Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Post in the usual way, wait for the little indicator in the upper right-hand corner to quit grinding and move on regardless that the other changes you are used to seeing haven't occurred. The site's wonky today.ugh, double post
Even mechanics are surprised at the mileage I put on my vehicles.
1996 Grand Marquis, 465,000 miles, drove for 9 years.
2005 Grand Marquis, 360,000 miles (current vehicle), drove for 11 years now. Still hums like new.
Just like your vehicle, if you take care of your back it will probably work just fine. I'm 78 and still climbing trees in the fall.
View attachment 224935
Even mechanics are surprised at the mileage I put on my vehicles.
1996 Grand Marquis, 465,000 miles, drove for 9 years.
2005 Grand Marquis, 360,000 miles (current vehicle), drove for 11 years now. Still hums like new.
Just like your vehicle, if you take care of your back it will probably work just fine. I'm 78 and still climbing trees in the fall.
View attachment 224935
Your personal experience in no way changes the fact that lumbar biomechanics is a bad design, predisposing humans to epidemic levels of incapacitating episodes of low back pain and sciatica.
An intelligent designer would have done a better job.
Your personal experience in no way changes the fact that lumbar biomechanics is a bad design, predisposing humans to epidemic levels of incapacitating episodes of low back pain and sciatica.
Your personal experience in no way changes the fact that lumbar biomechanics is a bad design, predisposing humans to epidemic levels of incapacitating episodes of low back pain and sciatica.
So what.I have many "personal experiences" that are quite successful that many others fail at.
In the case of a poorly "designed" lumbar biomechanics, yes.Because they fail and I don't does that mean that they are right and I am wrong?
Cars can be designed to last as long or short as one cares to, I presume. But we're talking evolution here, and lumbar spine biomechanics in upright bipedal hominids is an absolute engineering nightmare, which leads to countless hours of time loss from work, billions of dollars of pain management, surgery, epidural steroid injections and rehab.To my car analogy, if my car was poorly designed I couldn't get the mileage that I do. It's designed to last much longer than people realize, but only if they follow the maintenance schedules, especially fluid changes.
Of course . The use what Biology has proved to do their work. They do not use anything from evolution.
While they are faith based, they do not require their faculty to reject something based on their religion.
Nothing in those statements require the person to reject something or falsify something based on their religion.
Do you think a creationist could get a teaching position in Boloogy in a secular university?
Riiiight.Classical avoiding the question. You are tho one waving your hands and devoid of evidence. Those who understand basic genetic don't need a citation from a reputable study.
I realise you don't recognise evidence when you see it (or if you recognise it, you handwave it away), but these things below are called references. The way this works is that you read them and come back with reasoned comments about the details they contain. I won't hold my breath.You have not provided a citation from a reputable study showing HOW a leg can become a fin.
Just as well to prepare for the flounce.I have just answered about a dozen post and not one of them included any scientific evidence. In the future don't expect an answer from me, if your post does not include some real scientific evidence.
So what.
In the case of a poorly "designed" lumbar biomechanics, yes.
Cars can be designed to last as long or short as one cares to, I presume. But we're talking evolution here, and lumbar spine biomechanics in upright bipedal hominids is an absolute engineering nightmare, which leads to countless hours of time loss from work, billions of dollars of pain management, surgery, epidural steroid injections and rehab.
A first year engineering student would be able to "design" a spine that did a better job of distributing load and stress than our current anatomy.
its funny that evolutionists can "detect" bad design but cant detect great design.
You both know that Evolution News is a subgroup of the Discovery Institute, a Christian group that heavily if not outright favours Intelligent Design over evolutionary theory, right?
I look at anatomy and see elegant design.What more can I say?
Standard creationist antic - when backed into a conundrum, make a lame joke and call it quits.Oh yeah.....from overexertion and lack of rest. The designer of our back gave us the remedy for that....a period of 24 hours of R&R each week.
Even mechanics are surprised at the mileage I put on my vehicles.
Standard creationist antic - when backed into a conundrum, make a lame joke and call it quits.
Your earlier bluff and bluster has been reduced to one liners and topic changes.
A pretty standard course of events for creationists with unwarranted confidence in their position who finally run into knowledgeable people that are not impressed with assertions and condescension.
Riiiight.
I realise you don't recognise evidence when you see it (or if you recognise it, you handwave it away), but these things below are called references. The way this works is that you read them and come back with reasoned comments about the details they contain. I won't hold my breath.
Yano and Tamura, "The making of the differences between fins and limbs", Journal of Anatomy, here. Excellent review article, with a huge number of references.
Shubin, Tabin and Carroll, "Deep homology and the origins of evolutionary novelty", Nature 457, 818–823 (12 February 2009), another excellent review article from some of the foremost evolutionary biologists in one of the world's premier journals, covering more than fins and limbs
Davis, Dahn and Shubin, "An autopodial-like pattern of Hox expression in the fins of a basal actinopterygian fish", Nature 447, pages 473–476 (24 May 2007). A short quote from the abstract: "Here, we report on the expression and function of genes implicated in the origin of the autopod in a basal actinopterygian, Polyodon spathula. Polyodon exhibits a late-phase, inverted collinear expression of 5′ HoxD genes, a pattern of expression long considered a developmental hallmark of the autopod and shown in tetrapods to be controlled by a ‘digit enhancer’ region. These data show that aspects of the development of the autopod are primitive to tetrapods and that the origin of digits entailed the redeployment of ancient patterns of gene activity." (The autopod is the hand or foot of tetrapods).
Just as well to prepare for the flounce.
I just read about 12 post on this subject and not one included any verifiable evidence.
You guys and gals are pathetic.
Have a + day.
You would if you could but you can't.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?