Evolution is mathematically impossible

[pitabread]

It's like comparing apples to plastic oranges.

Even that's being generous, since at least apples and plastic oranges actually exist.

 

[the iconoclast]

No, I’m in no way interested in communicating with you as you are dishonest.

Hey hey

So you cannot show me how i quoted you out of context. Does that mean i quoted you correctly?

 

[the iconoclast]

I just want to go on record as saying this "my dear" stuff they keep saying (among other things) is just weird.

Hey hey who's they? im the only one whos says that and i think its cool as ;p

 

[the iconoclast]

It may have some entertainment quality though.

Sure will be, i always try to have fun and now i have your permission, lol?

 

[Hank77]

Not debating, just rendering my thoughts.

lol, I guess they all missed your winky face on your original post.
I think you really enjoy rattling cages.

 

[Hank77]

Oh, I wouldn’t say that... I’d hardly be back here over and over reading the continual drivel about my knowledge and condescending nature if that was the case.


I didn’t say you were a meanie, just that your social graces could stand improvement, and that you have poor judgment, which you’ve once again proved with this post.


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


More evidence of your poor judgment.


Beaten? That certainly doesn’t sound like someone interested in ‘inquiring’ or exchanging ideas. So much for your humility. Who would've figured?

I'm like you. I come to these evolution threads to try to learn something. Then 75% of thread is taken over by some egotistical, usually atheist, poster who appears to get their kicks from disparaging anyone they can especially if they think they are a creationist. The truth be known their posts are GIGO.
If it weren't for @sfs my time so far would have been totally wasted.

 

[Hank77]

Right - wouldn't want to admit that you admitted to having made a major error and then followed up that error with a defense of it for several posts. Better to try to deflect a bit and then later imply that you knew it all along... So much better for one's self-esteem and integrity that way.

Somebody wake me when it's over.

 

[46AND2]

I'm like you. I come to these evolution threads to try to learn something. Then 75% of thread is taken over by some egotistical, usually atheist, poster who appears to get their kicks from disparaging anyone they can especially if they think they are a creationist. The truth be known their posts are GIGO.
If it weren't for @sfs my time so far would have been totally wasted.

To be fair, usually those atheists are speaking to creationists who have no interest in learning, as you say you do. And those creationists are, in turn, just as egotistical and disparaging.

 

[bhsmte]

Sure will be, i always try to have fun and now i have your permission, lol?

Keep the entertainment flowing, knock yourself out.

 

[sfs]

If it weren't for @sfs my time so far would have been totally wasted.

I'm glad I've been useful. You'll notice that I tend to drop out of these things when they turn into reruns of old threads.

 

[tas8831]

You of all people should be able to see design in anatomy.

That is what a person unfamiliar with anatomy beyond a high school level would say.

By the way, what does a "trained anatomist" do? If you are still studying anatomy it is clear that there is more to learn. If not I must assume that you know all there is to know about the subject.

I study and teach. I study anatomy in many ways, but there is very little more to learn (about the basic parts, anyway). We know, for example, that neurons are unidirectional, that motor neurons carry impulses generated in the brain or spinal cord, that sensory neurons carry impulses from the periphery back into the CNS. I do not claim to know everything there is to know about it - ever seen a copy of Gray's? But I do know substantially more than layfolk, and because of my experience, I can assess anatomical information quite readily. The chair of my department in graduate school had taught and done research for 40 years, yet each time we had anatomy enrichment sessions (lectures in addition to the medical school anatomy lectures that we took) he explained that he had to review the material for a few hours prior.
In my graduate program (an Anatomy and Cell Biology program), there was no research at all on actual anatomy gross - it was all on developmental or cellular biology, or the study of the physiology of trauma (at that time, anyway). My actual field of research was mammalian molecular phylogeny - there was one guy that did not do any of the stuff mentioned above. I didn't like the notion of doing animal research, and we used DNA sequence data.

I on the other hand, as a person of low ability, am constantly discovering and crafting new and better ways to do things. For example just today I improved the masking tape dispenser that I invented to take the frustrating curl out of the tape as it comes off the roll. Thousands, if not millions, of exasperated users will thank me (if I ever produce and sell it that is).

Sounds wonderful. Pity that you've never learned any biology.

 

[tas8831]

For a person of "low ability" I've done pretty well.

Not when it comes to discussion re: evolution, biology, genetics, etc.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Not when it comes to discussion re: evolution, biology, genetics, etc.

No real need to discuss something that is as obvious as design in anatomy. Take the eye for instance. The way I see it (pun intended) is that the only question is...who or what designed it.

I have read some Gray's and conclude that design is demonstrated by function.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That is what a person unfamiliar with anatomy beyond a high school level would say.

I study and teach. I study anatomy in many ways, but there is very little more to learn (about the basic parts, anyway). We know, for example, that neurons are unidirectional, that motor neurons carry impulses generated in the brain or spinal cord, that sensory neurons carry impulses from the periphery back into the CNS. I do not claim to know everything there is to know about it - ever seen a copy of Gray's? But I do know substantially more than layfolk, and because of my experience, I can assess anatomical information quite readily. The chair of my department in graduate school had taught and done research for 40 years, yet each time we had anatomy enrichment sessions (lectures in addition to the medical school anatomy lectures that we took) he explained that he had to review the material for a few hours prior.
In my graduate program (an Anatomy and Cell Biology program), there was no research at all on actual anatomy gross - it was all on developmental or cellular biology, or the study of the physiology of trauma (at that time, anyway). My actual field of research was mammalian molecular phylogeny - there was one guy that did not do any of the stuff mentioned above. I didn't like the notion of doing animal research, and we used DNA sequence data.

Sounds wonderful. Pity that you've never learned any biology.

Biology is one thing. Evolutionary biology is another.

 

[bhsmte]

LOL

 

[pitabread]

No real need to discuss something that is as obvious as design in anatomy.

If it were obvious then you would be able to discuss and support it objectively. That you cannot suggests it is not obvious at all.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If it were obvious then you would be able to discuss and support it objectively. That you cannot suggests it is not obvious at all.

Design is the third rail of evolutionary biology.

 

[Speedwell]

Design is the third rail of evolutionary biology.

No, just the dubious logic of creationism. You are trying to play off two different meanings of design, design as functional complexity v. design as intention.

It's not working.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, just the dubious logic of creationism. You are trying to play off two different meanings of design, design as functional complexity v. design as intention.

It's not working.

I'll change 'third rail' to 'anathema'. Better?

 

[Speedwell]

I'll change 'third rail' to 'anathema'. Better?

No, change it to unfalsifiable.