Warden_of_the_Storm
Well-Known Member
- Oct 16, 2015
- 15,038
- 7,403
- 31
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
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.
If it's written in English I can probably understand it.....right up to the point where it might say it 'evolved'.
We know that 'the gut' does not send motor impulses to the larynx via the RLN.
So you clearly don't understand evolution then.
I think we have established that.
Then why you feel justified in saying that evolution did not take place or is not science if you just simply do not understand evolution?
My basis for not believing it is that I don't understand it. Have you ever heard the comment, "I just don't understand why he (or she) did that?" In other words 'it doesn't compute'.
If it's written in English I can probably understand it.....right up to the point where it might say it 'evolved'.
My basis for not believing it is that I don't understand it. Have you ever heard the comment, "I just don't understand why he (or she) did that?" In other words 'it doesn't compute'.
I think, and read, about it all the time (or at least when discussing it here).
Human eye - Wikipedia
Side-view of the human eye, viewed approximately 90° temporal, illustrating how the iris and pupil appear rotated towards the viewer due to the optical properties of the cornea and the aqueous humor.
Schematic diagram of the human eye. It shows a horizontal section through the right eye.
Fantastic design, the eye.
My basis for not believing it is that I don't understand it. Have you ever heard the comment, "I just don't understand why he (or she) did that?" In other words 'it doesn't compute'.
I understand this. Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve Is Not Evidence of Poor Design
LOL!!Source?
My gut level reaction is that your trust in gut level reactions is unjustified.It is a great pathway for gut level emotions to affect speech. Vocalization is very complex, else we would all sound like Siri.
And let's not forget the blind spots in each eye that have to be compensated for!
My gut level reaction is that your trust in gut level reactions is unjustified.
The Neural Basis of Speech and Language (this is the one I linked for you before and you clearly ignored or more likely could not understand)
http://samples.jbpub.com/9781449652678/74738_CH02_FINAL.pdf
If it's written in English I can probably understand it.
You might want to google "Gut Feelings" as well. It's the source of my "the body has a mind of it's own" comment.
Gut Feelings–the "Second Brain" in Our Gastrointestinal Systems [Excerpt]
I don't know if you're the one to be representing all there is to know about this subject. You don't seem to be up to date on some of it.
....right up to the point where it might say it 'evolved'.
All the wiring is there. It just needs to be activated.
It is a great pathway for gut level emotions to affect speech.If the larynx needs a signal from the aortic arch that loop is a great way to facilitate the 'my heart was in my throat' response."
Vocalization is very complex, else we would all sound like Siri.
Do grace us all with your 135 IQ take on the 'starting premise' for evolution such that it is flawed - just make sure you do not claim that the starting premise for evolution is abiogenesis. Because that is wrong, and to claim otherwise would be an admission of ignorance (or deception?).
And then you can perhaps explain all the assumption and speculation outlined here:
I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it:
The tested methodology:
Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558
Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice
WR Atchley and WM Fitch
Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.
======================
Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592
Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny
DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.
Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.
==================================
Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677
Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies
DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.
Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.
We can ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.
Application of the tested methodology:
Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo
"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "
Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny
"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."
A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates
"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "
Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.
"The Superfamily Hominoidea for apes and humans is reduced to family Hominidae within Superfamily Cercopithecoidea, with all living hominids placed in subfamily Homininae; and (4) chimpanzees and humans are members of a single genus, Homo, with common and bonobo chimpanzees placed in subgenus H. (Pan) and humans placed in subgenus H. (Homo). It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."
Then perhaps you can explain how 2 identical humans and animals produced the extant diversity we see WITHOUT evolution - which, by the way, the truly intelligent creationists admit must occur, and occur a LOT.
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?