Evolution is mathematically impossible

[OldWiseGuy]

Are you ever going to admit that the cardiac ganglion does NOT send motor information to the larynx? Or are your own sites used for 'support' also in error?

How about the cardiac plexus? The RLN's have nerve fibers there.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yes - because there is no such thing as a "mechanical neuron".

I used the term to differentiate it from chemical signals. It is my own invention.

 

[VirOptimus]

You, and many others who argue with me, misconstrue my comments so that you will have something to argue about. If you read them carefully you would likely agree with me, or at the least not disagree.

No I really wouldnt. I disagree very much with your abhorent values.

 

[the iconoclast]

Excessive breaking up posts is rude. And when corrected learn from your mistakes. Do you think that you can do that? If you can then may be we can have a discussion.

Hey sub im back my dear

I will endeavour to try and not upset you further. Lets get into something.

What have u got?

 

[the iconoclast]

Always.

Hey hey my sagacious dear

That is cool and i think u r 2

I would like to properly, politely and respectfully ask you if you believe evolution is a random process and how do you define random process?

Cheers you

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hey hey my sagacious dear

That is cool and i think u r 2

I would like to properly, politely and respectfully ask you if you believe evolution is a random process and how do you define random process?

Cheers you

Your question is poorly formed random at what level? There are random elements to it, but it is far from random. Life will react to changing environments, that will change how life evolves. But there are some similarities that are governed by environment. Look at the lizards known as ichthyosaurs. Fish sort oas Tuna and sharks, and mammals like dolphins. They all have similar shapes due to the environment that they inhabit, but very different interiors.

Questions such as this do not really have a "yes or no" answer.

 

[the iconoclast]

I have backed out of nothing. I gave you the long-standing scientific definition of "random" and provided a reputable source. I can't help it if that definition undermines your sophistical argument.

Hey hey brother

Ps you still have ignored something

Lets consider the die that rolls or the coin that is flipped. The outcome may be unpredictable but the process involves a hand or human that is a catalyst for the event?

Rain drops may be unpredictable to where they may land but the process which is the series of events that lead to rain are integral and there is a pattern?

You seem to back away from answering these 2 questions. Why is that?

 

[the iconoclast]

Your question is poorly formed random at what level?

Hey hey

Please excuse me, you are smarter than me. What do you mean by level here?

There are random elements to it, but it is far from random.

Well lets consider evolution as a process. What elements are random when we consider process and why is it far from random?

Life will react to changing environments, that will change how life evolves.

Do you have an instance for verification?

But there are some similarities that are governed by environment. Look at the lizards known as ichthyosaurs. Fish sort oas Tuna and sharks, and mammals like dolphins. They all have similar shapes due to the environment that they inhabit, but very different interiors.

You may have to dumb it down for me - What point are you trying to make here re similarities governed by environment?

Questions such as this do not really have a "yes or no" answer.

Why is that. Is there no firm conclusion?

Lets get into it, now we have a consensus that you are smart. Im ready for you, are you ready for me?

Cheers

Ps
Dont worry about my poor grammer and spelling, you seem to understand me enough. I wont need to check yours because of your high level of intelligence and the fact that you remember high school science. ;p

 

[the iconoclast]

Faith to me, is something that is personal and does not have independent outside evidence to support. That is how i use the term.

Hey hey

Your reply here seems to contradict with your previous statement.

Bhsmte - "In regards to faith, i use the merriam webster definition"

Now we have this reply.

Bhsmte - "Faith to me, is something that is personal and does not have independent outside evidence to support. That is how i use the term."

Which should we agree with, your version or the dictionary one?

I dont need faith to trust or rely on science, because i enjoy the conveniences of science everyday

Excellent you trust science. Is this 100% trust or 99.9%?

What scientific conveniences do you enjoy everyday that cements this trust?

(as do you)

What scientific conveniences do i enjoy everyday that should make me trust a scientist and his conclusions?

and the results keep producing the same results independent of my personal observations and are reliable.

What results donyou refer to?

You see, i dont need faith the light switch will turn the lights on when i flip the switch, because the is a proven track record of objective and reproducable results.

What happens if the globe failed before you turned on the lights or a fuse blew out? Do lights ever experience such things?

Would you say that lights turning on is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof?

Would the reasoning here be; that because the lights turned on and operated last time you used it, it must therefore work every other time?

I do need faith, that i will win lotto one day, because a reliable track record or objective evidence this will happen, is scant.

What is it called when an idea is taken to be true on the basis of probability?

What evidence do i need? I have indicated this numerous times; the claim of a christian god and the attributes applied to this god, is a pretty amazing claim. For me to believe this is true, will require an equal amount of amazing evidence and i dont mean, stories written by anonymous authors, decades after the events claimed to have happened, personal claims by people who talk about their belief, threats that those who dont believe are doomed (quite childish the threats).

What is an example of some pretty amazing evidence that would make you consider?

Are you suggesting that you know what would make you not believe in God but wouldnt know what would make you believe?

Humans have manufactered god claims for thousands of years, nothing new there.

How do you prove that the Christian God is a fabricated and manfactured story or thing? You made the claim, the burden of proof is now on you. What have you got?

From a psychology standpoint, not difficult to see how some grab onto whatever god or religion that suits them, when they are presented with threats if they dont,

Well you have read my testimony. How would this apply to me? What threats can you think of? - lets spitball -

What authority does psychology have with the supernatural?

and eternal life if they jump onboard.

From a pyscological standpoint why does a notion of eternal life make someone make up God and why do they need to?

When we had little knowledge of the world,

Could this limited knowledge mean that there could be a God?

you can see how faith and religious beliefs would bring comfort.

Sure can. The Holy Spirit is even called the Comforter.

What i want? i cannot have on this earth. I want to hug Jesus and feel at peace in Him. What pyscological needs do you think apply here?

Dont worry though, no matter what anyone else thinks, you are free to believe what you believe.

Thank you for the comfort. Iam free to know what i know, and so are you!

What do you know about God?

Cheers

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, abundant evidence.

I don't remember it and don't care in any case. As I have said repeatedly, I'm happy to tell you about evolution. I have no interest in debating definitions of words.

Same answer.

I am not going to nitpick over definitions either, and unlike most creationists I am not afraid to admit that there are others here that know the topic better than I do. Of course I also can see that I do understand this better than our creationists here.

 

[tas8831]

Wow! Is that ever off topic.

Thread stopped being on topic when the creationist MD trying to drum up sales for his creationist book stopped responding.

 

[tas8831]

So, when you're about to vomit it's the brain sending the warning signal to your throat? I thought it was the gut.

That is because you are ignorant of all things biological. 'Warning signal to the throat'? You thought it was the gut because you do not understand biology.
Do you not even read the websites that YOU link to and quote?

"The “afferent” (flowing to the brain) parasympathetic information travels from the heart to the brain through the vagus nerve to the medulla, after passing through the nodose ganglion. The sympathetic afferent nerves first connect to the extrinsic cardiac ganglia (also a processing center), then to the dorsal root ganglion and the spinal cord. Once afferent signals reach the medulla, they travel to the subcortical areas (thalamus, amygdala, etc.) and then to the cortical areas."​

Same for vomiting. My gosh - you have the Google, yes?

Google "vomiting center".

How much research has been done on neural pathways during upchucking?

Gee, golly, I guess nobody ever thought about such a thing.

Obviously, the gut must send vocalization signals directly to the larynx via the RLN, what a grand Creation!

"The noxious stimulus may cause release of serotonin from enterochromaffin cells of the digestive tract, which activates visceral afferents. The vagus nerves mediate responses from the stomach and proximal small intestine and the splanchnic nerves and spinal cord mediate responses from the entire small intestine. Emesis-related afferents from the periphery terminate primarily in the nucleus tractus solitarius and area postrema."​

Nucleus tractus solitarius

Area postrema

Isn't it amazing how much information is actually out there, should one care to actually look for it and LEARN about it, rather than pontificating in the dark?

Oh - don't forget:

What is the purpose of the heart sending signals directly to the esophagus?
​

None, because it doesn't.

"The extrinsic cardiac ganglia, located in the thoracic cavity, have direct connections to organs such as the lungs and esophagus and are also indirectly connected via the spinal cord to many other organs, including the skin and arteries."

Does the heart have to communicate with the brain to both manage itself and the function of other organs?
​

Umm... This is sort of hilarious to me.

A cautionary tale on drawing conclusions after reading things in fields you have no demonstrable skill, education, or experience in.

You see, "cardiac" means 'pertaining to the heart', and in this context, refers to a region, i.e., 'near the heart'. Extrinsic means 'external to'. These ganglia are outside of the heart, and provide innervation to the heart AND to other organs. The heart does not use them to "manage itself and the function of other organs". Victoria Station, for example, does not allow only Victoria to get on trains...
The stomach has a 'cardiac region' (aka, 'cardia') - do you think this means that the stomach has its own heart?

Weird that you apparently stopped reading that webpage after you found your quote - a bit later, we see:

"The “afferent” (flowing to the brain) parasympathetic information travels from the heart to the brain through the vagus nerve to the medulla, after passing through the nodose ganglion. The sympathetic afferent nerves first connect to the extrinsic cardiac ganglia (also a processing center), then to the dorsal root ganglion and the spinal cord. Once afferent signals reach the medulla, they travel to the subcortical areas (thalamus, amygdala, etc.) and then to the cortical areas."​

Nothing about stopping off at other organs. Or sending motor impulses to the larynx. Tell us - did you really just stop reading that when you got the quote you wanted, or did you read the whole thing and not understand it? or not think it mattered? Or hoped that nobody would be able to find it? I don't understand how you operate. It seems rather self-defeating.​

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No I really wouldnt. I disagree very much with your abhorent values.

Of course, as an atheist, you would disagree with Christian values.

 

[pitabread]

Of course, as an atheist, you would disagree with Christian values.

Whose Christian values? Not all Christians appear to have the same ones.

 

[VirOptimus]

Of course, as an atheist, you would disagree with Christian values.

Maybe, values tend to be very individual regardless of religion or lack thereof.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Whose Christian values? Not all Christians appear to have the same ones.

Depends on your experience, etc.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Maybe, values tend to be very individual regardless of religion or lack thereof.

There are only so many 'values'. It's how one exercises them that counts. Some believe in love, others in tough love. To the 'lover' tough love isn't love, but hate. It can be very confusing.

 

[VirOptimus]

There are only so many 'values'. It's how one exercises them that counts. Some believe in love, others in tough love. To the 'lover' tough love isn't love, but hate. It can be very confusing.

I really dont care, I just find yours abhorent, not christians in general.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I really dont care, I just find yours abhorent, not christians in general.

I'm ok with that.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That is because you are ignorant of all things biological. 'Warning signal to the throat'? You thought it was the gut because you do not understand biology.
Do you not even read the websites that YOU link to and quote?

"The “afferent” (flowing to the brain) parasympathetic information travels from the heart to the brain through the vagus nerve to the medulla, after passing through the nodose ganglion. The sympathetic afferent nerves first connect to the extrinsic cardiac ganglia (also a processing center), then to the dorsal root ganglion and the spinal cord. Once afferent signals reach the medulla, they travel to the subcortical areas (thalamus, amygdala, etc.) and then to the cortical areas."​

Same for vomiting. My gosh - you have the Google, yes?

Google "vomiting center".

Gee, golly, I guess nobody ever thought about such a thing.

Obviously, the gut must send vocalization signals directly to the larynx via the RLN, what a grand Creation!

"The noxious stimulus may cause release of serotonin from enterochromaffin cells of the digestive tract, which activates visceral afferents. The vagus nerves mediate responses from the stomach and proximal small intestine and the splanchnic nerves and spinal cord mediate responses from the entire small intestine. Emesis-related afferents from the periphery terminate primarily in the nucleus tractus solitarius and area postrema."​

Nucleus tractus solitarius

Area postrema

Isn't it amazing how much information is actually out there, should one care to actually look for it and LEARN about it, rather than pontificating in the dark?

Oh - don't forget:

What is the purpose of the heart sending signals directly to the esophagus?
​

None, because it doesn't.

"The extrinsic cardiac ganglia, located in the thoracic cavity, have direct connections to organs such as the lungs and esophagus and are also indirectly connected via the spinal cord to many other organs, including the skin and arteries."

Does the heart have to communicate with the brain to both manage itself and the function of other organs?
​

Umm... This is sort of hilarious to me.

A cautionary tale on drawing conclusions after reading things in fields you have no demonstrable skill, education, or experience in.

You see, "cardiac" means 'pertaining to the heart', and in this context, refers to a region, i.e., 'near the heart'. Extrinsic means 'external to'. These ganglia are outside of the heart, and provide innervation to the heart AND to other organs. The heart does not use them to "manage itself and the function of other organs". Victoria Station, for example, does not allow only Victoria to get on trains...
The stomach has a 'cardiac region' (aka, 'cardia') - do you think this means that the stomach has its own heart?

Weird that you apparently stopped reading that webpage after you found your quote - a bit later, we see:

"The “afferent” (flowing to the brain) parasympathetic information travels from the heart to the brain through the vagus nerve to the medulla, after passing through the nodose ganglion. The sympathetic afferent nerves first connect to the extrinsic cardiac ganglia (also a processing center), then to the dorsal root ganglion and the spinal cord. Once afferent signals reach the medulla, they travel to the subcortical areas (thalamus, amygdala, etc.) and then to the cortical areas."​

Nothing about stopping off at other organs. Or sending motor impulses to the larynx. Tell us - did you really just stop reading that when you got the quote you wanted, or did you read the whole thing and not understand it? or not think it mattered? Or hoped that nobody would be able to find it? I don't understand how you operate. It seems rather self-defeating.​

So no signals pass directly from the gut to the larynx?