Coccyx - tale of a creationist disinformation post

[tas8831]

It's a religion. You don't get to rewrite the dictionary.

Who does he think he is, Jordan Peterson or something?

 

[Hank77]

It is almost as if creationists refuse to read the books they claim their lies appear in...

That quote was taken directly from my grandson Christian home school biology book "Order and Design".
I'm not sure where those other quotes/ideas are coming from but some of them make Christians look really stupid or deceptive. We can disagree on how life came about and how it got to where it is today but absolutes in biology are what they are.

 

[PsychoSarah]

No, @PsychoSarah said in post #1047 that DNA does not contain information. Please read.

Going back to Gitt's definition of information, from post #986:

Gitt defines information as "an encoded, symbolic message, with a language convention, and which contains an expected action upon the part of the recipient, and an intended purpose." Below are the 4 components:

1) Encoded symbols
2) A language convention
3) An expected action
4) An intended purpose

I explained that DNA doesn't contain information like a language does. There are some definitions of information so broad that literally everything that exists has information by virtue of existing.

If genes worked like languages do, we would only need the sequence to determine what protein/s are produced by the gene. This is not the case, especially with eukaryotic genes because the mRNA produced is not representative of the gene transcribed.

But I can go through each of those points easily:
1. Nucleotides are not symbols, they are chemicals. We may symbolically represent them as G, T, A, and C because of the names we gave them, but they are not symbols in and of themselves.

2. I've already described that DNA has many properties no language actually would. In fact, the only ones I could think people would be able to argue it had is that genes have clear "start" and "stop" points, but this is a consequence of the fact that there are certain sequences that are necessary for the protein complex that transcribes DNA to attach to and 3 codons that, no matter what, will cause that protein complex to fall away from the DNA. but I would still say that it's not like a language. even in that. aspect. because. these periods are not stopping you from continuing to read and you. aren't prevented from starting. by virtue of me not capitalizing the first letters.

3. Trust me, when trying to isolate genes and insert them into bacterial genomes, they are not cooperative. Alternative splicing is a huge pain in the butt. Heck, sequences that worked well for one person can end up being a nightmare for another, just by chance.

4. DNA cannot be demonstrated to have any intent.

Yeah, so, none of the 4 components this Gitt guy thinks defines information applies to DNA.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Hang on, you're the 2nd person to make this false claim now... @PsychoSarah wrote in post #1047 these words in response to my assertion that DNA contains information:

"Nope, because DNA doesn't have any information."

Not any like a language, which I recall specifying in my responses to you. Technically, I could argue that everything has information, it all depends on how you define "information" to begin with. You have been assuming (incorrectly) that everyone that uses the term has been using it the same way.

 

[Hank77]

If the argument is that you yet again show your lack of relevant knowledge, then yes - it is a creationist canard that a vestigial structure must have no function.

Maybe that is because that is the definition of 'vestigial' even in evolution.
ves·tig·i·al
veˈstij(ē)əl/
adjective
adjective: vestigial
forming a very small remnant of something that was once much larger or more noticeable.
"he felt a vestigial flicker of anger from last night"
synonyms: remaining, surviving, residual, leftover, lingering
"he felt a vestigial flicker of anger from last night"
Biology
(of an organ or part of the body) degenerate, rudimentary, or atrophied, having become functionless in the course of evolution.
"the vestigial wings of kiwis are entirely hidden"
synonyms: rudimentary, undeveloped; More

 

[tas8831]

Maybe that is because that is the definition of 'vestigial' even in evolution.
ves·tig·i·al
veˈstij(ē)əl/
adjective
adjective: vestigial
forming a very small remnant of something that was once much larger or more noticeable.
"he felt a vestigial flicker of anger from last night"
synonyms: remaining, surviving, residual, leftover, lingering
"he felt a vestigial flicker of anger from last night"
Biology
(of an organ or part of the body) degenerate, rudimentary, or atrophied, having become functionless in the course of evolution.
"the vestigial wings of kiwis are entirely hidden"
synonyms: rudimentary, undeveloped; More

Yes, I've seen those, and they make me cringe. Darwin never stated that a vestige must be useless (though he did give several good examples - none of the usual suspects, either) and in fact referred to such structures more commonly as "rudimentary". Most definitions, however, also have this:

1. Biology. a degenerate or imperfectly developed organ or structure that has little or no utility, but that in an earlier stage of the individual or in preceding evolutionary forms of the organism performed a useful function.

 

[Hank77]

Yes, I've seen those, and they make me cringe. Darwin never stated that a vestige must be useless (though he did give several good examples - none of the usual suspects, either) and in fact referred to such structures more commonly as "rudimentary". Most definitions, however, also have this:

1. Biology. a degenerate or imperfectly developed organ or structure that has little or no utility, but that in an earlier stage of the individual or in preceding evolutionary forms of the organism performed a useful function.

But don't we see in the case of the coccyx it does still have a couple important functions? For instance,

Muscles that attach to the tailbone and contribute to sitting, standing and bowel control include the following:

• The gluteus maximus — is a large gluteal muscle that helps keep the body erect
• The levator ani — is a thin muscle that forms the pelvic floor and supports the pelvic organs
• The external anal sphincter — is a flat muscle that assists in bowel function

https://www.laserspineinstitute.com/back_problems/spinal_anatomy/tailbone/

 

[tas8831]

Science? Let's add some honest perspective here. Even if the world were say 6k-10k years old, there are no written records going back more than about 5k years ago. There's no direct support for thousands of years old OR billions of years old. Now, scientists don't believe in billions of years or evolution because they are stupid - to the contrary, they believe these things based upon the conclusions they've drawn from research, lots of research and a lot of hard work. Does that mean they are right? Well... no. As sincere as the efforts have been, they can be sincerely wrong.

If I told you something was a billion years old, and say I concluded this based upon a method where I know that something that happens in the present happens at a certain rate and if we look at the evidence left with this 'something' that shows that a billion years has passed and I know this because I have measured the evidence and mathematically calculated the amount of time that would have to pass given the present rate to arrive at what I see as the evidence, that is what scientists are doing. What this is, is an inference... they didn't directly see it happen, the evidence didn't come with a label saying "Made 1x10^9 B.C.", it's a linear extrapolation of what is currently seen. Now, what I haven't told you is that the mathematical model has assumptions built into it... first, one assumes a constant rate, also one assumes they know the original conditions of the evidence, and also one assumes they know that there has been no contamination during the entire billion years that the evidence has been there. I've also not told you until now that within the evidence, there are other measurements of it that give contradictory ages of only thousands of years old.

So, within science there is evidence for a young earth and no evolution, AND there is evidence for an old earth and evolution, science doesn't have a definitive answer - so it really is pointless and irrational to base one's belief and arguments for/against solely on the basis of what scientists believe (right now, subject to continue on changing after you and I are dead). Agree?

I've used this example in other threads: Do you believe Washington crossed the Delaware river? Why? There's no 'scientific' evidence. Oh sure, there were supposedly eye witness accounts and it was written down as a historical record of what happened, but what about 5,000 years from now (should people still be around then)? Will people be doomed to not believing the events recorded because they cannot indirectly corroborate the written records with scientific evidence?? You and I can believe that Washington crossed the Delaware because it was a historical event, regardless of whether we find a fossilized footprint near the bank of the river left behind from Washington's boot or not. In the same way, God gave a historical account of creation. We weren't there to witness this so His Holy Spirit inspired those who wrote these events down, in order that we may know what happened. Yet for God, we have a higher standard - that scientific conclusions must unequivocally support only what is in the Bible in order that we might believe? There is no sense (nor faith) in that. We've heard that Christianity is not a blind faith - there IS scientific evidence for many of the events in the Bible, but there won't be for everything. Either we choose to believe or we choose not to believe.

blah blah blah

And the conclusion:

-----------------------------------------------------
Sorry, to actually answer your question: I believe what science asserts (regarding creation) has been propagated by some to support a lie. Though, it may not have originally been intended to deceive, many have been deceived.

There it is - the usual cop-out of the under-informed, desperate, and hateful. Wish I had seen this sooner.

When you've got NOTHING of relevance to counter facts with, call your opponents liars.
Now, if you had some actual evidence that evolution is a lie and that we are supporting this lie (i.e., are liars), that is one thing. I have on several occasions provided evidence that creationists have lied (I would add to that list those creationists that, even after having their errors corrected and documented more than once continue to post the exact same erroneous material over and over) and so feel justified in calling it like I see it (Trump-like, though most of Trump's observations seem premised on delusions). The alternative, of course, is that these folks are simply too incompetent to know any better, which is always possible.
But my point it, when you jump right to the tired old 'its all a lie!!!' schtick, put some beef on the table or be exposed as pathetic and desperate.

 

[tas8831]

note - not sure why my diagrams don't show up. They are there when I click on 'edit'...

But don't we see in the case of the coccyx it does still have a couple important functions? For instance,

Muscles that attach to the tailbone and contribute to sitting, standing and bowel control include the following:

• The gluteus maximus — is a large gluteal muscle that helps keep the body erect
• The levator ani — is a thin muscle that forms the pelvic floor and supports the pelvic organs
• The external anal sphincter — is a flat muscle that assists in bowel function

https://www.laserspineinstitute.com/back_problems/spinal_anatomy/tailbone/

Those contributions are negligible.

Please note the size and location of the gluteus maximus. Note that in this diagram, no fibers attach to the coccyx. That is because they generally do not, any association with the coccyx is via some fascia (connective tissue associated with muscles).

Same here - no coccyx, no problem.

And as far as the anal sphincter - sphincter, by definition, do not have bony attachments, and is also associated with the coccyx only via fascia.

If you break your coccyx, yes, it will hurt when you sit, stand, or poop. But that does not mean in any way that is cannot be a vestige.

Did you read the OP and my first post in this thread? None of those render the coccyx non-vestigial. I provided documentation in the OP or 2nd post about people born with out a coccyx and how they are generally asymptomatic.
But the real deal for vestigial structures is that they are present in a more-functional form in ancestral or otherwise related stock.
The coccyx is simply the last few caudal vertebrae in humans. They can differ in number (3-5). And the biggie for me was when I found out that there is a muscle called the extensor coccygis. It is 1. not always present in humans and 2. located such that its only possible function would be to extend the coccyx. That is, to make is stick out.
I can do some odd things, like consciously contract my auricularis posterior muscles, as well as my palmaris brevis (which most people cannot), but darned if I can make my coccyx point backwards.
I have graduate education and teaching experience in human and vertebrate anatomy, and I know that the only thing that muscle could ever possibly do it make the coccyx extend.
I say vestigial. What is the alternative?

 

[tas8831]

Also Hank - keep in mind that my real purpose in starting this thread was to debunk the sad disinformation presented by a creationist claiming that the coccyx is not vesitigial. I could have made the exact same arguments even if I did not think the coccyx IS vestigial, they were so bad and wrong.

 

[tas8831]

Did you say you were a serial slanderer? Appears so.

It is slander to say something true about a person?

Is it your esteemed Christian position that Donald Trump, he of the 2 divorces, he of the "grab them by the...", he of the "avoiding STDs in the clubs was my Viet Nam", is not a serial philanderer?

OK... But your hero-worship is a bit creepy.

I'll bet you really despise the serial-philanderer and accused rapist, Billy-Boy Clinton, don't you?

He's not my favorite. But the funny thing is, I am not the one professing some sort of Christian Moral Supremacy even as I am all-in for an immoral robber-baron and dictator wannabe.


Still waiting for you to write anything relevant regarding the thread topic. It was so cute how you flailed and twisted to try to rescue Menton the Mendacious, but it was a losing battle. Anything of merit?

 

[Hank77]

The coccyx is simply the last few caudal vertebrae in humans. They can differ in number (3-5). And the biggie for me was when I found out that there is a muscle called the extensor coccygis. It is 1. not always present in humans and 2. located such that its only possible function would be to extend the coccyx. That is, to make is stick out.

I'll do some research on this muscle. Not because I doubt your knowledge, it's just I always try to verify new information.

Also Hank - keep in mind that my real purpose in starting this thread was to debunk the sad disinformation presented by a creationist claiming that the coccyx is not vestigial. I could have made the exact same arguments even if I did not think the coccyx IS vestigial, they were so bad and wrong.

You being a educator may drive you to correct mistakes but I would encourage you to try to be patient, not that you haven't been, but I've seen others deliberately try to make less knowledgeable people look inadequate. No one learns well that way as I'm sure you are well aware of.
Thanks for the conversation. Have a good evening.

 

[tas8831]

This guy is tiresome. What is it with these retired engineer-types and their egotistical Dunning-Kruger effect issues?

No creationist has ever provided supporting evidence showing that the word of God IS the word of God, much less that it is based in reality.

That is the kind of blasphemy one might hear from a follower of loony Aron Ra; but not on a Christian Forum.

So, you don't know of any such evidence I take it?

For none of which have religionists provided evidence.

You seem unusually bigoted toward Christians and the Word of God, and especially toward those who follow a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis.

Weird - you really consider it blasphemous and bigoted to ask a biblical literalist for evidence?
You guys must be more desperate than I thought!

Seeing as how you have yet to provide anything or merit or worth in this thread on any topic, and have provided only condescension, empty, unsupported assertions, and hero worship, your claims are to be laughed at.

Do you project much?

Not as much as creationists do.
Are you denying that you have condescended on topics that you think your Google knowledge is relevant in? Denying that you have made unsupported assertions? etc.? I am not always right, but at least I support my assertions when warranted.

I was originally posting on an eschatology board, I joined these threads because of what appeared to be rampant condescension by "morally-superior" evolutionists against creationists, not to mention the hero worship of the prophet of evolutionism, Charlie Darwin.

LOL! My gosh - so you thought you'd pop in show us all some REAL condescendin'?

You know, when you people spew your falsehoods, don't get all indignant when you are called on it. That is half the problem.

Ever read any Saul Alinski?

No, but pshun2404 the creationist claimed to have studied brainwashing techniques for 5 years and tries to employ his brainwashing techniques as often as he can. He doesn't do so well.
It is odd that the people who seem to know the most about Saul Alinski are those that try to use him as some sort of bigoted guilt-by-association trope against people they are told to hate.

Study his work a lot have you?

Like I said, he does say some really dumb things.

LOOKIE HERE FOLKS! One of them unsupported assertions YECs like to make!

I posted another statement on this thread by him you may already be aware of:

Coccyx - tale of a creationist disinformation post​

Kurt Wise doesn't believe there is evidence for common descent, like Wood.

Who cares?

In my earlier reply, Wood was quoted as saying:

"Use evolution only to refer to the objectionable forms ("fish to Gish"), or bring in terms like microevolution and macroevolution to describe evolution we're OK with (the former) and evolution we object to (the latter)." ​

A little convoluted, but you get the picture. Three paragraphs later, he writes:

"In the case of "evidence for evolution," I meant evolution in the standard, conventional sense. There are observations of allele frequency changes in populations (Darwin's finches, for example), evidence of speciation (as explained in Darwin's geography chapters in Origin and elsewhere), and there is evidence for universal common ancestry (genetic code, protein homology, core metabolism, etc.). For some of that evidence, I'm content to accept the evolutionary interpretation. For other evidence (particularly of universal common ancestry), I think there is another explanation."​

​

Weird, so you quote him admitting that there is evidence for universal common ancestry, but that he thinks there is another explanation.
This is at odds with your wailing about there being NO EVIDENCE for evolution.

Like here:

"There is no proof of the serious Darwinian claim -- macroevolution."

Or here:

"There is no evidence for common descent."

It is precious to see another YEC backtrack when caught.

I asked you for the context of that quote, and you ignored my request.

I'm not sure what context could possibly alter the intention of it.
You can start on page 132 - and ol' Hank really shows his 'gentlemanly' racism from there on in... Sure, he tries to sound not-racist, by tossing a few compliments to the 'darker skinned folks' - like how EXTRAORDINARY they are at being servants!

What is with all this misdirection? You seem desperate to avoid the serious questions about the validity of evolution.

MY misdirection? This thread was started to debunk pshun2404's meandering nonsense about how the coccyx cannot be vestigial - have you even touched on that?

NO. Except with your vapid dismissals.

This is the article in question:

Gone Fishin’ for a Missing Link? (A Preliminary Response)​

Yes - that is the one he lied in.
I am well aware of Menton's lies - remember - you went to some lengths to defend his lie, and I had to put down your gibberish?

Will you ever get around to providing any proof of macroevolution?

Already have several times. Since you cannot understand it, you dismissed it and condescended some more.

But this thread is about the creationist disinformation re: the coccyx.

 

[tas8831]

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

What are your assumptions?

Ah, this old canard...

My assumptions are that tested and reliable methods and concepts have merit.

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.

What are your assumptions?

I love how these ego types try to pretend that they have some kind of superior knowledge - what they really have is no such knowledge, so they play games like this.

My assumptions for what? I have applied conclusions based on tested methods:

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."


I don;t care if you don't accept this or can't understand it or whatever, but those that understand genetics and biology and science DO.


What are YOUR assumptions, other than:
- Ancient tales from the middle east, despite having no corroboration or supporting evidence, are totally 100% true

... I consider that tactic to be a fraudulent misrepresentation of what works (micro) and what clearly does not (macro).

I am still waiting for you to explain why on earth anyone should even care what YOU consider regarding these issues, seeing as how you have no background, no education, no track record of research, etc., on any of these issues.

 

[tas8831]

At least he is not evolutionist. He is also well educated, having earned a PhD in Molecular and Cell Biology from University of California at Berkeley, where he also worked as a postdoctoral research biologist.

He is also a Moonie.
Of course, in all his years at Berkely, he could only muster 3 publications. I had 3 my 3rd year in grad school.

But I understand he is also a wanted man:

You know that was produced by an anti-evolution group, right? I mean, you DID see the source, right?

I think his books are quite good;

And what do you base that on? Your in-depth knowledge of biology and other subjects that you actually have no background in?

Have you read this review of his book titled, "The Myth of Junk DNA"?

Review wells junk dna - creation.com​

It begins:

"One of the greatest evolutionary frauds of recent times is the myth that eukaryotic genomes, particularly the human genome, are largely composed of meaningless ‘junk’ DNA sequences that serve no biological purpose." [Jeffrey P. Tomkins, "The Junk DNA myth takes a well-deserved hit." Creation Ministries International, 2011] ​

It ends:

"My final suggestion is that I would hope that Dr Wells considers this book an ongoing project. Given the immense amount of research in this field and the new and exciting developments which emerge virtually every week, the book should be regularly revised every couple of years to keep the issue at the forefront in the hotly contested fields of intelligent design and creation science. This is particularly important given the fraudulent rhetoric actively promulgated by theistic evolutionists and popular science authors." [Ibid.] ​

Hilarious - you and other YECs better get together and get your tall tales straight - for you see, another YEC on here made much of the fact that at least 75% of the genome is in fact 'junk'!

See, he was arguing that mutations are all bad and make the genome less functional, like with junk DNA. I guess you folks argue both sides of any coin you need to in order to prop up your failing beliefs!

It is any wonder evolutionists dislike Jeffrey Tomkins?

No wonder at all - the guy's dishonesty/incompetence has been repeatedly revealed:

Here, for example.

Or maybe here.

Or here.

And those are just some of the ones on this forum. A Reddit forum has torn him to pieces on more than 1 occasion.

It is a shame that so many creationists - even the more educated ones are driven to commit what is very close to fraud just to try to prop up their evidence-free tales by attacking evolution. Sad.

 

[tas8831]

What do the fossils prove, other than marine waters once covered the entire earth; that some paleontologists have vivid imaginations; and that Tiktaalik is a lobe-finned fish?

Tiktaalik pelvis - creation.com​

So cool that you give me another great example of professional creationists being dishonest (or incompetent)!

"In 2006, Dr Jonathan Sarfati considered the evidence and pointed out that Tiktaalik’s fin was not connected to the main skeleton, so could not have supported its weight on land."

Jon Sarfati - chemist - yakking about fossils and physiology. Hilarious! He, too makes the same erroneous claim Menton did - thinking that there must be a bone-to-bone articulation between the 'fin' and the 'main skeleton' in order for something to walk on land.

This will be news to elephants. And bison. And tigers. And so on.

Pity that so many professional creationists are, well, either dishonest or incompetent, yet make a living pontificating on things they do not actually understand.

These creationists propagandists are something, and it is sad how many lay creationists accept their lies and embellishments and misrepresentations and misinterpretations at face value, all the while hawking their great heroes demolition of evilution with FACTS!

 

[Job 33:6]

This guy is tiresome. What is it with these retired engineer-types and their egotistical Dunning-Kruger effect issues?

He hasn't posted in a couple weeks. He certainly didn't last long.

 

[tas8831]

He hasn't posted in a couple weeks. He certainly didn't last long.

I grew tired of his games for a bit and ignored him, but I am killing time today and decided the go through this thread. His kind are a dime a dozen. He'll be back, I am sure...

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Its turtles all the way down, well, except for that first one!

Isn't it precious how the creationist conjures up these escape-clauses for their fantasies?

Of Course!

"....Everything has to comply with the rules..... 'cept my God, because Reasons!" - said every creationists ever...​

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If the argument is that you yet again show your lack of relevant knowledge, then yes - it is a creationist canard that a vestigial structure must have no function.
Google knowledge can only take you so far - say, to the front pews of your church. But in real life, this sort of game you play makes the truly informed laugh at your smug desperation.


Had you bothered to read the OP and the second post, you could have spared yourself the usual Dunning-Kruger effect-based embarrassment.

Aorta send motor impulses to your larynx via the RNL... LOL!!!!


Not even worth the effort.

And yet.......you continue.