I wonder what apologetic excrement is going to be peddled here?

Robert Byers wrote:I'll answer a few points here not brought up elsewhere.

This will be a first for you, Byers, given your track record over at IIDB and RDF.

Robert Byers wrote:otherwise a general statement because so many brought up the same points.

This might have something to do with the fact that creationists haven't provided substantive answers to them. Ever.

Robert Byers wrote:The bible, King James, wrongly says whales. the hebrew just means sea beasts. its not the word for whales. so no contradiction.

Oh really?

First of all, do you have a PRECISE CITATION to back up this assertion?

Second, why is it that I regard this latest assertion of yours as wholly disingenuous? Oh, that's right, because it's one of the well documented features of creationist orthodoxy that the King James Bible is regarded as "inerrant". Which means, Byers, that in making the above statement, you are at variance with that orthodoxy, and, in the eyes of those creationists who adhere to that orthodoxy, you are a heretic.

You really haven't thought this through, have you?

Robert Byers wrote:its not accurate to say that we all have vestigial in regards to our general body.

What else do you call the coccyx, Byers? I don't recall it ever having been demonstrated to serve a purpose. Indeed, my first edition of Gray's Anatomy describes the coccyx as 'rudimentary'. The first edition of Gray's Anatomy, incidentally, was published a year before Darwin published On The Origin Of Species, and according to the full text of the latter work, Darwin did not correspond with Henry Gray during the compilation of either work. However, Darwin does make mention of a Dr Asa Gray, an entirely different person working in an entirely different field.

Robert Byers wrote:that is only an interpretation of evolution.

Bollocks, Byers. The coccyx was determined not to be of significant function by anatomists long before Darwin arrived on the scientific scene.

Oh, and how do you explain, Byers, the fact that human embryos have a tal in the early stages of development, which then disappears? Here is an illustration of the Carnegie Stages of human embryonic development, kindly provided in the form of photographs by the School of Medical Sciences of the University of New South Wales. Note Carnegie Stages 14 to 16, where the tail is clearly visible, but has disappeared by Stage 22.

Now this makes perfect sense in the light of evolution, namely that we descended from ancestors that once possessed tails, but lost ours over thousands of generations because it was of no significant use to us. Incidentally, on rare occasions, the genetic regulatory mechanisms that result in re-absorption of the tail in human embryos fails, leading to the appearance of newborn human infants with a tail. A case study is provided in this scientific paper:

True Tail In A Newborn by Mouied Alashari and Joy Torakawa, Pediatric Dermatology, 12(3): 263-266 (28th June 2008) [Abstract available here]

Alashari & Torakawa, 2008 wrote:ABSTRACT

Human true tall is a rarely reported anomaly that may have a marked psychologic impact on the patient's family and may be associated with other congenital anomalies. A true tail in a newborn girl is reported, and findings from a review of the literature are summarized. The clinical and pathologic differential diagnoses are discussed, as they might affect the management and prognosis of this congenital malformation.

Once again, Byers, your duplicitous attempt to use "interpretation" as a synonym for "fabrication erected to prop up a presupposition" is refuted wholesale by the hard evidence from reality.

Robert Byers wrote:Its not like the other list of actual vestigial organs.

Oh really? And why is this so? Only I recall from a post of yours over at IIDB, that you didn't "do" anatomy.

Robert Byers wrote:Us have arms/legs is not vestigial of four legs except in evolutionary analysis.

Scientifically illiterate gibberish. But then I've come to expect this from you, Byers.

NOWHERE does evolutionary theory say that our having arms and legs is a "vestigial" condition! This is a complete fabrication on your part, Byers. Since our having arms and legs, and bipedal locomotion, was clearly selected for because it conferred advantages upon our ancestors (such as the ability to use the newly freed forelimbs for precise tool manipulation), the idea that this is a "vestigial" condition is complete poppycock.

Is this the best that you can offer, Byers?

Robert Byers wrote:our backbone is not a anatomical part that is unused or slightly used or adapted for other reasons from a fish.

Once again, bollocks, Byers.

NOWHERE does evolutionary theory say that our vertebral column is "unused". Try picking up a basic biology textbook sometime. The mere fact that you have to resort to crude apologetic fabrications of this sort merely demonstrates the intellectual bankruptcy of your worthless doctrine.

Robert Byers wrote:doesn't count.

Your manifest ignorance of basic biology is breathtaking, Byers. Comparative anatomists were struck by the homologies between bone structures right across the vertebrates two hundred or more years ago. Indeed, Linnaeus was one of those comparative anatomists, and his work was published a hundred years before Darwin's. So don't try fobbing us all off with the "interpretation" bullshit, Byers, because it IS bullshit.

Robert Byers wrote:So the actual list is very poor and crazy poor if evolution had been going on for everything for millions of years.

And once again, you demonstrate that you know nothing of substance about basic biology.

What part of "only certain features are vestigial in various organisms, and are so because they fell into disuse" do you not understand? What use are eyes to a fish living in totally lightless caves? Yet Astyanax mexicanus not only has the genes for eye development, but eye development takes place in these fishes in the embryo stage, only to disappear later via cell apoptosis. I suppose your magic man was playing tricks on us when he came up with that, was he?

Robert Byers wrote:my case that vestigial parts makes our case stands strong.

Bollocks. Only in the bizarre parallel universe of the febrile creationist imagination does this take place. REALITY, on the other hand, tells a different story. See above.

Meanwhile, I see you decided to treat us all to a second comedy outing. Let's take a look at this shall we?

Robert Byers wrote:For everyone.

Does this mean everyone has a chance to ridicule your apologetic faeces? Do we have to form a queue?

Robert Byers wrote:i usually respond to posts but there was a time lag and like points brought up.

Your idea of "response", Byers, merely results in laughter emanating from those who read it.

Robert Byers wrote:everyone gave me a list of vestigial parts to make your point.

And you attempted to hand-wave them away with apologetic vomit. But then, I recall that you were "Mr I Don't Do Anatomy" over at IIDB.

Robert Byers wrote:yet it comes down only to water mammals, snakes, cave crawlers, and birds.

"Only", he says. Yeah, Byers, that's right, "only" what was it, 200 or so species of vertebrate that I cited? Not including the dozens of others that were cited by other people, which taken together, probably numbers something like 500 species?

Oh, and Byers, what part of "other living organisms are just as valid from a scientific standpoint as humans" do you not understand?

Robert Byers wrote:This creationist accepts water mammals as land creatures

In direct contravention of creationist orthodoxy. Which, as I observed above, makes you a heretic in the eyes of other creationists.

Robert Byers wrote:who took to a post flood sea.

Except that creationist orthodoxy dictates otherwise. Really sure you want to pursue this, Byers?

Robert Byers wrote: i said that.

We know. Some of the other posters here were able to read at the age of three.

Robert Byers wrote:The snake having legs was said in Genesis.

Except that your book of myths merely asserted this. It also contains a number of other assertions, several of which are manifestly wrong. Plus, I don't recall Genesis going into precise details about the number of limbs that snakes were supposed to possess prior to the merely asserted piece of magic by which your merely asserted magic man purportedly removed them. Given that Leviticus erects fatuous and wrong assertions about the number of limbs that other creatures purportedly possess, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if your tiresome book of myths was wrong with respect to this question as well.

Robert Byers wrote:thats fine to find evidence there.

Except that since the fossil organisms in question were alive during the Cretaceous era, over 65 million years ago, this offers NO support for your mythology whatsoever, and certainly offers no support for the fatuous creationist orthodoxy about the entire universe being only 6,000 years old.

Robert Byers wrote:Cave creatures are special and only show degeneration of parts. not a new anatomical life as such.

And how much anatomy do you know again, Mr I Don't Do Anatomy?

The whole point, Byers, is that evolutionary theory offers a testable explanation as to why creatures such as Astyanax mexicanus possess the features that they do, whereas your mythology never even mentions them. The Bronze Age nomads who wrote your tedious mythology were wholly ignorant not only of the existence of these creatures, but were ignorant of the existence of the entire continental land mass where they reside.

Robert Byers wrote:Likewise flightless birds are just atrophy cases. Not evolution either as taught.

Bollocks, Byers. Why is it that different stages in the transition from flying birds to flightless birds can be observed in the real world, in the Rail family alone? Your mythology has NO explanation for this. Evolution, on the other hand, has a perfectly valid explanation for this, namely that the birds in question no longer need to fly in an environment where predators that require evasive action via flight do not exist, and consequently dispense with flight, resulting in disuse of the flight muscles, and the gradual diminution thereof in order to conserve energy resources.

Robert Byers wrote:This is a poor crop if it was accurate.

A fatuous assertion on your part Byers, not least because REALITY says that these birds lost flight over time, which means that the evolutionary hypothesis has far more support than your worthless mythology.

Robert Byers wrote:Its not accurate in showing living/extinct biology had vestigial or remnants of the previous anatomical states they all must of lived in for so long.

And how much anatomy do you know again? You were "Mr I Don't Do Anatomy" over at IIDB.

250 years of continuous scientific research into comparative anatomy says you're talking horseshit.

Robert Byers wrote:The percentages here are terrible for what it should look like if biology had evolved.

Bollocks. What part of "organs fall into disuse only if there is no use for them" do you not understand? What we see is exactly what would be expected from an evolutionary standpoint. Go and pick up a real biology textbook, Byers, and learn from it.

Robert Byers wrote:The few cases make the case of the poverty.

Oh, getting on for 200 species of vertebrate exhibiting vestigial features constitutes "poverty"? Your hand-waving and apologetic gymnastics are amusing to watch.

Robert Byers wrote:Further they are special cases.

No kidding? Evolutionary biology doesn't say anything different. It states that these creatures possess the features they do because the ecosystems in which they live shaped those features. What part of this elementary concept do you not understand?

Robert Byers wrote:count how many creatures there are and have been and give a percentage that have actual vestigial parts. living or extinct.

We've already done your homework for you, Byers, in case you hadn't noticed.

Robert Byers wrote:Showing evolution in its glory to change things into quite different things. Not just making lazy birds.

Oh no, not the "transmutation" bullshit creationists love so much. It's time to lead you through the baby steps once more, Byers, as you have demonstrated yet again that you need them.

Evolution does NOT say that one creature "transforms" into another. First, evolution is a population phenomenon, and works at the level of populations. What happens is that individuals within those populations acquire relevant features with each new generation, and the forces at work within an ecosystem determine whether those features will become fixed in that population or not. Furthermore, speciation has been observed taking place in the real world, Byers, so don't try and erect that creationist bullshit here, because I've already bitchslapped you with a brace of scientific papers on speciation over at RDF.

Robert Byers wrote:I think i got a great point here for reasonable thinkers.

Poppycock. "Magic Man did it" isn't a "reasonable" idea, it's a childish fantasy.

Robert Byers wrote:If you think about.

Care to point to any instance where you demonstrated that you had thought about the issues, Byers? As opposed to regurgitating standard creationist shibboleths without once asking yourself if REALITY supported any of them?

Robert Byers wrote:Birds and snakes?! come on you guys. thats terrible.

And here we see the creationist mind at work. Other living organisms don't matter to creationists, creationists think that they're just here to provide us with burgers and cheese, instead of being worthy of learning from in their own right. What a truly pathetic display of intellectual vacuity and bankruptcy you present here in your posts, Byers.

Calilasseia wrote:I wonder what apologetic excrement is going to be peddled here?

...snip...

And here we see the creationist mind at work. Other living organisms don't matter to creationists, creationists think that they're just here to provide us with burgers and cheese, instead of being worthy of learning from in their own right. What a truly pathetic display of intellectual vacuity and bankruptcy you present here in your posts, Byers.

It's just like the old days

Fucking epic

argumentativealex wrote:

This creationist accepts water mammals as land creatures who took to a post flood sea. i said that.
The snake having legs was said in Genesis. thats fine to find evidence there.
Cave creatures are special and only show degeneration of parts. not a new anatomical life as such.
Likewise flightless birds are just atrophy cases.

Then, surely, this is evolution, isn't it?

Terrestrial mammals take to the water, lose their legs, develop flippers which presumably they didn't have on the land? Evolution!
Snakes once had legs, now no longer do and rely entirely on highly efficient 'rib-walking'? Evolution!
Cave species with various degrees of eye degeneration, entirely adapted to the dark? Evolution!
Ostriches lose the use of their wings and develop massive running legs? Evolution!

If, as you say, you accept that whales, snakes, cave dwellers and ratites all derive from other species by the loss of one function and the compensating development of another function then none of the above creatures were created in their present form. You're talking about evolution!

Face it, Robert, you're an eeevoluuutionist!!

Not evolution by mutation/selection . Yes minor, relative, adaptation is admitted, happily, by creationists and more by me.
These critters are rare and special cases. Unique. in fact they make a better case against evolution ever having happened in biology as I explained in my previous post.

UnderConstruction wrote:I just want to focus on this point here:

Robert Byers wrote:
This creationist accepts water mammals as land creatures who took to a post flood sea. i said that.

Wait, what?! So see going mammals are the same "kind" as they land dwelling cousins? Doesn't the "kind" concept (poorly or even not defined as it typically is) demand some reproductive potential, similar to the commonly used definition of species? Just how many morphological changes and how much reproductive isolation are you willing to accept before you call something a different "kind"? Can we really still call this "micro-evolution"?

If i may. you may have points but its off thread on the subject this time.

There is no is way I can convince myself that this Byers dude is the real thing. Seriously... no fucking way.

Robert Byers wrote:

UnderConstruction wrote:I just want to focus on this point here:

Robert Byers wrote:
This creationist accepts water mammals as land creatures who took to a post flood sea. i said that.

Wait, what?! So see going mammals are the same "kind" as they land dwelling cousins? Doesn't the "kind" concept (poorly or even not defined as it typically is) demand some reproductive potential, similar to the commonly used definition of species? Just how many morphological changes and how much reproductive isolation are you willing to accept before you call something a different "kind"? Can we really still call this "micro-evolution"?

If i may. you may have points but its off thread on the subject this time.

Ahem, you brought it up. Also, this thread has not really had much of a direction since Polanyi gave up trying to support his bullshit assertions. So please, go ahead. I doubt anyone will object to the comedy gold that is likely to result from you trying to defend the notion that whales are the same "kind" as their nearest relative on land. Or that land mammal to ocean going is still just "micro-evolution". Or that evolution can work so rapidly.

So perhaps you would like to start with a rigorous definition of "kinds"?

(Please, feel free to start a new thread it you prefer. I'd rather you did not wriggle out of it using such a feeble excuse as it being off topic.)

Not evolution by mutation/selection . Yes minor, relative, adaptation is admitted, happily,

In what alternative universe, exactly, could the transformation of a "land mammal" into a Blue whale (loss of hind limbs and most of the pelvis, conversion of forelimbs into flippers with the massive re-arrangement of bones that is involved, movement of nostrils to the top of the head, loss of teeth and development of baleen, a structure unique to whales) possibly be considered a "minor, relative, adaptation"?

by creationists and more by me.

No, Robert, I think you are unique amongst creationists in thinking that the great whales are slightly adapted land mammals!

These critters are rare and special cases. Unique. in fact they make a better case against evolution ever having happened in biology as I explained in my previous post.

But they aren't "rare and special cases", they are ubiquitous throughout the animal kingdom. Just to take aquatic mammals alone you have all the cetaceans (whales, porpoise, dolphin), sirenians (dugong, manatee), pinnipeds (seals, sea-lion, walrus), not to mention otters, water-deer, beaver, coypu, capybara, hippopotamus, platypus - all evolved to a greater or lesser extent to live in water. A better case for evolution you couldn't hope to find!

My case is still strong here on its equations.
If evolution was true then thousands, or more, of living and extinct and "not found' intermediates would have or be surmised to have had anatomical evidence of previous body types/styles of previous successful existence.!
Like whales and snakes.
This is not found.
Instead there is a fantastic poverty of vestigial or remnant bits and pieces still within all these bodies.
If ID'er Mr Berlinski was here he would say lets do the math.
The odds of such poverty of finding pieces of unused anatomy, especially within the flesh,of so much fauna descended from so much time of mutation/selection would be greater then Cameroon winning the 2010 world cup.

The few cases, indeed few, of actual vestigial bits makes a case that these creatures adapted by other mechanisms of "evolution" and this probably very instant.
Evolution pointing at whales is pointing at all the rest lack of anatomical memory where surely it should be in heaps and piles.
It is as creationism would expect. It isn't as evolution would expect.
I think i got a good point.
lets see some math here by you guys on what percentage of living/extinct (surmised intermediates not found yet) creatures there is vestigial evidence of previous body types from tens of millions of years of evolution.

The problem with finding vestigial body parts is that the only time that these are formed is in the foetal development stage of the organism. The number of genes involved with this is much smaller than the whole genome.

So the whole genome can have vast arrays of potential codings for parts but without the highly co-ordinated involvement of the FOX genes these are not expressed.

What is in the genome and what is expressed at the time of the foetal development are two different things.

Foetal development is a strong selection mechanism; there is nothing like killing the mother with incompatible growths or not being born viable to spoil your chances of mating

So I do not see why we would see that many vestigial body parts expressed because of the strict control by forkhead box genes but I would expect to see remnants in the genome.

Robert Byers wrote:My case is still strong here on its equations.

You are the only person here who thinks that Robert. Everyone else disagrees with you.

Robert Byers wrote:
If evolution was true then thousands, or more, of living and extinct and "not found' intermediates would have or be surmised to have had anatomical evidence of previous body types/styles of previous successful existence.!
Like whales and snakes.
This is not found.

They are called fossils, and vestigial organs Robert. There is a continuum of fossils, and if you did know anything about evolutionary theory then you would see that what you think is not found, exists. Evolutionary theory has the evidence, you just refuse to accept it.

Robert Byers wrote:
Instead there is a fantastic poverty of vestigial or remnant bits and pieces still within all these bodies.

Not poverty, Robert. There are a number of vestigial organs, found all over. Some vestigial organs still have a purpose some don't. Just in teh human body: coccyx, appendix, wisdom teeth... Read all about it in this wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality

Robert Byers wrote:
If ID'er Mr Berlinski was here he would say lets do the math.
The odds of such poverty of finding pieces of unused anatomy, especially within the flesh,of so much fauna descended from so much time of mutation/selection would be greater then Cameroon winning the 2010 world cup.

On the contrary, Robert the evidence exists in anatomy, just read the above wikipedia article, just for humans. I can find you more articles like the above for many organisms, about vestigiality, but you can read the main article on wikipedia to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality

Robert Byers wrote:
The few cases, indeed few, of actual vestigial bits makes a case that these creatures adapted by other mechanisms of "evolution" and this probably very instant.

Not few, Robert MANY CASES. And they are not instant changes, but changes over time, over long periods of time.

Robert Byers wrote:
Evolution pointing at whales is pointing at all the rest lack of anatomical memory where surely it should be in heaps and piles.
It is as creationism would expect. It isn't as evolution would expect.

Robert, again this is so much wrong. It is as evolution expects. What makes you think it is evidence for creationism?

Robert Byers wrote:
I think i got a good point.

What point?

Robert Byers wrote:
lets see some math here by you guys on what percentage of living/extinct (surmised intermediates not found yet) creatures there is vestigial evidence of previous body types from tens of millions of years of evolution.

Intermediates are found Robert: they are called fossils. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossils

Robert, how do you explain the sex ratio in humans? [I won't make it to hard for you, and ask about eusocial Hymenoptera]!

This is how I feel when Byers enters the discussion :




I feel like we are being trolled.

Like we was saying, Fin to limb evolution clue found.

I'm guessing what they'll do next is block/silence those genes and see what comes of it.

Hey, Robert, care to reply to anything that Cali wrote? Or is that just a little to much for you? Seriously, you just ignoring a long, perfectly structured, well-written text that probably took quite some time and effort to write just shows your disrespect for the people you are "debating" with. The very least you can do is to acknowledge their effort (even though Cali probably doesn't give a damn about this). Still, Robert, your way of discussing this subject is just low, so very fucking low.

And now for a commercial break

Robert Byers wrote:My case is still strong here on its equations.

Equations? What equations? I haven't seen a one since you've gotten here.

Robert Byers wrote:If evolution was true then thousands, or more, of living and extinct and "not found' intermediates would have or be surmised to have had anatomical evidence of previous body types/styles of previous successful existence.!

We have that. In fact, many modern creatures have a fairly complete transitional fossil record that shows a rather smooth transition.



These are the skulls making up the evolutionary history of Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

Robert Byers wrote:Like whales and snakes.
This is not found.

You just had to pick whales, didn't you?
http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Palaeofile ... eoceti.htm

Robert Byers wrote:Instead there is a fantastic poverty of vestigial or remnant bits and pieces still within all these bodies.

Robert Byers wrote:If ID'er Mr Berlinski was here he would say lets do the math.
The odds of such poverty of finding pieces of unused anatomy, especially within the flesh,of so much fauna descended from so much time of mutation/selection would be greater then Cameroon winning the 2010 world cup.

So the odds are greater than 0 (Cameroon is out and has been for half a week)? Well, that's not saying much. After all, most things have odds that are greater than 0. Being hit by an asteroid on your way home from work while speeding down the expressway at 70 mph while holding a cup of coffee, having "It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine)" playing on the radio, and finding a mint condition 1947 penny in your cupholder has odds that are greater than zero. On the flip side, the Sun rising tomorrow also has greater than zero odds.

Robert Byers wrote:The few cases, indeed few, of actual vestigial bits makes a case that these creatures adapted by other mechanisms of "evolution" and this probably very instant.

Evolution pointing at whales is pointing at all the rest lack of anatomical memory where surely it should be in heaps and piles.

The hell are you going on about here?

Robert Byers wrote:It is as creationism would expect. It isn't as evolution would expect.

Uh, how exactly does creationism expect vestigial body parts? Are you calling your god incompetent?

Robert Byers wrote:I think i got a good point.

Robert Byers wrote:lets see some math here by you guys on what percentage of living/extinct (surmised intermediates not found yet) creatures there is vestigial evidence of previous body types from tens of millions of years of evolution.

Well I'm not a mathematician nor do I know how many creatures exist and have existed. You see, unlike creationists, I don't pretend to be an expert in things I don't have any fucking clue about. But the fact that we find vestigial body parts at all (i.e. whale leg bones) and that we have a fossil record that explains these vestigial body parts shows that ToE isn't just blowing a bunch of steam but rather can make accurate predictions (such as the case of Tiktaalik) and neatly explains observed reality. That's something creationism can never manage to do.

Hey, Poly, where've you gone? This was your thread, which you seem to have abandoned to Byers?

I guess the good old days of the RDF forum are here again. With Byers here, the forum finally feels complete.

My case is still strong here on its equations.
If evolution was true then thousands, or more, of living and extinct and "not found' intermediates would have or be surmised to have had anatomical evidence of previous body types/styles of previous successful existence.!
Like whales and snakes.
This is not found.

etc, etc.

Sorry, dear boy, but you can't just take dozens of examples of vestigial structures covering (probably) thousands of species and still say "vestigial structures are very rare"!

And what about my implied question - how can you possibly describe the massive changes in physiology needed to convert a terrestrial mammal into a Blue whale as "minor adaptations"?