Evolution is mathematically impossible

[OldWiseGuy]

A lot more. You need a coherent explanation as to how you arrived at that conclusion.

Why are you having trouble providing that explanation?

I'm going strictly by appearances. It looks like it was designed and functions like it was designed. That's all I've got.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Would you agree that it's too complex for science to explain?

No.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The hand appears to have been designed. What more is needed?

So do snowflakes. Looks like does not mean is.

 

[pitabread]

I'm going strictly by appearances. It looks like it was designed and functions like it was designed. That's all I've got.

That's not good enough.

 

[tas8831]

Impressive credentials, but lacks the discipline needed to address my theory, which would be the study of the nerve (or other) pathways involved in the brain/emotion cycle. In my reading I haven't found such a study.​

And what/where is your discipline?

Nothing on the brain and emotion? Really? Weird - I know you have Google access, since that is all you seem capable of doing (keyword searches followed by misinterpretation/misrepresentation).

Because, wow...
Brain Emotion cycles

If you need help with the big words, ask.

You have placed yourself, imo, in the same camp as the one who stated that the only function of the heart is to pump blood.

And you are solidly in the 'I believe the ancient middle eastern myths in the bible no matter what' camp because you don't know any better.
And also in the camp wherein if your first claims are demolished, you just pretend to have made slightly different claims to save your sad ego.

By the way - in order to have a 'theory' you actually have to have some evidence in the first place. Thanks for admitting, yet again, that you are a science novice pretending to have 'opinions' that matter.

Probably because that is the only function that can be observed.

Better, in your opinion , to just make crap up that might fit your Supernatural nonsense fairy tales, I guess...


Also - most interesting that you stopped quoting that post where you did - wanted to avoid re-living your embarrassment?

Too bad:

For future reference - try this:

The Neural Basis of Speech and Language
http://samples.jbpub.com/9781449652678/74738_CH02_FINAL.pdf

You might actually learn something. Doubt it, but you might.


Anyway, it is absolutely hilarious that you are trying to equate this with your farcical claims about "unconscious vocal signals" getting TO the brain.

From your link:

Our brain and gut are connected by an extensive network of neurons and a highway of chemicals and hormones that constantly provide feedback about how hungry we are, whether or not we’re experiencing stress, or if we’ve ingested a disease-causing microbe. ...

The enteric nervous system is often referred to as our body’s second brain. There are hundreds of million of neurons connecting the brain to the enteric nervous system, the part of the nervous system that is tasked with controlling the gastrointestinal system. This vast web of connections monitors the entire digestive tract from the esophagus to the anus [weird - no mention of controlling the "voice box" when scared!]....

While our “second” brain cannot compose a symphony or paint a masterpiece the way the brain in our skull can, it does perform an important role in managing the workings of our inner tube. ...

Operations of the enteric nervous system are overseen by the brain and central nervous system. The central nervous system is in communication with the gut via the sympathetic and parasympathetic branches of the autonomic nervous system, the involuntary arm of the nervous system that controls heart rate, breathing, and digestion...

This circuitry of neurons, hormones, and chemical neurotransmitters not only sends messages to the brain about the status of our gut, it allows for the brain to directly impact the gut environment....


And so on...


Did you actually read it? Or did you get so geeked out because it had the words 'gut' and 'brain' in it and thought that would be enough to prove that signals for vocalizations come from the gut? Because you just don't know any better and cannot bring yourself to admit it?​

 

[tas8831]

It's not a scientific "theory", just an idea.

Then why did you call it a theory?

 

[tas8831]

The same way mechanical devices are reverse engineered; you disassemble it, to see how it works. Didn't De Vinci do this?

You've disassembled a human hand?

I don't think so.

I have - it is a mess.

 

[tas8831]

Too complex not to be designed.

Cool empty assertion.

Then, this is ALL creationists have, isn't it? Empty assertions and emotional rhetoric?

 

[tas8831]

I have stated as much in the past.

So your whole premise is fallacious, and you are cool with that...

Typical.

 

[tas8831]

Would you agree that it's too complex for science to explain?

I wouldn't.

But thanks for piling on with the logical fallacies.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Brain Emotion cycles ​

Brain/emotion cycles is my phraseology. Your Google link has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.​

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Why strange? It is strange that I do not belong to a cult that robs me of the ability to grasp reality? Or is it strange that I do not pretend to understand things I do not like most creationists do?

What is strange to me is the notion that one can peruse a diagram on the internet and fancy their biased and admittedly uninformed opinions are on par with people that have actually studied the material in depth.

Who does that?

I didn't use a diagram. I simply said that there are diagrams available to support my contention.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You're hilarious in your desperation to pretend.

As I informed you when you previously foolishly made this kind of implication -

I purchased my first copy of Gray's Anatomy when I was 19, a young corporal in the army, looking for something to read in my spare time.. It is sitting on a shelf behind me right now.

Next to Moore's Clinically Oriented Anatomy (medical school anatomy text) on the same shelf. Right next to Grant's Atlas of Human Anatomy. Right next to Netter's Atlas of Human Anatomy. Right next to 4 different editions of undergraduate anatomy textbooks. Right next to 3 different embryology textbooks. Above a shelf where I have Nolte's 'The Human Brain' neuroanatomy and physiology text. And so forth.
I took 2 undergrad anatomy courses. An 8-credit human anatomy course in a school of medicine, after which I was required to teach continuing ed anatomy for physicians and to teach remedial anatomy classes to medical students. I've been teaching human and comparative anatomy at the college level for almost 20 years.

And you perused an online version of Gray's to look at a hand, and cannot see when I run circles around you. I do not claim or pretend to be the greatest anatomy expert there is - I lack that egotism gene that so many creationists have - but to think that I don't know MORE on this subject than you do is a fool's mistake.

Such is the hubris and prideful ignorance of the creationist.

No study of human psychology, specifically psychosomatic responses? That's what I'm talking about. It seems that all you studied was human architecture. We're not at all on the same page.

 

[tas8831]

I see that this charlatan is back, condescending and useless as ever...

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

Now where was I...

... and that you have poor judgment, which you’ve once again proved with this post.

One will note that at no point do you highlight an example of this 'poor judgement' and then explain why it shows 'poor judgement.'

As in nearly always the case with your type, you merely assert, and expect others to take your groundless nonsense at face value. I'm sure the pew-warmers comply, but sensible adults will not.

I don’t seem to have any problem with your generally googled info and opinions

Funny stuff from the fellow that believes YEC sources are reliable.

In reality, I first read that Atchley and Fitch paper when I was a graduate student in the mid 1990s. Same with the Hillis papers. I cited them in my dissertation, even. Knew of 2 of the others in the later 1990s, as well. But as I acknowledged the first time I posted it, it was on here that I saw all of those papers presented as a group.
So, no google, thanks. I get that you must project your own 'research' activities onto others, but it makes you look rather... petty.

when and if I can get you out of the ‘cut & paste’ posts, which only serve the purpose of boring everyone to death and laying the trap of causing someone to have to compose a research paper for an answer.

No, they serve as a direct refutation of the typical uninformed creationist mantra about there being "no evidence" for evolution, which even your great "inquiring mind" has foolishly made. Your 'inquiring mind' has produced the following quotes (in no particular order, all from this forum (just 2 threads), all easily searched for in case you doubt your own words). I do like the excessive amount of unwarranted condescension and a rather blatant lack of self-awareness in many of your erroneous claims - pretty common among your ilk; the laughable arrogance premised on ignorance (willful, it seems) is sometimes staggering. I also enjoy the arrogance of dismissing anyone's "interpretation" of evidence if it contradicts your favorite tall tales from the ancient middle east:

"I have often times found myself thinking “man, there appears to be a lot of evidence there, presented by knowledgeable people”... but it never pans out."

"Yes, some Christians can and often do allow themselves to be duped by Godless, well-cloaked doctrines of all sorts, and without even really realizing it... trust in man over God."

"Simply put, I think it is your interpretation of the evidence that is inadequate."

"...it is much more probable to me that God could have created all the different “kinds”, plant and animal, in stages since there is no convincing evidence of a complete progressive transformation as macroevolution would have it."

"No such evidence will be submitted, because no such evidence exists."

"You mean the smoke screens for lack of actual evidence for a change from one kind to another."
​

I really like this lie - lies like this are why I paste my "google" stuff :

"Any evidence you present as macro evolution is indeed false."

"But, you believe your evidence is interpreted 100% accurately."
​

And especially relevant to my "google" knowledge:

"Genetic evidence can be argued as much for Creation and a Designer as for Evolution... come on, you know that."

"in fact, I think our Creator designed micro evolution parameters, but I do not believe there is evidence to support macro evolution, either in the scientific field or His written word."
​

I especially like how no evidence "convinces" you of 'macroevolution' - yet you make it quite clear, Ken Ham-like, that you would not accept ANY evidence that counters your religious myths in the first place. All rather disingenuous.


But sure, I can see why you consider scientific evidence that refutes your mendacious mantras to be 'boring.' It is a way of dismissing that which you have no answer for. Pretty transparent, really.

I think if you even came close to understanding science as much as you claim, you’d be able to discuss it with entertaining dialogue. I won’t hold my breath on that one.

I find your desire for "entertainment" very informative. I once had a freshman say something similar to me in BI 101. Of course, he was just 18, and was used to being entertained because, you know, learning and paying attention is hard.

Of course, unlike you, my scientific knowledge is not pretend, and also unlike you, I do not present myself as having knowledge that I do not.

I will interpret your latest sad attempt at face-saving as an unwitting admission of intellectual defeat and simply laugh at your unwarranted over-estimation of your own intellectual worth.

More evidence of your poor judgment.

No, more evidence of the validity of my conclusion.
If you could actually understand and discuss the evidence that I and others have wasted time presenting to you, you would not be reduced to these condescending cop-outs.

Beaten? That certainly doesn’t sound like someone interested in ‘inquiring’ or exchanging ideas.

I am not interesting in the sort of "inquiring" you engage in, this is true. Your "inquiring" seems to consist entirely of unwarranted mockery, condescension premised on your own ignorance, and an unyielding desire to prop up you preferred ancient middle eastern numerology myths.

So much for your humility.

MY humility?

I am not the one presenting myself as possessing sufficient knowledge to overturn the conclusions of thousands of far more intelligent and honest people than yourself - those studying, researching finding evidence for, etc. a scientific field that just so happens to up-end your precious pre-technological beliefs.

I am simply providing evidence that you clearly cannot grasp the significance of, but also cannot bring yourself to admit to.

You are good at projection, that is true. But science? Not so much.

Who would've figured?

Indeed. Creationists with little to no science knowledge have a documented history of being insufferable buffoons when pretending to be able to address scientific evidence.

I had you on ignore for a few months. Now I remember why.
​

 

[tas8831]

I didn't use a diagram. I simply said that there are diagrams available to support my contention.

You never said any such thing (re: the hand - can't you keep track of your own fluff and bluster?), but please show a diagram of the hand that supports the claim of "design" by an ancient middle eastern tribal deity named Yahweh. But do keep in mind that your merely saying 'design' is not evidence, explanation, etc. Just the opinion of someone that thinks the aorta sends motor information to the larynx.

 

[tas8831]

No study of human psychology, specifically psychosomatic responses? That's what I'm talking about. It seems that all you studied was human architecture. We're not at all on the same page.

Right, none of that was ever discussed in any of my classes or studies.

But do take us all through a tour of your amazing background in human psychology, specifically psychosomatic responses, won't you? I was one class shy of having a psych minor, but I'm sure your electronics engineering curriculum allowed for all sorts of psychology classes.

Funny thing, though - you know what "somatic" refers to, yes? Of course you do not - it refers to the 'architecture' part that you are spectacularly uninformed about.

I'm sure your egotism, creationism, and googling background will totally own my mere 'architecture' knowledge of human anatomy and physiology (to include neuroscience).

You know, like how your "theories" on the aorta and the gut sending motor impulses to the larynx via the recurrent laryngeal nerve...

 

[tas8831]

Brain/emotion cycles is my phraseology. Your Google link has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.​

Point was, one merely needs to look. You refuse to. Out of fear? Probably - fear that you will see that your amazing 'insights' on yet another topic will seen to be embarrassingly ridiculous

Rather than play your one-liner game - you know, the game you play when you realize that you are in way over your head and are desperate to try to save face - why not put the specifics of your "theory" out there for us to see?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You know, like how your "theories" on the aorta and the gut sending motor impulses to the larynx via the recurrent laryngeal nerve...

Hey! That happens to me. All of a sudden my larynx spews out "Feed me!!" Now I know where that comes form.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm going strictly by appearances. It looks like it was designed and functions like it was designed. That's all I've got.

And i would imagine, that is all you personally need.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Right, none of that was ever discussed in any of my classes or studies.

But do take us all through a tour of your amazing background in human psychology, specifically psychosomatic responses, won't you? I was one class shy of having a psych minor, but I'm sure your electronics engineering curriculum allowed for all sorts of psychology classes.

Funny thing, though - you know what "somatic" refers to, yes? Of course you do not - it refers to the 'architecture' part that you are spectacularly uninformed about.

I'm sure your egotism, creationism, and googling background will totally own my mere 'architecture' knowledge of human anatomy and physiology (to include neuroscience).

You know, like how your "theories" on the aorta and the gut sending motor impulses to the larynx via the recurrent laryngeal nerve...

In plumber's jargon,

Psycho = fluids
Somatic = pipes.

You seem to be mainly concerned with the pipes. I'm exploring the psycho, their routes and destinations. Using carpenters as an example, you are studying the tools, while I am attempting to build something with them.