Remember Stevebee?

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#141  Postby hotshoe » Jul 23, 2010 10:32 pm

Interestlngly, the two Dawkins quotes in that paragraph (of Stevebee's) are directly above a great passage in Dawkins' book, which Steve apparently cannot absorb and comprehend:

Richard Dawkins, in The Blind Watchmaker wrote:If you walk up and down a pebbly beach, you will notice that the
pebbles are not arranged at random. The smaller pebbles typically tend to
be found in segregated zones running along the length of the beach, the
larger ones in different zones or stripes. The pebbles have been sorted,
arranged, selected. A tribe living near the shore might wonder at this
evidence of sorting or arrangement in the world, and might develop a
myth to account for it, perhaps attributing it to a Great Spirit in the sky
with a tidy mind and a sense of order. We might give a superior smile at
such a superstitious notion, and explain that the arranging was really
done by the blind forces of physics, in this case the action of waves. The
waves have no purposes and no intentions, no tidy mind, no mind at all.
They just energetically throw the pebbles around, and big pebbles and
small pebbles respond differently to this treatment so they end up at
different levels of the beach. A small amount of order has come out of
disorder, and no mind planned it
.

page 43,The Blind Watchmaker

(emphasis mine)
Now, when I talked to God I knew he'd understand
He said, "Stick by my side and I'll be your guiding hand
But don't ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to"
hotshoe
 
Posts: 3177

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Remember Stevebee?

#142  Postby Sityl » Jul 23, 2010 10:37 pm

hotshoe wrote:From Steve's website, as linked above:
Steve, about The Blind Watchmaker wrote:Here is how Dawkins and evolutionists say mutations work to yield small changes that over eons produce new organs and species: approximately one of every million genetic transactions (generations) [?genetic transactions / generations ? Is this what Dawkins actually says ?] results in a mutation. The vast majority are not beneficial to the host. But a small minority are. Natural selection works to select the good mutation. The individuals that have the bad mutation die because they don’t have the improvement. The new and improved genetic code is spread through the population, which is now ready for another good mutation selection. “……the whole cumulative process is directed by non-random survival.”[note: a very slight modification of Dawkins' actual phrase, but correct in essence] “The whole sequence of cumulative steps constitutes anything but a chance process, when you consider the complexity of the final end-product relative to the the original starting point.”[an accurate Dawkins quote] Does this mean intelligence? Oh, right, natural selection does it.

Yes, that is exactly correct, Steve. Natural selection does it. Too bad you meant it sarcastically when you said it, because you clearly don't get it. Your loss.

Natural selection causes the appearance of "intelligent design" strictly through random mutation and then sieving the population for whatever tends to work best in the environment at the time.


When your only rebuttal to an argument is to repeat it in a funny voice, not only have you reverted to a preschooler mentality, but you've admitted that you have no actual argument to counter with. When you try to make that funny voice while typing... Well, just :nono:
Stephen Colbert wrote:Now, like all great theologies, Bill [O'Reilly]'s can be boiled down to one sentence - 'There must be a god, because I don't know how things work.'


Image
User avatar
Sityl
 
Name: Ser Sityllan Payne
Posts: 5131
Age: 38
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#143  Postby Calilasseia » Jul 23, 2010 11:24 pm

Meanwhile, addressing this all-caps diatribe:

SO LET'S START AT THE BEGINNING. HOW WERE TEETH ORIGIATED (INVENTED), DESIGNED, AND ASSEMBLED? GEE, NONE OF YOUR PAPERS HAS ANY NOTION. ISN'T THAT IMPORTANT? I'M SURE NOT TO YOU. YOU CAN JUST IGNORE THAT TINY POINT. JUST LIKE HOW WAS VISION INVENTED OR HEARTS OR LUNGS OR CONSCIOUSNESS OR INTELLIGENCE. INVENTED. GOT IT? FROM ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. THROWING PAPERS OUT THAT SAY MAMMALS HAVE SIMILAR TEETH TO OTHER MAMMALS ANSWERS EVERYTHING FOR YOU. NOTHING FOR ME. SORYY. I AM THE SKEPTIC, YOU THE BELIEVER.


Oh, so you're going to ignore once more the paper I presented back at RDF, in which scientists empirically generated teeth in chickens, and demonstrated that those teeth, arising from normally silenced genes extant in bird lineages, were reptilian in structure?

I can reprise that material if need be, I even remembered without looking it up that the mutation in question was the talpid2 mutation. Which means that searching for the relevant paper in my extensive collection will be a breeze.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22011
Age: 57
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#144  Postby tytalus » Jul 24, 2010 1:16 am

Futurama wrote: Bender: Dying sucks butt. How do you living beings cope with mortality?
Leela: Violent outbursts.
Amy: General slutiness.
Fry: Thanks to denial, I'm immortal.
User avatar
tytalus
 
Posts: 1228
Age: 47
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#145  Postby hotshoe » Jul 24, 2010 1:19 am

Man, that thread was impressive.

But, please, please, tell me I don't have to live through it all over again, here. :whine:
Now, when I talked to God I knew he'd understand
He said, "Stick by my side and I'll be your guiding hand
But don't ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to"
hotshoe
 
Posts: 3177

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#146  Postby tytalus » Jul 24, 2010 1:29 am

I hope not, I'm rather enjoying Rachel Maddow's report tonight on the bacon police.
Futurama wrote: Bender: Dying sucks butt. How do you living beings cope with mortality?
Leela: Violent outbursts.
Amy: General slutiness.
Fry: Thanks to denial, I'm immortal.
User avatar
tytalus
 
Posts: 1228
Age: 47
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#147  Postby stevebee92653 » Jul 24, 2010 3:48 am

Calilasseia wrote:Meanwhile, addressing this all-caps diatribe:

SO LET'S START AT THE BEGINNING. HOW WERE TEETH ORIGIATED (INVENTED), DESIGNED, AND ASSEMBLED? GEE, NONE OF YOUR PAPERS HAS ANY NOTION. ISN'T THAT IMPORTANT? I'M SURE NOT TO YOU. YOU CAN JUST IGNORE THAT TINY POINT. JUST LIKE HOW WAS VISION INVENTED OR HEARTS OR LUNGS OR CONSCIOUSNESS OR INTELLIGENCE. INVENTED. GOT IT? FROM ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. THROWING PAPERS OUT THAT SAY MAMMALS HAVE SIMILAR TEETH TO OTHER MAMMALS ANSWERS EVERYTHING FOR YOU. NOTHING FOR ME. SORYY. I AM THE SKEPTIC, YOU THE BELIEVER.


Oh, so you're going to ignore once more the paper I presented back at RDF, in which scientists empirically generated teeth in chickens, and demonstrated that those teeth, arising from normally silenced genes extant in bird lineages, were reptilian in structure?

I can reprise that material if need be, I even remembered without looking it up that the mutation in question was the talpid2 mutation. Which means that searching for the relevant paper in my extensive collection will be a breeze.

Cali, you need to figure out the question you are answering before you attempt an answer. Your papers on the evolution of teeth had embryology, genetics, anatomy, physiohlgy, but not a lick of evolution. I color coded them for you on my blog if you care to look. The writers had no notion of how teeth originated, were designed and assembled in such astounding fashion. And I brought to you the fact that the maxillary and mandibular teeth have different genetic pathways. I asked how one genetic code "knew" what the other was forming. That had to be the case, which you ignored. The grooves, cusps, and fossas of the maxillary teeth fit perfectly with the corresponding grooves, cusps, and fossas of the mandibular if the teeth are properly aligned, or in hand. Does evolution have an explanation for this amazing fact? Did they somehow match mutations? I will help you. They they didn't and don't. I checked the major research papers, and all were puzzled as much as I am and you should be. And with good reason. Your chicken teeth are comedic. If a science had to use chicken teeth for evidence, I would certainly wonder about that sceince. I challenge evolution of dentition, you answrer with gentics, which doesn't explain the original formation of teeth. I ask A, you answer B. Then you make a lot of noise to cover the failure of your answers. You will never answer A. There isn't an answer.
User avatar
stevebee92653
Banned Troll
 
Name: Steve
Posts: 1324

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Remember Stevebee?

#148  Postby iamthereforeithink » Jul 24, 2010 4:04 am

stevebee92653 wrote:Your chicken teeth are comedic. If a science had to use chicken teeth for evidence, I would certainly wonder about that sceince.


What's wrong with chicken teeth? It seems like a very compelling argument for common ancestry. I'm relatively a noob at evolution/ biological sciences. Please explain to me what exactly is wrong with the argument.
“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
User avatar
iamthereforeithink
 
Posts: 3332
Age: 9
Male

Country: USA/ EU
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#149  Postby stevebee92653 » Jul 24, 2010 4:06 am

eddie.zdi wrote:Hello Stevebee, I am very pleased to meet you. I have to admit I admire your passion, I only really get that worked up when someone attacks Doctor Who, ho-hum, also having seen your photo you are indeed a handsome fellow ;) and a dentist, someone is definately pulling their weight in regards to GDP. I hope you don't take this the wrong way but I feel a need to offer a small refresher on science, as you stated that no "evolutionists" (not a term we particularly care for here I must admit, please respect that) ever attempt to poke holes in ToE. All science works off of a very basic principle; Witness a phenomenon, hypothesise about it's basis, rigorously test said hypothesis. As such every paper every published on the subject of evolutionary biology is indeed a genuine attempt to undermine evolution, these papers are then ublished allowing anyone to have a pop at disproving the theory (by the way every other theory with the same evidence as ToE would be considered a scientific law). Now baring in mind that youhave posted several times that evolution is "obviously" false I would recommend taking this information to a government representative so that it won't be taught in schools. Anyway I hope that this post does not offend, I bid you a good day you charismatic stallion of man. *doths cap and disappears into the night*


Hello back. I agree with evrything in your comment, including the compliments. (ha ha) I use the term "evolutionaut" because you and your peers hate "evolutionist" so much. It simply means "evolution voyager", and is not meant to demean in any way, but I get criticized for that one frequently, which I find rather funny. I am sure I will get some noise here. I like the term.
I did what you say good science does, and my "witnessing" and observations changed my mind about this subject. We look at the same evidence and come to entirely different conclusions. A few years ago I would have been here doing what you do. I was a huge fan of evolution, and I read and watched (TV) everything I could get my hands on. Until.....Anyway, thanks for the note.
I bid you good day as well.
User avatar
stevebee92653
Banned Troll
 
Name: Steve
Posts: 1324

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#150  Postby stevebee92653 » Jul 24, 2010 4:21 am

num1cubfn wrote:"evillusion"

Yes, clearly the goal of that link is to find the truth, and NOT to push a preconceived narrative in ANY way...

:rofl:

No, the goal of the blog goal is to disporve D. evolution as the source of all of living nature and it's bio-systems, which I state on my first page. THAT will result in the truth.
User avatar
stevebee92653
Banned Troll
 
Name: Steve
Posts: 1324

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#151  Postby ADParker » Jul 24, 2010 6:46 am

stevebee92653 wrote:
Pathetic?

Correct.

stevebee92653 wrote:How so? Y'ALL not only copy my vid over here,

"Y'ALL"?
Wasn't it you who so loved to take little digs if anyone of us talked about what "we" thought? Now you choose to blame all of us for something (perfectly legitimate) that just one person did? :roll:

stevebee92653 wrote:you copy stuff from my blog and bring it over here without permission.

No I didn't.
And it's fair use anyway.

stevebee92653 wrote:Do you block those that do?

No I don't.
1. It's not my forum, now is it?
2. There is no reason.

I see that you have selected another ridiculous little bone to gnaw at, rather than taking up any real issues.

stevebee92653 wrote:I actually could really care less.

It doesn't read like that at all. :lol:

stevebee92653 wrote:But your continual ragging on the original "copier" is laughable. Or, should I say, "pathetic".

I think you should say "imaginary", as in it is all in your own head.

And I never mentioned the guy, until you brought it up again.

stevebee92653 wrote: You are worried about his secret password, but not about spreading my personal information.

Not any more, his password is now defunct, as is the forum.
And what "personal information" stevebee92653? snippets of the stuff you have posted all over the internet? Come off it, this is just childish and you know it.

stevebee92653 wrote: I have posed qustions for you, and to get even a half of a semblence of an answer through all of the fog is not worth the effort.

What questions are you referring too?

stevebee92653 wrote:The problem with the spread of bio-systems is so easy to see, but you blind yourselves to it.

What are those problems stevebee92653? Not that I am expecting much from someone who so clearly demonstrates their ignorance of the science involved.

stevebee92653 wrote:Can't even one of your see the problem?

You mean based on your silly little "spoof"? Yes, of course, and it is an all too common problem; yet another wilfully ignorant apologist ranting and raving against something they do not understand.

stevebee92653 wrote: Why queston any more since 100% of you think 100% of the evidence proves 100% that evolution is the 100% answer to 100% of everything. And 100% ('scuse me, 99%) of all scientists think evolution is the 100% answer as well.

I have no idea what you are on about. Do you?
Last edited by ADParker on Jul 24, 2010 11:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason Over Faith
User avatar
ADParker
RS Donator
 
Name: Andrew
Posts: 5643
Age: 47
Male

Country: New Zealand
New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#152  Postby ADParker » Jul 24, 2010 7:10 am

stevebee92653 wrote:
SO LET'S START AT THE BEGINNING.

Please do not shout. And at least make the effort to learn how to quote posts properly, it isn't hard once you try.

stevebee92653 wrote:HOW WERE TEETH ORIGIATED

Don't know exactly. But there is evidence of that within the broader evidence of modification through decent.

stevebee92653 wrote:(INVENTED),

Your assumption, not mine.

stevebee92653 wrote:DESIGNED,

Your assumption, not mine.

stevebee92653 wrote:AND ASSEMBLED?

Your assumption, not mine.

stevebee92653 wrote:
GEE, NONE OF YOUR PAPERS HAS ANY NOTION. ISN'T THAT IMPORTANT?

No, not really. Those papers were on specific topics. Does it matter that they didn't answer the questions you would ask, to your liking? Especially seeing as you are asking for something quite distinct from actual evolutionary biology.

stevebee92653 wrote:JUST LIKE HOW WAS VISION INVENTED OR HEARTS OR LUNGS OR CONSCIOUSNESS OR INTELLIGENCE. INVENTED. GOT IT?

Yes, got it. You are presuming that all those things were invented, and won't let anything in to challenge that preconception. So what if there is absolutely zero evidence for such ancient design work.

There is mountains of evidence and work on the evolution of such things. But you really don't care do you? You have already made up your mind.

stevebee92653 wrote:FROM ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

From what now?!

stevebee92653 wrote:Poe? Edgar Allen? Post A Reply? Sorry, don't know that one.

Go figure.
Poe's law, look it up.

stevebee92653 wrote:I did respond to Calli's. We don't get along too well. Shame. Particularly when we are all searching for answers to the same thing. Except everyone here has the answer, I don't. Which is of course my argument, and why I am so popular here.

I do wish you would just stop pretending to be some open minded sceptic. practically everything you write pegs you as a denialist. You aren't fooling anyone, not here.
___________________________

stevebee92653 wrote:
The Blind Watchmaker is the best book I have read supporting intellingence as a requirement for the construcion of nature.

Wow! :what:
______________________________

num1cubfn wrote:I don't think it was "The Blind Watchmaker" that he was reading, I think it was "The Blind Assertationist."

More likely; he 'read' it in the same fashion as the Krebs cycle paper I pointed him too on his blog - in other words, only to skim through it looking for things that he can twist to defend his already fixed ideas. Much like every 'professional' quote-miner in fact. :nono:
_________________________________

tytalus wrote:
Anyway, such baseless assertion is cute. :) As easily dismissed as it's been made up, but amusing. I guess we'll see if he can back up a claim for once, I'm guessing not.

It's a typical tactic of creationist apologists isn't it? Making an assertion without even trying to reference it to anything. This often extends on forums such as this to accusations of personal attack, without pointing out said attack, and other such empty generalisations.

Of course stevebee92653 claims that he is not a creationist but an IDiot, sorry one of those CDesign Proponentsists...damn: intelligent design proponents. But then don't they all? Only to go on to use the very same methods as creationists have always used? :lol:
Last edited by ADParker on Jul 24, 2010 11:04 am, edited 2 times in total.
Reason Over Faith
User avatar
ADParker
RS Donator
 
Name: Andrew
Posts: 5643
Age: 47
Male

Country: New Zealand
New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#153  Postby Made of Stars » Jul 24, 2010 7:39 am

Image
Made of Stars, by Neil deGrasse Tyson and zenpencils

“Be humble for you are made of earth. Be noble for you are made of stars” - Serbian proverb
User avatar
Made of Stars
RS Donator
 
Name: Call me Coco
Posts: 9815
Age: 51
Male

Country: Girt by sea
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#154  Postby ADParker » Jul 24, 2010 11:10 am

stevebee92653 wrote:Too much to write here, so if you like, see:
http://evillusion.wordpress.com/thinkin ... atchmaker/

Okay, there you go. Is that something you would like to discuss with us? Because there is a great deal wrong with that, which we could educate you on, if you are at all disposed to pay attention.
Reason Over Faith
User avatar
ADParker
RS Donator
 
Name: Andrew
Posts: 5643
Age: 47
Male

Country: New Zealand
New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#155  Postby Shrunk » Jul 24, 2010 11:24 am

stevebee92653 wrote:
hotshoe wrote:Just so you don't have a chance to get off on another rant, do we have permission to copy some portions of your ev-illusion column, so we can discuss it here ?

True, fair use under copyright law guarantees that we have the right to do it, but I just thought I would be polite and ask you first.

Thanks, Stevie !

Well, that''s mannerly. Sure. Copy at will. I'm sure my stuff will change some minds here. har har har


BTW, did you obtain permission from the Richard Dawkins Foundation for the quotes you used from its forum on your blog?
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 54
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Remember Stevebee?

#156  Postby Shrunk » Jul 24, 2010 11:38 am

I also feel compelled to remind everyone attempting to educate Steve that they are dealing with someone who is ignorant of the most basic principles of sexual reproduction and genetic inheritance. Until he is able to grasp those concepts, covering more advanced topics in evolutionary biology will likely be no more productive than discussing Chaucer with someone who is not yet able to read a Dick and Jane primer.

You have been warned.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 54
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#157  Postby eddie.zdi » Jul 24, 2010 12:36 pm

Thank you Steve, but I hate to point out that you seem to accept that evolutionary biologists do attempt to disprove ToE, but they draw different conclusions this is in direct contradiction to what you said about no-one on this site attempt to disprove evolution. I gather that a few members do indeed engage in that type of work. I also hate to point out that if every other observer looks at something and draws one conclusion and you draw another there is a strong possibility that rather than a conspiracy, it's much more likely that you are wrong. Now seeing as the overwhelming of the educated, and non-indoctinated (i.e. those not being bullied into a worldview by fear of terrifying overlord) majority disagree with you, you have to entertain the possibilty that you are wrong. I also hold the view that I might be wrong and if some if the entire scientific community said that I was I would have to agree... hence the reason I stopped work on The Doomsday Device.
"Science is the lawman of ignorance" - Me 1984 - ????
User avatar
eddie.zdi
 
Name: Daniel Edwards
Posts: 178

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#158  Postby Vosje » Jul 24, 2010 1:09 pm

stevebee92653 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:Meanwhile, addressing this all-caps diatribe:

SO LET'S START AT THE BEGINNING. HOW WERE TEETH ORIGIATED (INVENTED), DESIGNED, AND ASSEMBLED? GEE, NONE OF YOUR PAPERS HAS ANY NOTION. ISN'T THAT IMPORTANT? I'M SURE NOT TO YOU. YOU CAN JUST IGNORE THAT TINY POINT. JUST LIKE HOW WAS VISION INVENTED OR HEARTS OR LUNGS OR CONSCIOUSNESS OR INTELLIGENCE. INVENTED. GOT IT? FROM ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. THROWING PAPERS OUT THAT SAY MAMMALS HAVE SIMILAR TEETH TO OTHER MAMMALS ANSWERS EVERYTHING FOR YOU. NOTHING FOR ME. SORYY. I AM THE SKEPTIC, YOU THE BELIEVER.


Oh, so you're going to ignore once more the paper I presented back at RDF, in which scientists empirically generated teeth in chickens, and demonstrated that those teeth, arising from normally silenced genes extant in bird lineages, were reptilian in structure?

I can reprise that material if need be, I even remembered without looking it up that the mutation in question was the talpid2 mutation. Which means that searching for the relevant paper in my extensive collection will be a breeze.

Cali, you need to figure out the question you are answering before you attempt an answer. Your papers on the evolution of teeth had embryology, genetics, anatomy, physiohlgy, but not a lick of evolution. I color coded them for you on my blog if you care to look. The writers had no notion of how teeth originated, were designed and assembled in such astounding fashion. And I brought to you the fact that the maxillary and mandibular teeth have different genetic pathways. I asked how one genetic code "knew" what the other was forming. That had to be the case, which you ignored. The grooves, cusps, and fossas of the maxillary teeth fit perfectly with the corresponding grooves, cusps, and fossas of the mandibular if the teeth are properly aligned, or in hand. Does evolution have an explanation for this amazing fact? Did they somehow match mutations? I will help you. They they didn't and don't. I checked the major research papers, and all were puzzled as much as I am and you should be. And with good reason. Your chicken teeth are comedic. If a science had to use chicken teeth for evidence, I would certainly wonder about that sceince. I challenge evolution of dentition, you answrer with gentics, which doesn't explain the original formation of teeth. I ask A, you answer B. Then you make a lot of noise to cover the failure of your answers. You will never answer A. There isn't an answer.


Would it not occur to you that matching teeth allow for easier feeding. Those born with teeth that do not match would find it harder to get their food processed and would therefore have slimmer chance of passing on their genes than those with matching teeth. They would not get the nutrition the normal ones do, unless of course they could tap into a new source of food for which those teeth are better suited.

We are animals, which means, among other things, that we cannot generate our own nutrients. We need to take nutrients from other live forms, killing the live forms and digesting them to extract those nutrients. Teeth are just one way, a modified part of the mouth, which even at the early stage gave our ancestors the means to kill and process prey. It's just one of many ways it could be done. Insects have a different approach for instance, while starfish have yet another. We are omnivorous which is how we got the teeth we have, herbivores have others, some don't even have upper front teeth, and snakes have yet another set which better suits their strategy of hunting. But in each case the same principle is maintained: catch, kill and process the prey (which in case of a herbivore is a plant) by means of a modified and hardened part of the mouth.
I can say whatever I want. No one listens to me anyway!

The greatness of man lies not in his ability to control everything he sets his sight on, but in his ability to show kindness to all, including those that are not human.
User avatar
Vosje
 
Posts: 207
Age: 37
Male

European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#159  Postby Blitzkrebs » Jul 24, 2010 2:14 pm

This is the most pathetic discussion I've ever seen. Ever.
ikster7579 wrote:Being rational is just an excuse for not wanting to have faith.
User avatar
Blitzkrebs
 
Name: Roy
Posts: 392
Age: 30
Male

Country: Amerika
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#160  Postby Calilasseia » Jul 24, 2010 2:46 pm

stevebee92653 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:Meanwhile, addressing this all-caps diatribe:

SO LET'S START AT THE BEGINNING. HOW WERE TEETH ORIGIATED (INVENTED), DESIGNED, AND ASSEMBLED? GEE, NONE OF YOUR PAPERS HAS ANY NOTION. ISN'T THAT IMPORTANT? I'M SURE NOT TO YOU. YOU CAN JUST IGNORE THAT TINY POINT. JUST LIKE HOW WAS VISION INVENTED OR HEARTS OR LUNGS OR CONSCIOUSNESS OR INTELLIGENCE. INVENTED. GOT IT? FROM ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. THROWING PAPERS OUT THAT SAY MAMMALS HAVE SIMILAR TEETH TO OTHER MAMMALS ANSWERS EVERYTHING FOR YOU. NOTHING FOR ME. SORYY. I AM THE SKEPTIC, YOU THE BELIEVER.


Oh, so you're going to ignore once more the paper I presented back at RDF, in which scientists empirically generated teeth in chickens, and demonstrated that those teeth, arising from normally silenced genes extant in bird lineages, were reptilian in structure?

I can reprise that material if need be, I even remembered without looking it up that the mutation in question was the talpid2 mutation. Which means that searching for the relevant paper in my extensive collection will be a breeze.


Cali, you need to figure out the question you are answering before you attempt an answer.


It's really funny seeing you try to posture as being in a position to lecture me on this, when you were unaware of major research in your own purported field.

stevebee92653 wrote:Your papers on the evolution of teeth had embryology, genetics, anatomy, physiohlgy [sic], but not a lick of evolution.


Oh right, pointing out, for example, that birds contain genes inherited from reptilian ancestors and demonstrating that those genes, when expressed, produce the very reptilian teeth that would have been found in those reptilian ancestors, has nothing to do with evolution. :lol:

stevebee92653 wrote:I color coded them for you on my blog if you care to look.


What, argument by highlighter? This gets even better.

Do I have to resurrect those papers and bitchslap you with them a second time, so that everyone here can see you're talking out of a passage more usually associated with a more solid form of waste?

stevebee92653 wrote:The writers had no notion of how teeth originated


Oh for crying out loud, just the abstract of one of those papers makes explicit statements about this. Namely this paper:

A Curriculum Vitae Of Teeth: Evolution, Generation, Regeneration by Despina S. Koussoulakou, Lukas H. Margaritis and Stauros L. Koussoulakos, International Journal of Biological Sciences, 5(3): 226-243 (24th February 2009)

Koussoulakou et al, 2009 wrote:Abstract

The ancestor of recent vertebrate teeth was a tooth-like structure on the outer body surface of jawless fishes. Over the course of 500,000,000 years of evolution, many of those structures migrated into the mouth cavity. In addition, the total number of teeth per dentition generally decreased and teeth morphological complexity increased. Teeth form mainly on the jaws within the mouth cavity through mutual, delicate interactions between dental epithelium and oral ectomesenchyme. These interactions involve spatially restricted expression of several, teeth-related genes and the secretion of various transcription and signaling factors. Congenital disturbances in tooth formation, acquired dental diseases and odontogenic tumors affect millions of people and rank human oral pathology as the second most frequent clinical problem. On the basis of substantial experimental evidence and advances in bioengineering, many scientists strongly believe that a deep knowledge of the evolutionary relationships and the cellular and molecular mechanisms regulating the morphogenesis of a given tooth in its natural position, in vivo, will be useful in the near future to prevent and treat teeth pathologies and malformations and for in vitro and in vivo teeth tissue regeneration.


Let's look at that paper in detail, shall we? I'll highlight relevant parts that flush your assorted assertions down the toilet.

Koussoulakou et al, 2009 wrote:2. Origin and Evolution of Teeth

2.1 The ancestors of teeth were dermal appendages


In a few organisms there is substantial evidence to suggest that teeth may have derived from both ectoderm and endoderm [20, 21]. In most cases, teeth evolved from scale-like epidermal structures, the odontodes, which “migrated” into the mouth after enough mutations. This process is visible in modern sharks, which have placoid scales on the skin that grade into the teeth on the jaws. In certain cases, however, dermal denticles did not transform into teeth and underwent independent evolution [22]. Natural selection has favored toothed organisms, which have a major advantage in their ability to capture and process food. Teeth can be classified into three types, based on where they are formed: jaw, mouth and pharyngeal. The close relationship between past and present teeth can be demonstrated by a phylogenetic analysis. Using this type of analysis, amelogenin appears to have been duplicated from SPARC (SPARC, secreted protein, acidic, rich in cysteine), 630,000,000 years ago, i.e., long before the Cambrian explosion [23, 24].

2.2. During evolution the number of teeth per dentition decreased

Variations in tooth number may represent an important factor for mammalian diversification. The evolutionary pathway from fish to reptiles to mammals is characterized by a reduction in the number of teeth (from polyodonty to oligodonty) and of their generations (from polyphyodonty to di- and/or monophyodonty) as well as an increase in morphological complexity of the teeth (from homodonty to heterodonty) [7, 25]. Some organisms (e.g., killer whales, rats, elephants) develop their dentition only once in their life; others (e.g., turtles, birds, toothless whales, anteaters) have lost their dentition and are characterized by adontia. Adontia in many organisms is considered to be secondary, since the embryo possesses tooth germs that undergo apoptosis before birth [26, 27]. Region-specific tooth loss has been a common trend in vertebrate evolution. Some organisms retained a high number of teeth, however: Opossum (50 teeth), sirenoids (possess 44 molars) and some dolphins (bearing more than 200 relatively similar teeth, having thus lost heterodonty and returned to homodonty). Interestingly, some teeth that were lost during evolution reappeared in an atavistic sense [28], thus violating the “law” of irreversibility in evolution. If we could understand the mechanism of spontaneous re-acquisition of lost properties, we might be able to apply this knowledge to the clinical, biological restoration of lost teeth. Along those lines, understanding the rules of polyphyodonty will surely support tooth regenerative efforts. How and why evolutionary tooth loss occurs is not known, but several interesting hypotheses have been proposed. For example, there could be a loss of a tooth-type-specific initiation message, attenuation of the inductive and/or inhibitory signal or a reduction in the concentration of required proteins. In support of this last idea, the lack of canines and premolars in the mouse upper diastema has been attributed to the weak expression of the PAX9 gene [29, 30].

Changes in the number and morphology of teeth may reflect a significant factor in the generation of new species in mammals. The most common feature is the loss of various teeth, perhaps as a result of a mutation in tooth-related genes. For example, rodents lack lateral incisors, canines and premolars. Sheep have lost their upper incisors and the canines. An analysis of mutant mice phenotypes has clearly indicated that specific mutations (e.g., GLI2-/-,GLΙ3+/-) cause phenotypes that resemble several ungulates that lack all upper incisors [3, 29]. It is worth noting that in placental mammals teeth tend to disappear over the course of evolution in an order that is opposite the order of their appearance during eruption [7, 9]. A reaction/diffusion model of morphogenesis has been used to explain this phenomenon. According to this model, repeated structures (e.g., vertebrae, phalanges, feathers, color patterns, teeth) arise as a result of the coordination of two molecules, an activator and an inhibitor. Two well known examples of such interacting molecules are FGF8/BMP4 [31] and ectodin/BMP4 [32]. Teeth located at a distance from the center of the morphogenetic field tend to disappear due to field attenuation [33].

2.3. Evolution favored an increase in teeth complexity

Diet and mastication are regarded as central factors in teeth evolution. There is a strong correlation between teeth form (e.g., cardiform, villiform, incisor, canine, molariform) and feeding habits. During evolution, mammals, which originated from reptile-like ancestors, (Diapsida), developed in each side of their skull two openings (temporal fenestrae) behind the orbit that are still present in a modified form in modern mammals. This opening has been used as a rigid place for the attachment of powerful masticatory muscles. This evolutionary event allowed a much more efficient exploitation of the food caloric energy needed to support high levels of activity. Cynodonts (more advanced, mammal-like reptiles) changed their dentition from one designed for catching and holding prey before swallowing it whole to one designed for better mastication of food, with specialized, molar-like teeth endowed with randomly placed enameloid pustules [34]. The most important anatomic and functional feature of the masticatory surface of an erupted tooth is the cusps [35]. Cusp number, morphology, topology and orientation are species-specific; these features also differ between teeth of the same mammal. Those disparities are due to differential, spatiotemporal cell multiplication and programmed cell death of the inner enamel epithelium cells during embryonic and post-embryonic development [11].

The evolution of the mammalian jaw and teeth created occlusal surfaces that are adequate for a great variety of foods. For example, Triconodont organisms were endowed with teeth bearing three major cusps in a (more or less) straight line (Fig. 2) and other smaller cusps on an external, rounded cingulum. This arrangement increases the ability of the teeth to crush and grind food, thus giving rise to mastication. In Symmetrodont organisms (extinct mammals), the central cusp was separated from the other two outer cusps so that a triangle was formed on the occlusal surface of the upper molars; later, comparable, geometrically complementary structures were formed on the occlusal surface of the lower molars too, resulting in a dramatic increase in the masticatory efficiency of the molars [34, 35].

2.4. Hypothetical models seek to unravel the evolution of the dentitions[/b]

Evolutionary biology has not yet provided an explanation of the evolution of teeth and cusps. Two controversial hypothetical models, the field model [36] and the clone model [37], have been proposed. The field model postulates that heterodonty is due to graded values of hypothetical morphogens [36, 38]. In this model, each dental quadrant is divided into three subfields: incisors (key tooth, 1st, mesial incisor), canines, and molariforms (key tooth, 1st, mesial molar). Each tooth develops according to its position in the field. Teeth belonging to the same field have graded similarities according to the distance from the field origin: the third human molars, which generally develop later but disappear earlier than the other molars, are the most variable since they are at a position in which the morphogenetic field is weak. This model further suggests that multicuspid teeth of mammals derive their evolutionary origin from the union of many single reptilian tooth germs [39]. It is speculated that the signals that were used in our ancestors to develop each tooth separately were combined in modern species to create a single tooth with a more complicated morphology. Each tooth cusp evolved independently under specific genetic control, and the same sets of genes function for all cusps; thus, a reaction-diffusion mechanism may underlie the activation of genes at specific locations and times to create the crown patterns [5, 39].

The clone model states that each tooth is derived from specific ectomesenchymal cells that are instructed to form a tooth of a given shape [37]. The clone model argues that even the most complicated mammalian molars arise from the differentiation of only one tooth blastema of one conical reptilian tooth and that each cusp was formed from a clone of a cnc cell, perhaps from a single committed cell [40]. After producing a “stem precursor,” the clone grows forward or backward, gradually losing its shape potential. Indeed, the patterns of mouse molars are simplified from first to third molar. The linear arrangement of teeth at the jaw margins may result from the narrowness of the tooth-forming area. One hypothesis states that the widespread periodicity in the pattern results from each tooth blastema acting either as a source of an inhibitor that diffuses and inhibits the development of adjacent teeth or as a sink that consumes all available substances in the vicinity [1, 5]. It is thought that the inhibitory fields are short-lived where teeth develop in close proximity or even unite [22].

In support of the aforementioned two models, the initiation of each different tooth class (e.g., incisors, molars) in different parts of the oral cavity (distal, proximal) has been attributed to local cells responding to specific groups of homeobox genes [41]. Specifically, the proximal dental epithelium secretes FGF8, which induces the expression of the PAX9, BARX1, DLX1 and DLX2 homeobox genes in the proximal mesenchyme; these genes direct the formation of molariform teeth. BMP4 is secreted by the distal epithelium and induces in the distal mesenchyme the expression of genes (MSX1, MSX2 and ALX4) that direct incisor formation. The orderly expression and combination of these gene products direct the extent and the location of the various morphogenetic fields within the developing dentition and thus the tooth type. The size of the field is influenced by the expression of a signaling molecule, ectodysplasin (encoded by EDA, a member of the tumor necrosis factor –TNF family of ligands), and/or its receptors. High EDA activity means supernumerary teeth, surprisingly only premolar-like, appearing distal to the first molar; low EDA activity leads to missing molars, as presented by the Tabby and Downless mouse phenotypes [42]. Those three models (field, clone, homeobox code) have been elegantly unified into a single model to explain dental patterning [43]; this model encompasses the clones of the migrating cnc cells, the homeobox genes of the mesenchymal cells and the signaling molecules secreted by the dental epithelium. These models are based on strong theoretical and clinical data [44] and have been recently analyzed and supported, indicating that clearly there is a multifactorial etiology in the development of the dentition [2, 45].


Looks like once again, you're the one who doesn't know what he's talking about.

So, to sum up, we have:

[1] Teeth originated from dermal odontodes in agnathans (jawless fishes) back in the early Cambrian;

[2] Amelogenin is coded for by a gene with deep and ancient homologies to the SPARC gene;

[3] Later vertebrates lacking teeth have lost them secondarily, and experimental re-expression of the genes in those lineages informs us about the ancestors of those lineages (as the paper on the talpid2 mutants I presented to you at RDF establishes for birds);

[4] Some lineages have regained teeth after losing them in the past;

[5] Understanding the evolutionary pathways leading to tooth loss and reacquisition is likely to be of considerably utility value with respect to human dentistry, including the development of new methods of re-developing teeth [i]in vivo
(as I said earlier, the relevant genetic pathways are being manipulated experimentally in order to learn how they work, and how to use this information in a clinical setting);

[6] Increased tooth complexity was favoured by evolution, because it facilitated greater niche mobility and trophic migration;

[7] Two models for tooth origination and evolution were originally proposed, both involving modification of signal transduction mechanisms and reaction-diffusion kinetics (oh look, another application for Alan Turing's paper!);

[8] These two models were then integrated with a third model, involving homeobox gene control, into a unified model that is now being subject to empirical verification and refinement.

Indeed, later in the paper, the authors write the following:

Koussoulakou et al, 2009 wrote:4. Is Human Teeth Regeneration a Prospective Clinical Reality or a Fantasy?

4.1 Physiological repair is a widespread property of many tissues and organs


The most common teeth pathologies involve lesions on the crown that are caused by caries and/or injuries, pulp inflammation, diseases of the periodontium and teeth loss. Dental surgeons clinically treat these pathologies by substituting the lost physiological tissue/organ with a nonbiological, artificial material. Although usually the outcome is fairly good, pathological repeats are common [85, 86]. Therefore, an ambitious dream of numerous dentists is to be able to substitute the artificial material with a biological, cell-based one that is able to form a genuine replica of the damaged tooth part or the entire lost tooth. Tissue and organ regeneration has become an extensive, multidisciplinary research field with clear purposes and hopeful clinical prospects for a pleiad of human tissues and organs, such as bones, muscles, liver, heart and kidney, among others [87, 88, 89]. There are hopeful clinical prospects because representatives from all animal phyla are endowed with considerable, although varying, regenerative capabilities [90]. The enormous regenerative differences that are observed, even between closely related species, could be due to an inability to secondarily express some components, for reasons that are not yet clearly understood. Nearly every organ harbors in particular niches specific cells that are known today as somatic (or adult) stem cells [13, 17, 19, 89, 91]. The term “stem cells” includes pluripotent cells that have an unlimited capacity to divide and are specifically adapted for permanent survival. A pluripotent cell is endowed with the capacity to differentiate into cells of all three germ layers (ecto-, endo- and mesoderm). Stem cells are usually classified into two major categories: embryonic cells, which are of blastocyst inner cell mass origin and are pluripotent and adult cells, which are located in various tissues and are usually multipotent (meaning that they can give rise only to cells from two germ layers). An adult stem cell may divide into two daughter cells; one of them remains in situ as an adult stem cell; the other differentiates to compensate for cell loss if needed for homeostatic purposes. Physiologically, an adult stem cell becomes aware of the loss of its normal neighbors, multiplies and produces daughter cells, some of which differentiate so as to replace the lost ones.

Many scientists believe that in the near future, scientists will be able to reproduce ex vivo and in vitro the in vivo development of a genuine replica of an organ. There have been various experimental results reported that indicate that the regeneration of various complicated organs, such as the eye [92] and teeth [93], is quite feasible. For example, there is a plethora of tissue-specific stem cell types that can be manipulated in the lab to induce tissue-specific differentiation [13, 17, 19, 87, 89, 91]. Appropriate culture methods are available as well as biocompatible, biodegradable, three-dimensional support materials [94]. The induction signals are also fairly well known. What is not known yet is how to obtain an easily accessible source of human somatic stem cells, what are the quantities of cells and growth factors to be combined, what should their spatial arrangement be and how is the teeth size, shape and purposeful development controlled [17, 19, 94].

4.2. Biological tooth repair and regeneration

Considering the aforementioned challenges and gaps in knowledge, it is reasonable to ask whether the scientific evidence for the capacity for teeth regeneration is actually substantial and reliable or whether the whole idea is unrealistic and fed by unjustified enthusiasm. According to many experts, guarded optimism might be justified, since teeth tissue restoration/regeneration occurs naturally and can be reproduced in vitro [13, 15, 17, 19, 83, 84, 94, 95]. Various animal species (e.g., mice, voles) can replace physically worn teeth parts of varying teeth types (mouse incisors, vole molars) with stem cells [17, 19]. In addition, numerous animals (most nonmammalian species) are endowed with the ability to continually replace lost teeth throughout life via de novo formation of tooth germs (polyphyodonty) [96]. Normally, humans do not have such abilities; however, it is possible that the regenerative potential in humans is underestimated and that some of components might be able to be reactivated under certain circumstances [97, 98]. For example, stem cells have been isolated from mesodermal human dental tissues, such as the periodontal ligament [99], dental follicle [100], dental pulp [101] and bone marrow [102, 103]. When cultivated under appropriate conditions, they may be able to differentiate into tooth-related cells that can produce cementum, periodontal ligament, alveolar bone and dentine. The search for a source of epithelial, tooth-related stem cells, i.e., able to express enamel proteins, is still underway [104]; at present the only human source is the tooth germ of young children. Recent advances in our knowledge and technology have allowed us to harbor great expectations of the possibility of reviving latent, intrinsic biological powers to totally or partially restore and repair tooth erosions [83, 84, 101, 102]. Such advances include studies of the biological regeneration of tooth tissues in vivo and the generation of complete teeth in vitro [105, 106].


Indeed, reference [106] above is this paper:

Growing Bioengineered Teeth From Single Cells: Potential For Dental Regenerative Medicine by Etsuko Ikeda and Takashi Tsuji, Expert Opinion in Biological Theory, 8(6): 735-744 (2008) [Full paper downloadable from here]

Ikeda and Tsuji, 2008 wrote:Background : The ultimate goal of regenerative therapy is to develop fully functioning bioengineered organs that can replace organs lost or damaged due to disease, injury or aging. Dental regenerative medicine has made the most progress and is the most useful model for the consideration of strategies in future organ replacement therapies.

Objective : This review describes strategies that have been pursued to date and experiments
currently being conducted to bioengineer teeth in anticipation of the production of fully functional organs.

Methods : To realize the practical application of ‘bioengineered tooth’ transplantation therapy, four major hurdles must be overcome. The present status of the hurdles to this therapy are described and discussed in this review.

Results/conclusion : The bioengineering techniques developed for tooth regeneration will in the future make substantial contributions to the ability to grow primordial organs in vitro and also to grow fully functioning organs, such as the liver, kidney and heart.


Another relevant paper can be found here.

Looks like there's some more papers you're unaware of.

So, I think we can call this "Game Over".

Moving on ...

stevebee92653 wrote:were designed and assembled in such astounding fashion.


See those papers above? No magic needed, and no fucking magic man.

stevebee92653 wrote:And I brought to you the fact that the maxillary and mandibular teeth have different genetic pathways.


Actually, you did no such thing. I learned that from the Koussoulakou paper above. There's a nice little chart on page 235 summarising the various gene interactions involved in tooth development, and on page 230 the paper explicitly states that the proximal dental epithelium secretes Fgf8, which in turn induces the expression of Pax9, Barx1, Dlx1 and Dlx2 (all of which are homeobox genes), and these direct the development of molariform teeth. Meanwhile, the distal epithelium secretes Bmp4, which in turn induces the expression of Msx1, Msx2 and Alx4, which direct the formation of incisiform teeth. You never once mentioned any of this. You've never mentioned a single defined gene in any of your posts, either here or at RDF.

stevebee92653 wrote:I asked how one genetic code "knew" what the other was forming.


Try "reaction diffusion mechannism". They don't need to "know" anything, but then molecules aren't conscious. All they need to do is move through the medium in accordance with the relevant physical laws, which Turing first postulated in 1952. Indeed, his ideas, and the partial differential equations underpinning them, have not only been verified experimentally in a number of organismal models since 1952, but the governing equations have been used to predict the outcome of various developmental manipulations, such as those in the wings of Papilio dardanus butterflies. All that was needed was for the relevant signalling molecules to trigger the relevant cascade of diffusing morphogens in an ordered sequence, and the relevant developmental processes followed therefrom. And since it's all down to genes, there's no problem for evolution here, as evolution works by controlling which genes make it into future generations and which don't. Genes that work are disseminated, genes that don't aren't.

stevebee92653 wrote:That had to be the case, which you ignored.


I ignored nothing, Indeed, I presented the Koussoulakou paper in detail over at RDF, and I've only reprised it here in order to shine the spotlight on your ignorance.

stevebee92653 wrote:The grooves, cusps, and fossas of the maxillary teeth fit perfectly with the corresponding grooves, cusps, and fossas of the mandibular if the teeth are properly aligned, or in hand. Does evolution have an explanation for this amazing fact?


Yes. The relevant mutations in the developmental pathways resulted in more complex teeth over successive generations, and those successively more complex modifications over time were more successful than their simpler antecedents with respect to the function of processing food, therefore those organisms inheriting those mutations prospered.

Look, if scientists are using evolutionary algorithms in the laboratory to "design" spacecraft antennae (and yes, I have the paper in my collection, and I can bitchslap you with it with ease if need be), and other scientists are using in vitro evolution to produce useful biotechnology products (again, I have relevant papers to bitchslap you with if need be), then why do we need an invisible magic man to produce any observed feature in the biosphere? The simple fact is, evolution works, and scientists are now learning to harness it in the laboratory for their own tasks. Pharmaceutical companies in particular are paying serious R&D money on in vitro evolutionary methods to turn out new drugs. The fact that they're financing this, because they think it'll keep them ahead of the competition, and are NOT paying any creationists to come along and pray over their Petri dishes, should be telling you something important here.

stevebee92653 wrote:Did they somehow match mutations? I will help you. They they didn't and don't. I checked the major research papers, and all were puzzled as much as I am and you should be.


The authors of the Koussoulakou et al paper above don't seem puzzled about this. They admit that there are areas needing further research, but instead of throwing up their hands in the air and saying "it's too hard, therefore Magic Man did it", they're rolling up their sleeves and doing the research. Something creationists never do. But then, creationism consists of "Magic Man did it, don't bother asking questions, don't bother learning anything substantive about reality".

stevebee92653 wrote:And with good reason. Your chicken teeth are comedic.


The only reason those who paid attention in science classes are laughing here, is because those teeth demonstrate that you're talking out of your rectal passage. Why would your magic man leave dead genes for teeth in birds if they were never going to need them? Either your magic man is an incompetent dickhead, or he's a fucking liar, spreading around the biosphere masses of genes and gene families that scream "evolution" to anyone who looks at them without the ideological blinkers of mythology blinding them.

stevebee92653 wrote:If a science had to use chicken teeth for evidence, I would certainly wonder about that sceince.


Oh, you don't think it in the slightest bit odd that birds have silenced genes for teeth? Because if you're a creationist, you should do. Because your mythology explicitly asserts that birds were purportedly "separate creations", as was everything else in the biosphere. The fact that they not only have genes for teeth, but genes for reptilian teeth, which provides yet more evidence that birds had reptilian ancestors in the past (as if Archaeopteryx and friends wasn't enough), sticks the middle finger to creationist blind assertions on a large scale, and you're only engaging in juvenile dismissal of the evidence because somewhere in the back of your brain, a little voice is telling you that this is fatal to your beloved doctrine.

stevebee92653 wrote:I challenge evolution of dentition, you answrer [sic] with gentics [sic]


Oh, so the fact that the Koussoulakou paper above explicitly states the origin of teeth in the abstract alone, is another of those inconvenient facts from reality you're going to ignore, when those facts fail to genuflect before your presuppositions?

Oh, and what part of "evolution modifies genetics" do you not understand?

stevebee92653 wrote:which doesn't explain the original formation of teeth.


Go and re-read the Koussoulakou paper above. This time, do it slowly.

stevebee92653 wrote:I ask A, you answer B.


My reprising the Koussoulakou paper above refutes your above blind assertion.

stevebee92653 wrote:Then you make a lot of noise to cover the failure of your answers. You will never answer A. There isn't an answer.


:lol: :rofl: :dielaughing:

See that paper above? I just answered your question. You're just determined not to recognise this because of your ideological bias.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22011
Age: 57
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest