The link you both posted had zero to do with the subject matter at hand (hence deflection)
????
So let me get this straight - I START a thread using a cladogram that had been posted FOR YOU on another forum, which YOU "interpreted" thusly:
"....the tree would indicate humans and chimps came from gorillas who came from orangutans and so on..."
and ask for interpretations of it, you respond with some totally irrelevant science-bashing, but I am the one that 'deflected'??
Amazing...
also I never said "a bone received parasympathetic stimulation" but thanks for misrepresenting.
"because
the coccyx is known to be there to support a ganglia of nervous tissue covered in grey matter (like a little brain - coccygeal plexus) and not only is the connective source of the two coccygeal and also sciatic nerves, but assists (and is necessary to) the autonomic urogenital functions.
In its parasympathetic stimulated phase it is essential to our sexuality, thus mating, thus perpetuation and survival of the species. It carries the sensation/information through the axons to the central nervous system and back through transmission across the dentrites."
You should take a class on basic English grammar, for as written, it sure looks like you are referring to the coccyx.
Or was your word salad just a version of the Gish Gallop, and you knew that it had nothing to do with thew coccyx?
Not that it matters - your word salad was bogus and wrong on so many levels, and you still cannot bring yourself to admit it.
A plexus is not a ganglion.
The coccyx has ZERO to do with 'connecting' the coccygeal or sciatic nerves to anything.
The ganglion impar - which by the way exists whether the coccyx is there or not - is a SYMPATHETIC ganglion, and thus cannot receive parasympathetic stimulation (duh).
And by the way - sympathetic/parasympathetic nervous systems do not convey sensation.
And the direction of impulse transmission in a neuron is dendrite-cell body-axon, not the other way.
Now back to the topic at hand. Which Understanding Evolution "assumption(s)" do you hold to be established facts?
So, you just realized that the Understanding Evolution site does NOT support your interpretation after all, and are dodging.
Got it.
Now back to the ACTUAL topic at hand - Do you still think that cladograms show one extant taxon giving rise to another as you claimed on debatingchristianity?
Stop dodging and answer.