• 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.

The Fossil Record- As God Would Have Made It Through Time

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The topic is sounds, not Speech and Language.


The topic is that 'sounds' are produced via the same process.

The topic is that you wrote - and apparently, amazingly, still think this child-like nonsense:

" If the larynx needs a signal from the aortic arch that loop [the RLN] is a great way to facilitate the 'my heart was in my throat' response."


has merit.

You have not even tried to support such a, frankly, stupid claim. If a 5th grader made such a claim, I could understand it - they lack sufficient education and knowledge of the subject matter. But when an adult - and one who claims a high IQ and to have studied anatomy - makes such a claim (and refuses to acknowledge their error), there are other more accurate explanations for their antics.



Still waiting:

" This is a visceral reaction (the 'mind' of the body) influencing the function of the throat and voice box without the direction of the brain. The signal gets there via the RLN in the case of the giraffe."

Please provide evidence that 1. such a neural pathway exists and 2. that is actually functions in the manner you keep asserting.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The 'blind spots' would be unknown if science hadn't discovered them. Also one needs to have nearly perfect peripheral vision to detect them, and it's difficult even then. They are 'up and out of the way'; great design.
Source?

I mean for your claim that the 'wiring' between the aortic arch and the larynx exists such that the aortic arch can produce vocalizations.

Also - that BS about needing perfect peripheral vision is hilarious - do you just make this stuff up as needed? Or do you cruise creationist websites for gems of disinformation?



Still waiting:

" This is a visceral reaction (the 'mind' of the body) influencing the function of the throat and voice box without the direction of the brain. The signal gets there via the RLN in the case of the giraffe."

Please provide evidence that 1. such a neural pathway exists and 2. that is actually functions in the manner you keep asserting.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
My prediction was 100% accurate!


THIS:
The topic is sounds, not Speech and Language.

Was the entirety of the IQ of 135 creationist super-genius' response to this:



You implied you know about Gray's anatomy, right?

By the way - I ALREADY provided you with a source, but you probably just didn't bother to read it. Creationists are like that - they don't actually want to know how little they know.


So, since you think Google U makes you the expert you pretend to be, I found these in a couple of minutes:

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


Vagus Nerve
http://www.caam.rice.edu/~cox/wrap/vagusnerve.pdf

Why, even Wiki:
General visceral afferent fibers - Wikipedia


From here:


General visceral afferent fibers


The general visceral afferent fibers (GVA) conduct sensory impulses (usually pain or reflex sensations) from the internal organs, glands, and blood vessels to the central nervous system.[1] They are considered to be part of the autonomic nervous system. However, unlike the efferent fibers of the autonomic nervous system, the afferent fibers are not classified as either sympathetic or parasympathetic.[2]

GVA fibers create referred pain by activating general somatic afferent fibers where the two meet in the posterior grey column.

The cranial nerves that contain GVA fibers include the facial nerve (CN VII), the glossopharyngeal nerve (CN IX), and the vagus nerve (CN X).[3]

Generally, they are insensitive to cutting, crushing or burning, excessive tension in smooth muscle and some pathological conditions produce visceral pain (referred pain).[4]

Pathway
Abdomen

In the abdomen, general visceral afferent fibers usually accompany sympathetic efferent fibers. This means that a signal traveling in an afferent fiber will begin at sensory receptors in the afferent fiber's target organ, travel up to the ganglion where the sympathetic efferent fiber synapses, continue back along a splanchnic nerve from the ganglion into the sympathetic trunk, move into a ventral ramus via a white ramus communicans, and finally move into the mixed spinal nerve between the division of the rami and the division of the roots of the spinal nerve. The GVA pathway then diverges from the sympathetic efferent pathway, which follows the ventral root into the spinal column, by following the dorsal root into the dorsal root ganglion, where the cell body of the visceral afferent nerve is located.[5] Finally, the signal continues along the dorsal root from the dorsal root ganglion to a region of gray matter in the dorsal horn of the spinal column where it is transmitted via a synapse to a neuron in the central nervous system.[2]

The only GVA nerves in the abdomen that do not follow the above pathway are those that innervate structures in the distal half of the sigmoid colon and the rectum. These afferent fibers, instead, follow the path of parasympathetic efferent fibers back to the vertebral column, where the afferent fibers enter the S2-S4 sensory (dorsal root) ganglia followed by the spinal cord.[5]
Pelvis

The course of GVA fibers from organs in the pelvis, in general, depends on the organ's position relative to the pelvic pain line. An organ, or part of an organ, in the pelvis is said to be "above the pelvic pain line" if it is in contact with the peritoneum, except in the case of the large intestine, where the pelvic pain line is said to be located in the middle of the sigmoid colon.[6] GVA fibers from structures above the pain line follow the course of the sympathetic efferent fibers, and GVA fibers from structures below the pain line follow the course of the parasympathetic efferents.[6] Pain from the latter fibers is less likely to be consciously experienced.[6]


References

Moore, Keith; Anne Agur (2007). Essential Clinical Anatomy, Third Edition. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. p. 635. ISBN 0-7817-6274-X.
Moore, Keith; Anne Agur (2007). Essential Clinical Anatomy, Third Edition. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. pp. 34–35. ISBN 0-7817-6274-X.
Mehta, Samir et al. Step-Up: A High-Yield, Systems-Based Review for the USMLE Step 1. Baltimore, MD: LWW, 2003.
Susan,, Standring,. Gray's anatomy : the anatomical basis of clinical practice. ISBN 9780702052309. OCLC 920806541.
Moore, K.L., & Agur, A.M. (2007). Essential Clinical Anatomy: Third Edition. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. 180. ISBN 978-0-7817-6274-8
Moore, Keith; Anne Agur (2007). Essential Clinical Anatomy, Third Edition. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. p. 220. ISBN 0-7817-6274-X.​


Same source, on the special visceral afferent fibers - uh uh! this one actually mentions the larynx! Maybe this will be my Waterloo, and will provide evidence for the creationist's anatomical assertions?

Special visceral afferent fibers (SVA) are the afferent fibers that develop in association with the gastrointestinal tract.[1] They carry the special senses of smell (olfaction) and taste (gustation). The cranial nerves containing SVA fibers are the olfactory nerve (I), the facial nerve (VII), the glossopharyngeal nerve (IX), trigeminal nerve (V) and the vagus nerve (X). The facial nerve receives taste from the anterior two-thirds of the tongue; the glossopharyngeal from the posterior third. SVA fibers in the vagus originate in the larynx and pharynx.[2] The sensory processes, using their primary cell bodies from the inferior ganglion, send projections to the medulla, from which they travel in the tractus solitarius, later terminating at the rostral nucleus solitarius.[3]​


Nope. Just more evidence that the creationist is out of his depth and that his claim of studying anatomy was a farce.

And wiki again on the RLN:

Recurrent laryngeal nerve - Wikipedia


Now please provide an actual source that shows that motor impulses for vocalizations can be produced anywhere other than the Nucleus ambiguus (which in turn receives inputs from the motor speech area).

Surely you know what that is, what with your keen grasp of the relevant anatomy, right?


Of course, you would have had to understand anatomy enough to know what to search for (e.g., vagus nerve, visceral afferents, etc.) which you obviously do not (and remember that according to you, if something is obvious it must be so). This is why your keyword search technique has, every time I have seen you employ it thus far, ended up making you look foolish for linking to articles that actually undermine your position.


Funny - note that I was easily able to provide sources that actually do support my position, yet the creationist cannot seem to be able to do it ever.


PREDICTION - this will be responded to with first a one or two liner blow off, probably bringing up some ancillary subject, and perhaps later with a tangential link to a creationist essay.

Bets?​


OWG is now basically a troll. Pathetic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,522
2,609
✟102,963.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
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'.
-_- that's a reason to hold a neutral position on something, not flat out reject it. I don't understand string theory, and guess what? I don't debate about it. I don't talk about that which I don't understand. I recognize that my understanding of the topic is not sufficient to produce valid commentary on it, so I don't comment. If I felt the desire to converse about string theory, I'd learn more about it FIRST. I wouldn't crash into the conversation like a wreaking ball of ignorance, declaring that "string theory is bollocks, and I don't understand it".
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,976
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,212.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
So why don't you actually take the time to actually learn about evolution?

My point is that none of what I've read about evolution computes to me. I can't make sense of the general concept. I am incredulous even given the information.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,976
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,212.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Source?

Also - that BS about needing perfect peripheral vision is hilarious - do you just make this stuff up as needed? Or do you cruise creationist websites for gems of disinformation?

I base this on my own observation and experience. Maybe this could be a litmus test for that. If you look into it you'll discover that I am correct.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,976
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,212.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
-_- that's a reason to hold a neutral position on something, not flat out reject it. I don't understand string theory, and guess what? I don't debate about it. I don't talk about that which I don't understand. I recognize that my understanding of the topic is not sufficient to produce valid commentary on it, so I don't comment. If I felt the desire to converse about string theory, I'd learn more about it FIRST. I wouldn't crash into the conversation like a wreaking ball of ignorance, declaring that "string theory is bollocks, and I don't understand it".

I dive right into string theory as I believe it is the attempt of science to explore the interface between matter and energy.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,035
7,402
31
Wales
✟424,245.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
My point is that none of what I've read about evolution computes to me. I can't make sense of the general concept. I am incredulous even given the information.

So you admit that you have no logical basis for denying that theory of evolution is a scientific fact then?
 
Upvote 0

theQuincunx5

Well-Known Member
Apr 7, 2018
1,626
1,392
61
Seattle
✟55,246.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I dive right into string theory as I believe it is the attempt of science to explore the interface between matter and energy.

So lemme get this straight: string theory "computes" for you but evolution simply does not?

String theory is exceedingly complex and mostly (as I understand it) implications from mathematical constructs. Evolution, however, has evidence and a relatively simple model.

Could it be that since String Theory doesn't have any implications for threatening one's religious beliefs that it is easier to accept despite the fact that it is nearly incomprehensible to the common person, while evolution is more theologically threatening and much simpler to understand?
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
9,209
10,098
✟282,278.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
I dive right into string theory as I believe it is the attempt of science to explore the interface between matter and energy.
I characterise string theory, in its current form, as mental masturbation for mathematicians. While it is doubtless worth pursuing, its failure to deliver anything of susbtance to date and the pronounced lack of evidential support makes it a sorry excuse for a theory. In contrast the ToE is backed by a cornucopia of evidence from multiple disciplines. Your ailure to "compute" the theory says nothing about the theory and everything about yourself. You are free to continue making the wrong choice.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,976
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,212.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
So you admit that you have no logical basis for denying that theory of evolution is a scientific fact then?

Logic tells me it is false. To me evolution is like a gigantic puzzle with trillions of pieces, and while science is able to fit many together the picture is incomplete.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,976
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,212.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I characterise string theory, in its current form, as mental masturbation for mathematicians. While it is doubtless worth pursuing, its failure to deliver anything of susbtance to date and the pronounced lack of evidential support makes it a sorry excuse for a theory. In contrast the ToE is backed by a cornucopia of evidence from multiple disciplines. Your ailure to "compute" the theory says nothing about the theory and everything about yourself. You are free to continue making the wrong choice.

So lemme get this straight: string theory "computes" for you but evolution simply does not?

String theory is exceedingly complex and mostly (as I understand it) implications from mathematical constructs. Evolution, however, has evidence and a relatively simple model.

Could it be that since String Theory doesn't have any implications for threatening one's religious beliefs that it is easier to accept despite the fact that it is nearly incomprehensible to the common person, while evolution is more theologically threatening and much simpler to understand?

Of course string theory is going nowhere, that's why I like it.
 
Upvote 0

theQuincunx5

Well-Known Member
Apr 7, 2018
1,626
1,392
61
Seattle
✟55,246.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Of course string theory is going nowhere, that's why I like it.

Can you point to the post where you stopped actually caring about your overarching philosophy of science?

Speaking as one who got his doctorate in the physical sciences and has struggled over the years to understand things like Quantum Mechanics and various other physico-chemical concepts and who looks at string theory and just walks away more confused than anything, but who looks at a relatively simple theory with lots of evidence and rather simple mechanisms like evolution and I really don't know why you find one to be acceptable and the other to be incomprehensible.
 
Upvote 0

Belk

Senior Member
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
30,639
15,087
Seattle
✟1,141,715.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Logic tells me it is false. To me evolution is like a gigantic puzzle with trillions of pieces, and while science is able to fit many together the picture is incomplete.


'I don't understand it therefore it is not true' is not logic.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,035
7,402
31
Wales
✟424,245.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Logic tells me it is false. To me evolution is like a gigantic puzzle with trillions of pieces, and while science is able to fit many together the picture is incomplete.

But if you had logic, you wouldn't be saying that you don't understand it. In fact, all of your criticisms of evolution that I have seen, both as a lurker of this site and as a member, tells me that you have no logical basis for your criticism of evolution. Just a religious bias.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,976
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,212.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Got it. You feel a strong sense of identity with it. Two rambling, misguided, over-confident siblings. :)

String theory was an attempt to explain the unexplainable. Creation is unexplainable. That's why I was interested in it. Anyway it's history now.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,976
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,212.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Can you point to the post where you stopped actually caring about your overarching philosophy of science?

Speaking as one who got his doctorate in the physical sciences and has struggled over the years to understand things like Quantum Mechanics and various other physico-chemical concepts and who looks at string theory and just walks away more confused than anything, but who looks at a relatively simple theory with lots of evidence and rather simple mechanisms like evolution and I really don't know why you find one to be acceptable and the other to be incomprehensible.

As I said string theory (imo) brings science very close to the impossibility of scientific answers when the universe is examined closely. That's why I liked it. I thought that science would finally discover that everything that is....isn't.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,976
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,212.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
But if you had logic, you wouldn't be saying that you don't understand it. In fact, all of your criticisms of evolution that I have seen, both as a lurker of this site and as a member, tells me that you have no logical basis for your criticism of evolution. Just a religious bias.

Just finished reading a lengthy article on the echolocation system of different bat species, that went into some amazing details. There is no way these systems evolved. Logic tells me they were designed. I reached that conclusion based on these incredible systems alone, no religion needed.
 
Upvote 0