The Coccyx

[tas8831]

Look at what you wrote -

Human: AGTCGTACCAGTCGTACC
Chimp: AGTCGTACCAGTCTACC

You will have the world IGNORE that these 2 sequences are 94% identical and that they are instead 72% identical because you are so upset about a HUMAN DESIGNED!!! program adding a gap so that the remaining4 bases can perfectly align.

Not only did you entirely miss the point I made, but apparently you were not capable of reading what was actually said being clouded by your prejudice (as indicated by what followed).

This will also be interesting - your projection is becoming legendary.

It will be fun to see how you try to weasel out of what you wrote.

So please make your last rant. Fill it with plenty of ad-hominems and all the other misunderstandings and misrepresentations I am used to from you. I will not bother to respond so you can think you won.

Ah - so you aren't even going to try.

Pity that you are too embarrassed by your own lack of logic that you are just going to play martyr and scamper off.

I stand by my demolition of your silly post.

 

[tas8831]

LOL!

The gift that keeps on giving...

Primate is merely a taxonomical classification (man made) based on anatomically/physiologically similar characteristics as opposed to those found in say lepidopterans or reptiles. Systems of classification are not real things...

Your pictures (artistically contrived) are used as an aid to compliment this system. They are created to impress the students ...Take away the imaginary lines drawn...

As long as the "ancestor of the gaps" is assumed, one cannot separate their bias from the interpretation. ...Since igneous rock existed before sedimentary rock this logic would say that igneous rock must have caused sedimentary rock...but physically and geologically we KNOW that is not true.

So just because something appears to have come earlier, this does not necessitate it caused or became the latter. Now in all fairness it COULD HAVE it MIGHT HAVE but could have and/or might have does not equal DID.

Amazing....

 

[tas8831]

When I looked at the actual (not the artistic reconstructions) fossils of proconsul (we have finds from four different sub-species) they all look like varieties of chimpanzees just different in size.

Who cares?

You have demonstrated ZERO ability in understanding anatomy (your OP proves this - still waiting for you to explain how a bone can be parasympathetically stimulated - I mean, this was about the coccyx, right?).

You are not a paleontologist.

You are not an anatomist.

You are not a primatologist.

Your 'conclusions' are 100% irrelevant.

 

[tas8831]

why living organisms always fall into such nested heirachies that does not rely on the branching process of descent

Strange that you would put it that way. It makes me think your opinion has been shaped (engineered by drill and repetition [of bible verses], the appeal to authority [ministers, priests], and argumentum ad populum [1 billion CHRISTIANS CANNOT BE WRONG!] and so on)...

And you are a creationist because...?

Surely, it is not based on your assessment of fossils and DNA, because you have demonstrated repeatedly that these subjects are way above your paygrade.

 

[tas8831]

I think we've hit in impass, to you my opinion is 'shaped (engineered by drill and repetition, the appeal to authority, and argumentum ad populum and so on)'.

He is projecting.

Whilst to me you are ignoring or misrepresenting the evidence to a perverse degree.

I would agree and add that, like most creationists, there is a big dose of the Dunning-Kruger effect at play.

 

[tas8831]

Have it your way, I am tired of having to continually having to re-invent the wheel on this topic (the coccyx in humans).

LOL!

Ironic - yes, you are absolutely trying to re-invent the wheel - you add all manner of wondrous 'function' to a couple of bones in a perverse effort to ascribe to it a necessity that does not exist. Your descriptions of it are like those of a child - exaggerated, conflated with other structures, fantastical almost supernatural physiological feats of glory...

All totally and 100% WRONG.

But you, I am sure, think that your laughable coccyx fantasies are totally accurate.

A plexus is like a "little brain"?

The coccyx is "the connective source of the two coccygeal and also sciatic nerves"? NOPE. Not even close.

"the coccyx ... assists (and is necessary to) the autonomic urogenital functions." NOPE.

"In its parasympathetic stimulated phase it is essential to our sexuality" NOPE.

The coccyx - a couple of bones - how, EXACTLY, does a bone receive parasympathetic stimulation, and if this happens, how, EXACTLY, does the it make the coccyx "essential to our sexuality"?

"It [the coccyx] carries the sensation/information through the axons to the central nervous system and back through transmission across the dentrites [sic]." Not even close - even if you were referring to the coccygeal plexus (which, according to the rules of grammar, you were not), still wrong (then you go on in the OP describing things that are on or near the coccyx, implying that THEIR function is actually the coccyx's, or that the coccyx is necessary for their function - WRONG).

And the worst part? You are aghast that there are people that can tell that your claims are garbage.

 

[pshun2404]

Tas I told you have the last word in OUR discussion, and now you have. Thanks!

 

[tas8831]

Tas I told you have the last word in OUR discussion, and now you have. Thanks!

Thanks for admitting that the primary premise of your OP and your entire argument on the non-vestigiality of the coccyx is a failure and that you were totally wrong about everything you wrote in the OP.

It is refreshing to see a creationist actually admit to something like this, rather than doubling down and playing games.

 

[tas8831]

LOL!

Ironic - yes, you are absolutely trying to re-invent the wheel - you add all manner of wondrous 'function' to a couple of bones in a perverse effort to ascribe to it a necessity that does not exist. Your descriptions of it are like those of a child - exaggerated, conflated with other structures, fantastical almost supernatural physiological feats of glory...

All totally and 100% WRONG.

But you, I am sure, think that your laughable coccyx fantasies are totally accurate.

A plexus is like a "little brain"?

The coccyx is "the connective source of the two coccygeal and also sciatic nerves"? NOPE. Not even close.

"the coccyx ... assists (and is necessary to) the autonomic urogenital functions." NOPE.

"In its parasympathetic stimulated phase it is essential to our sexuality" NOPE.

The coccyx - a couple of bones - how, EXACTLY, does a bone receive parasympathetic stimulation, and if this happens, how, EXACTLY, does the it make the coccyx "essential to our sexuality"?

"It [the coccyx] carries the sensation/information through the axons to the central nervous system and back through transmission across the dentrites [sic]." Not even close - even if you were referring to the coccygeal plexus (which, according to the rules of grammar, you were not), still wrong (then you go on in the OP describing things that are on or near the coccyx, implying that THEIR function is actually the coccyx's, or that the coccyx is necessary for their function - WRONG).

And the worst part? You are aghast that there are people that can tell that your claims are garbage.

It will be a great day when creationist pseudo-know-it-alls will grow some humility and simply admit that they are wrong about something.

 

[tas8831]

LOL!

Ironic - yes, you are absolutely trying to re-invent the wheel - you add all manner of wondrous 'function' to a couple of bones in a perverse effort to ascribe to it a necessity that does not exist. Your descriptions of it are like those of a child - exaggerated, conflated with other structures, fantastical almost supernatural physiological feats of glory...

All totally and 100% WRONG.

But you, I am sure, think that your laughable coccyx fantasies are totally accurate.

A plexus is like a "little brain"?

The coccyx is "the connective source of the two coccygeal and also sciatic nerves"? NOPE. Not even close.

"the coccyx ... assists (and is necessary to) the autonomic urogenital functions." NOPE.

"In its parasympathetic stimulated phase it is essential to our sexuality" NOPE.

The coccyx - a couple of bones - how, EXACTLY, does a bone receive parasympathetic stimulation, and if this happens, how, EXACTLY, does the it make the coccyx "essential to our sexuality"?

"It [the coccyx] carries the sensation/information through the axons to the central nervous system and back through transmission across the dentrites [sic]." Not even close - even if you were referring to the coccygeal plexus (which, according to the rules of grammar, you were not), still wrong (then you go on in the OP describing things that are on or near the coccyx, implying that THEIR function is actually the coccyx's, or that the coccyx is necessary for their function - WRONG).

And the worst part? You are aghast that there are people that can tell that your claims are garbage.

Shame. I was hoping to have some actual answers to pshun's zany proclamations...

 

[tas8831]

Sometimes, I like to reminisce...

Wow... Um, no - a ganglion is not like a little brain.
They consist of either the cell bodies of unipolar (sensory) neurons), whose job is simply to relay impulses, or lower motor neuron cell bodies, whose job is to relay motor impulses.


And no, the coccygeal plexus is NOT a ganglion (where do you come up with this nonsense?).

A plexus is basically a network of nerve fibers. The coccygeal nerves do not act as "connective sources" for the sciatic nerves (whatever that means) - observe this diagram from Gray's:

Spinal nerve - Wikipedia


Almost your entire depiction of the coccyx seems premised on little more than wishful thinking, and the embellished function of it is clearly founded on extrapolations of assumptions of someone wholly unfamiliar wit anatomical terminology.



What on earth does that even mean?

Tell me exactly how a BONE can be stimulated by the parasympathetic nervous system?

For crying out loud, the coccygeal ganglion is a SYMPATHETIC gangion!




LOL!

Are you serious! No, you cannot be - this HAS to be a joke, something you copied from a Poe or a troll without knowing any better.

PROBLEMS with the coccyx can produce pain during intercourse, but that is the opposite of what you claim!



O M G.


This is freshman biology.

The direction of nerve impulse transmission in a neuron is dendrite - cell body - axon.

The coccygeal nerve would exist WITHOUT the coccyx, since the coccygeal nerves originate on the spinal cord, which terminates way up around L2.

Look - I get that you really really really need evolution to be false.

I get that somewhere along the line, you were told you were super duper extra smart, and to use that super human knowledge to defeat evolution. And I get that you consider your lines of argumentation impeccable and see yourself as an unbiased logician and all that -

but dude...

You are almost 100% clueless about this stuff.

The OP of this thread looks like it was written by a 9th grader. And this is the best you can muster on this topic?

I especially liked how pshun blew this all off with a 1 sentence snark-bomb. Poor creationists...

 

[tas8831]

Absolutely logical. That is like saying that we cannot present a single scientist who is an atheist evolutionist who does not believe in atheistic evolution.

How many such folks are you aware of that have been caught in outright lies?

The Lancelet: Dr. David Menton is a liar.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

First dwellers don't often fossilise, so actual fossils are rare.

There is clear morphological and genetic evidence that we share a comparatively recent common ancestor with monkeys.

Or we share a common design and common materials, fashioned by a common designer.

 

[Shemjaza]

Or we share a common design and common materials, fashioned by a common designer.

I'm certain you've had the flaws in this come back pointed out to you before.

An omnipotent designer won't need to craft a genetic and morphological nested hierarchy in his creations, unless he intends to mislead investigators into inferring evolution.

 

[pshun2404]

I'm certain you've had the flaws in this come back pointed out to you before.

An omnipotent designer won't need to craft a genetic and morphological nested hierarchy in his creations, unless he intends to mislead investigators into inferring evolution.

Intelligent designers created all nested hierarchies (as a mater of systematic categorization), and they were not even omnipotent! Besides, why couldn't an omnipotent intelligent designer use evolution as one the processes to accomplish His goals of producing variety in the continuation of the many species? Would one have to have been an unintelligent designer to have done so? Or perhaps the severely perceptually limited puny finite minds who intelligently designed nested hierarchies would have not used this process. Unless you are omniscient, you simply cannot KNOW (because after all we are among those perceptually limited finite minds...just consider TAS).

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I'm certain you've had the flaws in this come back pointed out to you before.

An omnipotent designer won't need to craft a genetic and morphological nested hierarchy in his creations, unless he intends to mislead investigators into inferring evolution.

Isn't the basis of the ToE commonality of design and materials?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Isn't the basis of the ToE commonality of design and materials?

No.

 

[Shemjaza]

Intelligent designers created all nested hierarchies (as a mater of systematic categorization), and they were not even omnipotent! Besides, why couldn't an omnipotent intelligent designer use evolution as one the processes to accomplish His goals of producing variety in the continuation of the many species? Would one have to have been an unintelligent designer to have done so? Or perhaps the severely perceptually limited puny finite minds who intelligently designed nested hierarchies would have not used this process. Unless you are omniscient, you simply cannot KNOW (because after all we are among those perceptually limited finite minds...just consider TAS).

It's not logical or sensible.

It's certainly possible for a creator to use the medium of evolution to create diversity... but then we have abandoned ID and all other forms of creationism.

However, when we examine the nested hierarchy, (which is detected, not created by scientists), we discover a whole lot of small attributes which make perfect sense as a consequence of small changes and improvements from mutations and selection, but create flaws a creator could trivially design around.

Assuming that there is a greater reason behind mistakes and flaws without evidence makes all moral and scientific observations and ideas pointless. Why is murder wrong if the murderer might have some special insight that we can't understand? Why is 1 + 1 equal to 2... what if maths is special in this circumstance and all logic and axioms are wrong?

Isn't the basis of the ToE commonality of design and materials?

No.

It's the patterns of commonality.

 

[dmmesdale]

It's not logical or sensible.


However, when we examine the nested hierarchy, (which is detected, not created by scientists), we discover a whole lot of small attributes which make perfect sense as a consequence of small changes and improvements from mutations and selection, but create flaws a creator could trivially design around.

Antibiotic resistance is about a half hour process which involves a massive amount of change, mutual cooperation, in a short period of time. It falsifies small changes over long periods of time.


Evolution 2.0

 

[Shemjaza]

Antibiotic resistance is about a half hour process which involves a massive amount of change, mutual copoeration, in a short period of time. It falsifies small changes over long periods of time.


Evolution 2.0

You realise that macro scale multicellular organisms can't share genome information like bacteria, right?