and partial pelvic fin have
been recovered in association with the type specimen. The pelves of Tiktaalik are paired and have broad iliac processes, flat and elongate pubes, and acetabulae that form a deep socket rimmed by a robust lip of bone. The pelvis is greatly enlarged relative to other finned tetrapodomorphs..."

So, I can only conclude sloppy editing in the Ahlberg & Clack essay, since the description of the pelvic fins did NOT get published for a few more years. But Menton is a brilliant YEC scientist, and surely such a person, whose goal after all was to demolish the relevance of Tiktaalik with the TRUTH - would not base his scientific rebuttal on the 'preview' essay in Nature, rather than the 2 actual publications in that same issue.... Would he?

Apparently so.

Nice try, but nope - Menton fudged it.

The size of the pelvic girdle of the Panderichthys (and thus, the Tiktaalik)

Umm... What?

They are 2 different creatures - but cute sleight of hand there, champ.

was determined from this article, which is footnoted in the Ahlberg & Clack article:

"The pelvic girdle itself is small: it measures 3.5 cm for a 90.5 cm long pre-pelvic body, corresponding to 3.86% of the body size as compared with 5% in Eusthenopteron and 7% in Acanthostega (measured from reconstructions)." [Catherine A Boisvert, "The Pelvic Fin and Girdle of Panderichthys and Theorigin of Tetrapod Locomotion." Nature, 2005]

The pelvic fin and girdle of Panderichthys and the origin of tetrapod locomotion​

So... You don't know what footnotes are, got it. Those are called citations, by the way...


It is so weird - you actually looked up the Boisvert article - heck you provided the title!! but apparently ignored it, and still made 100% unwarranted assumptions and foolish conclusions (in which you conflate 2 different organisms) all to try to prop up your YEC hero.

NEXT!

These are Menton's footnotes:

1. Daeschler, E. B., N. H. Shubin, and F. A. Jenkins, 2006. A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body
plan. Nature 440(7085):757–763.

2. Ahlberg, P. E. and J. A. Clack, 2006. News and Views. Nature 440(7085):747–749.​

The Boisvert, C. A. reference was footnoted in both the Daeschler, E. B. and Ahlberg et al reference.

Yeah, those are citations, not footnotes, but thanks.

Now, where did Menton go wrong? What am I missing?

See demolition above.

Oh - weird that you totally omitted his rather asinine claim about bony connections to the axial skeleton. That was wise (but not clever) of you to omit it.

 

[Job 33:6]

Now I understand. You don't read well.

Will you please get off these silly topics and address the big picture, such as, for starters, where did the sediment come from? For starters, where did the sandstone come from that made up the Tapeats layering?

Dan

How about you first admit that you were wrong about there being little to no bioturbation in the geologic column and admit that there are complex burrow systems identified within Paleozoic and mesozoic and cenozoic strata. And you can admit that the tracks of the Bolivian late mesozoic were going in various directions and likely we're not fleeing given that pteradactyls wouldn't flee on foot as they're flying animals (this being aside from observed spacing between tracks which allow for determination of if dinosaurs we're walking or running). And while you're at it, you can acknowledge the existence of ductile deformation of rocks and kindly never ask a geologist again how rocks bend, as if we don't already know and now that you know. Oh and if you could kindly admit that you are unaware of how a global flood could produce the angular unconformity of the shawangunk Martinsburg contact, that would be great too.

Once you actually acknowledge our prior discussions and how they've been concluded, then I would be happy to change the subject yet again and to make an example of the new subject just like all the others that you have raised.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What does that silly vestigial organ hypothesis have to do with the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution?

Dan

We don't know. You tell us since you're the one who's twisted the topic from the coccyx to religion in politics.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

That is correct. Creation scientists, by definition, believe all humans are direct descendants of Adam and Eve, and are therefore, cousins.

Same as regular scientists then, though regular scientists have evidence, so less God & Genesis and more genetics and evolution, of course...

Yea, I guess not. Did you know that Darwin also wrote this?

"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." [Darwin, Charles, Civilised Nations, "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex." 1981, Chap V, p.168]

....now you're arguing FOR evolution? He's speaking of the stronger, fitter, more capable lineage that natives tend to have because of the coddling that the civilised west was able to give to our weaker individuals through informed care because of science and social unity... he does have a point, btw.

She tried to put it in simple layman's terms, but I guess it is still over your head. Maybe you can better understand this video:

No, no, it isn't that we don't understand, it's that she's wrong.

God does not wish that any should perish.

Do the Amalakites know this? How about the Canaanites? Midianites? All the first born of Egypt?

 

[tas8831]

Let me guess. Is it because the evolutionism orthodoxy controls the scientific establishment and the so-called "peer-review" process, not to mention their interpretations are enforced by the power of the federal government sword? Just a hunch.



I have made mention in this thread of scientists who demonstrated the evolution so-called "tree of life" is a fantasy. Perhaps you have not been paying attention, or you arrived late. In either case, check out evolutionist J. Craig Venter, beginning at the 9:35 mark in this video:

The "Bush of Life"? It is in reality more like a lawn, but that is a good start for an evolutionist.



The constitution was not written to separate "Church and State". That corruption of the constitution was invented by the ACLU and usurped into "law" by a corrupt judiciary in 1947. Up until that time Christianity and the U.S. governments (federal, state and local) got along just fine.



I cannot imagine anything worse than the many hundreds of millions slaughtered by the Christian-hating communists, and their close cousins, the fascists, in the 20th century.

Dan

Apparently, this "research" that our retired engineer YEC claims to have engaged in, consists entirely of scouring YEC/ID websites, archiving and paraphrasing all of their claims, no matter how pathetic and bogus.

You really think Craig Venter does not accept evolution? Do you really think the the debate about whether the tree of life had a single trunk or many roots means evolution is false?

Have you heard about the 'debate' between Old Earth and Young Earth creationism?

Using the logic of the spoiled child, I guess we can just conclude creation to be false.

 

[tas8831]

What does that silly vestigial organ hypothesis have to do with the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution?

Dan

And the next universal YEC tactic rears its head - 'ignore' material that you cannot handle rationally by honing in on a tangential issue and not bothering to comment on anything else.

Brilliant!

The FACTS are:



1. The coccyx contains reduced vertebrae. Their articulation resembles that seen in tailed mammals.

2. The coccyx has a muscular attachment, the extensor coccygis (NOT the coccygeus as many creationists dishonestly try to counter with – that is a different muscle), whose origin is on the distal, dorsal sacrum and which inserts on the coccyx, crossing the sacrococcygeal joint. As such, this muscle’s ONLY possible function is to extend the coccyx. That is, to make it stick out posteriorly. And yet we cannot do this. The same muscle exists in tailed primates. And they Can extend their tails (their EC is more extensive than ours – say, that is totally like a rudiment! Just like in the definition of vestigial!). Why Design a muscle for humans that they cannot use?

3. People born without a coccyx generally do not exhibit detrimental symptoms – their ‘autonomic reproductive functions’ and bladder control etc. work fine. So much for this ‘supported by the coccyx’ gibberish.

4. I have seen no documentation indicating that humans born with tails are used as evidence that THE COCCYX is vestigial.

5. There is no creationist explanation for the extensor coccygis, for why we would have been ‘designed’ with a muscle that we cannot actually use, whose only possible function is to extend the coccyx.

6. Creationists never offer evidence FOR creation, just these sad, pathetic, desperate attacks on evolution and evolutionists to try to generate a fallacious false dichotomy argument.

 

[tas8831]

Why not? Why believe in a faith-based religion based on 200 year-old documents, when you can believe in the faith-based religion based on 3,500 year old documents?

Dan

You answered your own question... And ignored that unlike the 3500 year old tall tales borrowed and modified from neighboring tribes and traditions, science keeps adding to its knowledge base, whereas religionism simply remains locked in ancient times.

 

[tas8831]

Are you kidding? You have been watching too much CNN.

I don't watch any network or cable news.
But I am sure that your TV is locked into Fox.

Obama was the ultimate narcissist and big government regulator (e.g., he is a fascist, by definition).

Right, so narcissistic. Like 'ad hominem', it seems that you don't understand what 'narcissist' is.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, is a freedom loving, small government promoter, who just happens to love this country.

He also likes to stiff contractors and threaten them with lawsuits. He also attacked and insulted veterans and a Gold Star Family. He made his "standard retard" impression (according to Ann Coulter) to mock a disabled reporter. He also said that avoiding STDs was 'his Viet Nam'. He is also a serial philanderer with several divorces and has probably had sex with his daughter.
These photos of Trump and Ivanka will make you deeply uncomfortable

But hey - he hates the brown skins, loves money, hates the poor - just like Jesus!

He also knows how to fix things, including the economy, which is exactly what we need after 28 years of rule by Ivy league economic dunces.

Dan

I'm betting you still think trickle down works, right?

I see a pattern with this one...



The FACTS are:



1. The coccyx contains reduced vertebrae. Their articulation resembles that seen in tailed mammals.

2. The coccyx has a muscular attachment, the extensor coccygis (NOT the coccygeus as many creationists dishonestly try to counter with – that is a different muscle), whose origin is on the distal, dorsal sacrum and which inserts on the coccyx, crossing the sacrococcygeal joint. As such, this muscle’s ONLY possible function is to extend the coccyx. That is, to make it stick out posteriorly. And yet we cannot do this. The same muscle exists in tailed primates. And they Can extend their tails (their EC is more extensive than ours – say, that is totally like a rudiment! Just like in the definition of vestigial!). Why Design a muscle for humans that they cannot use?

3. People born without a coccyx generally do not exhibit detrimental symptoms – their ‘autonomic reproductive functions’ and bladder control etc. work fine. So much for this ‘supported by the coccyx’ gibberish.

4. I have seen no documentation indicating that humans born with tails are used as evidence that THE COCCYX is vestigial.

5. There is no creationist explanation for the extensor coccygis, for why we would have been ‘designed’ with a muscle that we cannot actually use, whose only possible function is to extend the coccyx.

6. Creationists never offer evidence FOR creation, just these sad, pathetic, desperate attacks on evolution and evolutionists to try to generate a fallacious false dichotomy argument.

 

[tas8831]

You seem to be obsessed with proving the evolution icon of "vestigial organs" is not a myth.



More silly games . . .

Dan

LOL!

The great 'researcher' cannot handle science?!?
Lots of unnecessarily confident and condescending bombast and bluster, but ending up as an empty suit.

Typical...

Just a reminder of the what our "researcher" omitted and ran away from:

The following is a nice progression from testing of a methodology, to application of the tested methodology to evolutionary questions. Creationist replies to this have been lacking, to say the least.


---------------------------------------------------
I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "




Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.

"The Superfamily Hominoidea for apes and humans is reduced to family Hominidae within Superfamily Cercopithecoidea, with all living hominids placed in subfamily Homininae; and (4) chimpanzees and humans are members of a single genus, Homo, with common and bonobo chimpanzees placed in subgenus H. (Pan) and humans placed in subgenus H. (Homo). It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."

--------------------------------​

And most importantly, he totally bailed from:

Your turn.

So sad.

 

[tas8831]

Also, you consisitently change the topic, I address the topic change and then without acknowledging me, you change it again. Over and over and over again.

In one topic, you asked me how rocks bend. I told you about research on brittle and ductile deformation and showed you images of strained trilobite fossils. You just never responded.

Standard YEC/IDist tactics. I think there comes a time when they realize that all of the garbage that they have faithfully accepted from YEC/ID propagandists is failing, when they see that despite their unwarranted high opinions of themselves (Dunning-Kruger effect) they cannot 'win', they just fade away. Like pshun2404 and OldWiseGuy, they just abandon their own threads...

 

[tas8831]

Actually, youre still wrong, not all of the tracks at Cal orcko display evidence of running.

Who is feeding you all this false information?

Possibly the same creation 'scientists' that explain that fish fossils eyes are wide open as if in fear of the flood waters... Not understanding that the size of the orbit is not an indication that the eyes were wide open...

 

[tas8831]

Are you familiar with Dr. John Baumgardner's TERRA software? It was his UCLA PhD Dissertation based on plate tectonics, and is quite fascinating. This is a 1997 secular article on Baumgardner's project by Chandler Burr of the U.S. News and World Report:

http://www.globalflood.org/uploads/1/0/4/4/10444187/geophysics_of_god.pdf

Dan

Are you familiar with Drs'. Keller, Bunge, Geissman, et al. dismantling of Baumgardner's misuse of his own program?
Miracles In, Creationism Out

 

[tas8831]

Here is another hint: pseudogenes have nothing to do with common descent

Not really, no. Unless they happen to exhibit synapomorphies.

, and phylogeny is helpful only in determining the classification of the various kinds.

Dan

LOL!

Yes, well, that is in part what it is for, but it also can discern phylogenetic relationships. And in that sense, pseudogenes are useful. Since most of them are not under functional (sequence-based) constraint, they accumulate lots of mutations. And the patterns of mutations are indicative of descent. Of course, with the advent of more efficient and faster sequencing techniques, we do not have to rely on them as much, but they are still useful.

But your handlers will not tell you that.

Also, still waiting for you to explain why anyone should take your unsupported assertions about evolution over those of Todd Wood, PhD, YEC.