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

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If it's written in English I can probably understand it.....right up to the point where it might say it 'evolved'.

So you clearly don't understand evolution then.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

We know that 'the gut' does not send motor impulses to the larynx via the RLN.

Source?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So you clearly don't understand evolution then.

I understand this. Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve Is Not Evidence of Poor Design

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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'.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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'.

So why don't you actually take the time to actually learn about evolution?

 

[theQuincunx5]

If it's written in English I can probably understand it.....right up to the point where it might say it 'evolved'.

So when you see "evolved" you stop understanding?

 

[theQuincunx5]

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'.

This is actually quite a reasonable response. It does not make it necessarily accurate that whatever you prefer that you feel you understand is more likely correct.

I don't really understand the extreme mathematical ends of quantum mechanics. That does not mean I disbelieve in them for that reason. It means that I just sit back and let the people who DO understand that math do their thing. Because by every metric available it seems to be working for everyone who uses that sort of information.

 

[tas8831]

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.

Student of anatomy, claimed 135 IQ...

And relies on the appeal to complexity...
How sweet.



Let us recall, that this fellow once, seriously, wrote:

"How do you think unconscious vocal signals get to the brain so fast when a person, or a giraffe, is suddenly surprised or frightened? "

 

[tas8831]

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'.

Interesting - can I use that justification for rejecting biblical literalism/the historicity of Genesis? It just does not compute. Thus it is false.

What a great and easy way to go through life!

 

[tas8831]

I understand this. Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve Is Not Evidence of Poor Design

You understand that because you agree with it, not because you actually grasp the subject matter.

Then, you believe things like this:

"How do you think unconscious vocal signals get to the brain so fast when a person, or a giraffe, is suddenly surprised or frightened? "


" 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."


So weird how you DO believe some things you do not understand, but refuse to believe other things you do not understand.



It is so precious how creationists that admit ignorance of biology who nonetheless can somehow determine that essays on such subjects written by creationist propagandists are beyond reproach.

 

[tas8831]

From creationist Jerry Bergman's essay on the RLN, claimed to somehow rescue the whole discussion by a guy admitting to be ignorant of biology:

"The optic nerves do not take the shortest route to the occipital lobe of the brain (the lobe near the back of the head), but rather cross over at the optic chiasm (where the two tracts cross over in the form of an "X") for reasons now known to be based on good design."

Hmmm.... How was it determined that this is good design again?

Ah yes - a creationist said so.

Yes, they form an X.

What Jerry does not say is that at this X, half the fibers from each eye do NOT cross. So, visual input from each retina is in effect split in half, with one half sent to the same side of the brain, the other half sent to the opposite side of the brain.

Once those fibers get to the occipital lobe (and other parts), the brain must then reassemble the inputs - oh, and the images are also upside down and backwards - to produce our perception of objects.
And let's not forget the blind spots in each eye that have to be compensated for!

Such grand design - I'm sure some non-anatomist like Jerry has an essay on it somewhere that OWG will believe without question due not to his knowledge of the subject, but due to his a priori religious beliefs.

 

[tas8831]

Source?

LOL!!

Really?

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?

 

[doubtingmerle]

It is a great pathway for gut level emotions to affect speech. Vocalization is very complex, else we would all sound like Siri.

My gut level reaction is that your trust in gut level reactions is unjustified.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And let's not forget the blind spots in each eye that have to be compensated for!

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.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

My gut level reaction is that your trust in gut level reactions is unjustified.

I trust that when all the science is in I'll be justified. Science admits that it's "just beginning to understand...." (lots of stuff).

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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

The topic is sounds, not Speech and Language.

 

[tas8831]

So the shell mollusk evolved into the octopus?

So I guess in electrician school you don't have to look at and understand diagrams...

 

[tas8831]

If it's written in English I can probably understand it.

That tactic failed you with your take on the gut producing vocal signals - remember?

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.

First, I have never claimed or implied that I know all there is to know on any subject - not being a YEC, I tend not to think that way in the first place.
Second, having taken graduate level anatomy and physiology classes, and having taught anatomy and neuroscience (as well as cell biology, immunology, evolution, etc.) at the college level, I think I probably know more about the matter than some retired dude that cannot seem to grasp basic freshman level biology.

For future reference - try this:

The Neural Basis of Speech and Language
http://samples.jbpub.com/9781449652678/74738_CH02_FINAL.pdf

You might actually learn something. Doubt it, but you might.


Anyway, it is absolutely hilarious that you are trying to equate this with your farcical claims about "unconscious vocal signals" getting TO the brain.

From your link:

Our brain and gut are connected by an extensive network of neurons and a highway of chemicals and hormones that constantly provide feedback about how hungry we are, whether or not we’re experiencing stress, or if we’ve ingested a disease-causing microbe. ...

The enteric nervous system is often referred to as our body’s second brain. There are hundreds of million of neurons connecting the brain to the enteric nervous system, the part of the nervous system that is tasked with controlling the gastrointestinal system. This vast web of connections monitors the entire digestive tract from the esophagus to the anus [weird - no mention of controlling the "voice box" when scared!]....

While our “second” brain cannot compose a symphony or paint a masterpiece the way the brain in our skull can, it does perform an important role in managing the workings of our inner tube. ...

Operations of the enteric nervous system are overseen by the brain and central nervous system. The central nervous system is in communication with the gut via the sympathetic and parasympathetic branches of the autonomic nervous system, the involuntary arm of the nervous system that controls heart rate, breathing, and digestion...

This circuitry of neurons, hormones, and chemical neurotransmitters not only sends messages to the brain about the status of our gut, it allows for the brain to directly impact the gut environment....
​

Yeah - you just ignored that exposure of your "ability" to understand things in English...

....right up to the point where it might say it 'evolved'.

Right - because if you can't understand it, it must be wrong.

All the wiring is there. It just needs to be activated.

Unsupported question-begging assertion.

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."

It is a great pathway for gut level emotions to affect speech.

If only it were not 100% fantasy.

Vocalization is very complex, else we would all sound like Siri.

And yet you have failed spectacularly in even TRYING to support that rather naive and uninformed assertion, and you have totally IGNORED my repeated attempts at educating you on your folly. Such is the mindset of the Creationist.

You know - the fact that you seem to think neuronal circuits are exactly like copper wires shows how completely clueless you are about this subject.


Neurons are ONE WAY rides. Impulses for ANY vocalization (except for vocalizations caused by mechanical trauma, like getting punched in the gut, or incidental vocalizations such as during a sneeze or a cough which are caused by rapid passing of air through the larynx, not conscious effort) come from the brain, NOT the gut, NOT the aortic arch - the "wiring" is NOT there.

We can conclude that your claim of studying anatomy was a lie, plain and simple, and that your refusal to acknowledge your errors on this material, and to actually educate yourself on biology, is the result of egotism coupled with the Dunning-Kruger effect and a perhaps unconscious desire not to actually understand that your beliefs are bogus.

Sad, really.

 

[tas8831]

Hello?

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.