|
|
|
Big Daddy Bob
Sockpuppet/BANNED
6 Posts |
 Posted - 10/23/2007 : 18:12:54 [Permalink]
|
I was wondering why private messages are not allowed between forum members?
I shall respond in public.
Coelacanth,
They are having a hard time with you. I have lurked this forum for some many months. The common modus operandi is to denigrate in chorus. They have had some lessons learned about civility recently and are unsure about how to approach you.
|
 |
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2007 : 19:26:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Big Daddy Bob
I was wondering why private messages are not allowed between forum members? |
They are, but private emails allowed or not by the individual. Have a look at your profile page:
There's also the SFN messenger/pager functionality, which is not connected to your own email, just your SFN account. Look under the SFN logo in the top left of your browser.
Originally posted by Big Daddy Bob
I shall respond in public.
Coelacanth,
They are having a hard time with you. I have lurked this forum for some many months. The common modus operandi is to denigrate in chorus. |
I've lurked and participated on this forum for months too. This may be the first time I've met a self-professed mind reader. Or maybe you get invited to the conspiracy meetings that I don't.
It's kind hard for 10's or 100's of people to discuss any topic without there being some convergence of opinions. If this bothers you, you'd probably be better off ona forum with 2 or 3 contributing members, that way you could all maintain truly unique opinions and avoid all that choral nonsense.
Originally posted by Big Daddy Bob
They have had some lessons learned about civility recently and are unsure about how to approach you. |
A perfect combination of civility and mind reading. Well done.
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
| Edited by - JohnOAS on 10/23/2007 19:27:48 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2007 : 19:36:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Big Daddy Bob
I was wondering why private messages are not allowed between forum members? |
They're only allowed to be sent from new members to staff to limit spamming by advertisers who create throw-away accounts here.I shall respond in public.
Coelacanth,
They are having a hard time with you. I have lurked this forum for some many months. The common modus operandi is to denigrate in chorus. They have had some lessons learned about civility recently and are unsure about how to approach you. |
And you are the fourth person using Jerome's computer to offer unsolicited lessons in manners (or maybe the third, since you sound just like Marty).
Your concern for this newbie here on the SFN would be touching, if it were actually concern for the newbie. Coelacanth, after all, is just fine taking care of her/himself, as has already been demonstrated, and your public "PM" only shows clear hatred for an anonymous "they." What you're really doing, of course, is nothing more than expressing your contempt for a vague "establishment" through transparent manipulative tactics which you obviously hoped to keep hidden.
And that's how your hypocrisy shines through. Your behaviour here is utterly rude, but you're okay with being rude to the regulars, even when they're engaged in civil discourse with the newbies. Your intent is obviously not to help fix any of the problems you see, but only to make those issues worse, to the point where no more new members sign up, effectively silencing us. Your actions, at their core, are divisive and serve no other purpose but to stifle discussion. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2007 : 21:43:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
And you are the fourth person using Jerome's computer to offer unsolicited lessons in manners (or maybe the third, since you sound just like Marty). |
Damn, in my previous message I was this close to adding "Have we spoken before?" but held back for fear of jumping to conclusions.
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2007 : 22:06:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JohnOAS
Damn, in my previous message I was this close to adding "Have we spoken before?" but held back for fear of jumping to conclusions. |
I figured it had to be Jerome as well. What other "recent lessons" could he be referring to?  But I figured Dave would look into it, and so he has.
Jerome, people with wildly varying opinions on a myriad of topics universally agreed that you were an annoying, laughably stupid ignoramus who managed to be wrong on just about everything you ever commented upon. You also had a dishonest streak a mile wide, and it got you banned in the end. I see nothing has changed and you still continue with the lies. Why carry on when you are incapable of ever, ever fooling anyone here? Just admit defeat and move on already.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/23/2007 22:07:34 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2007 : 01:56:55 [Permalink]
|
Coelacanth said:
No... science doesn't prove anything, but giving this thread. Evolution seems to be quite "proven" in the minds of some people. I was referring to it being proven to me and others. Not it actually being proven. If we don't talk about proof, we won't get anywhere. We can only speak of "proof" even if the theory is not "proven". Don't be silly now.
|
It should be noted that there are numerous connotations for the word "proof".
People need to be careful not to mix the concept of "proof" with simple recognition of facts.
If you stick your bare hand in a wood burning fire at sea level on planet earth, you will be burned. This is a recognition of a simple fact.
Likewise evolution. Species change over time. This is an observable fact. The "theory of evolution", as the scientific community uses it, does not convey (as so many would have us believe) that there is some doubt about the fact that species change over time.
The questions about evolution, in the scientific world, are only about "how" evolution happens. There are no "laws" in biology, as in math and physics, because we are dealing with extremely complex systems that are very difficult to study, and the specific mechanisms are still being worked out. None of which changes the fact of evolution, as it is an easily observable phenomenon. So easily observed at present that it is no more in question than the fact that you will be burned if you stick your hand in my fire, or that the daytime sky appears blue, or that the sun sets in the west.
In my experience there are a limited number of reasons why a person is willing to deny the obvious fact of evolution. They don't (or are unwilling to) understand the basic science, or they have some previously held notion that is contradicted by the science which they refuse to let go of, or some combination of the two. (yes, I'm sure there are other reasons, but those seem to be the most common, in my experience)
Seriously, doubting evolution is like doubting gravity.
(Kil, Dave_W, et al: FFS, when are you going to permanently ban jerome and his parade of sock puppets? You want to raise the bar here for civility, then you need to crack down on the trolls.)
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 10/24/2007 : 02:00:13 [Permalink]
|
| No... science doesn't prove anything, but giving this thread. Evolution seems to be quite "proven" in the minds of some people. I was referring to it being proven to me and others. Not it actually being proven. If we don't talk about proof, we won't get anywhere. We can only speak of "proof" even if the theory is not "proven". Don't be silly now. |
We speak of supportive evidence, which, in the case of the ToE is overwhelming. As I recall, you claim to have studied Talk Origins. I suggest that you look at it a little closer.
And as for your vestigial structures you posted, I can see you have either very little knowledge of these particular structures or perhaps you missed the point.
I don't have much time, but here's a few inconsitencies. |
Ok, let's look at them ol' 'inconsistencies' jus' a leetle:
| 1. Mole eyes (can't be sure of cave fish) are important to the creature. An experiment was carried out where they removed the eyes and it had some detrimental effects on the creature. Scientists have come to the conclusion that they are indeed functionable and capable of perceiving light, just not as well as ours. They don't really need it, they live underground mostly. These experiments were carried out on the supposed completely blind "Mole-Rat" |
Where might I find reference to these studies?
I am well aware that the naked mole rat can perceive light, however such animals as the golden mole, also of Africa, cannot.
Edit: The naked mole rat is not related to moles; rather it is a rodent and the only known mammal with a true hive society. They also regulate their body temperatures by going deeper or shallower in their hive burrows -- almost exothermic. They are fascinating animals and well worth researching just for the pleasure of knowing about them.
Here's something on blind cave fish:
The manner in which the evolution of flightless birds or eyeless, cave-dwelling animals might have come about was a problem that Charles Darwin considered; his answer was that disuse would lead to the progressive reduction, or degeneration, of organs over time. We do not believe this is correct anymore, but many share Darwin's confusion, even today. Stephen Jay Gould, in his 2002 magnum opus, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, listed the three things that his readers found most confusing, as measured by the correspondence he received:
"I can testify that three items top the list of puzzlement: (1) evolution seen as anagenesis rather than branching ('if humans evolved from apes, why are apes still around'); (2) panselectionism ('what is the adaptive significance of male nipples'); and (3) Lamarckism and the failure of natural selection ('doesn't the blindness of cavefishes imply a necessary space for Lamarckian evolution by disuse')."
While all three are interesting questions, let's consider just the third, which Darwin failed to answer. Why should animals living in total darkness lose their eyes? It's a question that highlights the importance of developmental biology in explaining some evolutionary phenomena...and it's also an excellent way to introduce this new column, in which I'll regularly be discussing the evo-devo way of thinking.
One possible answer is that it is an economical adaptation. This scenario allows that it requires energy and effort to build something as intricate and fragile as an eye, so shutting off that pathway would be a sensible strategy in the embryo. The energy that would be used in constructing and maintaining the eye could instead be diverted to other growing organs. For the cavefish, those embryos that did not bother to build an eye that would never be used acquired some slight advantage over their fellows that did bear the burden of an eye, and so gradually came to dominate the cave population.
In the case of the Mexican blind cavefish, though, there is a striking observation against this explanation: The embryos make eyes! They initially develop, they form an eye cup, they develop the beginnings of neural circuitry, neurons proliferate...and then they stop. The rest of the skull continues to grow, overwhelming the budding eye with new tissue. It's as if one paid to have a picture window built into a house and then, halfway through construction, had it ripped out and a wall put in. This would hardly be economical.
~~PZ Myers
| 2. The coccyx is very important too, it is the attachment for nine different muscles including the gluteous maximus (The buttocks), it also helps us greatly to be able to sit properly in it's supporting of the pelvis. |
These muscles would work quite well attached elsewhere and eliminate an area with the potential for a very painful and often debilitating injury.
The human coccyx
If a single bone is required, why does the coccyx start as separate ones that just happen to look like little vertebrae, which then fuse into a single lump? Why is there a muscle -- the extensor coccygis -- which would flex these bones, if only they weren't fused -- isn't that rather pointless? And why is the coccyx's development controlled by the same genes that make tails in other mammals?
When a coccyx is longer and its bones not fused, we call that sort of coccyx a 'tail'. Or conversely, a really shortened tail with the remaining bones fused would look different from a coccyx how?
~~Oolon Coluphid
Just because it has a use, of sorts, does not mean that it is other than vestigial.
| 3. The male nipple isn't vestigial at all. Vestigially is homologous structures that previously provided a function and do no longer provide that or do less. The male nipple has never provided a feature... One could say it was just a product of design or you could say it was what others have put forward in this thread. In no way are male nipples vestigial. |
As I said earlier: "Republican politician." I just tossed it in because it was available, cheap & easy. They may not be vestigial but they are still useless.
| Those are good examples how being uninformed can misguide you filthy, be careful what you claim. |
Right back at'cha! 
| I'm in a rush now, toodles... |
Who is Toodles?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 10/24/2007 02:59:59 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2007 : 03:07:50 [Permalink]
|
One point I'm been itching to make for a long time, and which seems to fit with Dude's, Filthy's and others' comments is this:
There is no capital-T Truth in science, as has been repeatedly pointed out. But the absolutely closest thing to total certainty in science is called a theory.
Once an hypothesis has been tested and accepted as a theory, it is working knowledge, and treated as a fact, even though it is still subject to potential refutation, modification, or improvement.
The Copernican Theory of the solar system is an accepted fact, backed by sound evidence provided generously by nature itself. So also are the Germ Theory of disease, and the Theory of Evolution. In science, "theory" simply has an almost opposite meaning from how the word is used to imply doubt in casual English. Being a theory means such an idea is devoid of all reasonable doubt.
Scientists don't "believe" in any theory in the sense of having "faith." (This despite the repeated slanders of fundamentalists who ironically can imagine of no greater insult than to compare science to religion.)
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2007 : 03:22:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
One point I'm been itching to make for a long time, and which seems to fit with Dude's, Filthy's and others' comments is this:
There is no capital-T Truth in science, as has been repeatedly pointed out. But the absolutely closest thing to total certainty in science is called a theory.
Once an hypothesis has been tested and accepted as a theory, it is working knowledge, and treated as a fact, even though it is still subject to potential refutation, modification, or improvement.
The Copernican Theory of the solar system is an accepted fact, backed by sound evidence provided generously by nature itself. So also are the Germ Theory of disease, and the Theory of Evolution. In science, "theory" simply has an almost opposite meaning from how the word is used to imply doubt in casual English. Being a theory means such an idea is devoid of all reasonable doubt.
Scientists don't "believe" in any theory in the sense of having "faith." (This despite the repeated slanders of fundamentalists who ironically can imagine of no greater insult than to compare science to religion.)
|
Well, it is an insult but t'other way 'round. Religion by definition is nothing like science in that it insists on the factuality of events for which there is no empirical evidence in existence. Turn a woman, Ann Coulter or Michell Malkin will do, into a pillar of salt and show me how it was managed, and I might start to rethink my position. But until this or the equivelent is done & established by repeat experiments & peer review, it is an insult to science to even make a comparison.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2007 : 03:39:20 [Permalink]
|
In a scientific sense a theory is a tool that has predictive value. It allows you to take fact A, fact B, fact C, and predict fact D before you observe it.
They are not called laws because they are much more broad in scope. For example, the theory of particle physics incorporates several laws. (things like conservation of mass/energy)
We call them theories because we recognize there is always more to learn. Even those things we call laws are subject to change in the face of new evidence.
The large majority of people who object to the ToE do so for religious reasons. They see it, rightly so, as directly contradicting their erroneous foundational belief system.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2007 : 06:16:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Big Daddy Bob
I was wondering why private messages are not allowed between forum members?
I shall respond in public.
Coelacanth,
They are having a hard time with you. I have lurked this forum for some many months. The common modus operandi is to denigrate in chorus. They have had some lessons learned about civility recently and are unsure about how to approach you.
|
I have not had a lesson in civility. I do not need one as I know when to get uncivil. 
Now then where and when exactly, am I, or anyone, having a hard time with friend Coelacanth? I find him refreshing; something of a change from some of the gibberers we get in here.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2007 : 08:33:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
I figured it had to be Jerome as well. |
It's important to note that I don't think it is Jerome. I don't think he's a good enough actor to maintain the obvious differences in grammar and spelling. I believe I was wrong about Marty being Jerome (but Marty sure did express the desire to no longer post here, anyway, as did boomer). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2007 : 08:56:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Likewise evolution. Species change over time. This is an observable fact. The "theory of evolution", as the scientific community uses it, does not convey (as so many would have us believe) that there is some doubt about the fact that species change over time.
The questions about evolution, in the scientific world, are only about "how" evolution happens. There are no "laws" in biology, as in math and physics, because we are dealing with extremely complex systems that are very difficult to study, and the specific mechanisms are still being worked out. None of which changes the fact of evolution, as it is an easily observable phenomenon. So easily observed at present that it is no more in question than the fact that you will be burned if you stick your hand in my fire, or that the daytime sky appears blue, or that the sun sets in the west. |
Dude, thank you for this excellent and succinct explanation of what evolution is and how we think about that and the theory of evolution. If more people understood-- indeed, recognized-- this distinction, that would limit some of the talking-in-circles that often seems to happen. |
|
|
|
Coelacanth
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
50 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2007 : 10:36:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
It should be noted that there are numerous connotations for the word "proof".
People need to be careful not to mix the concept of "proof" with simple recognition of facts. |
It should be noted that there are numerous connotations of much less every word with more that 3 letters. The aim of a debate is to be able to decipher the meaning of the oppnent and not assume the worst one.
If you stick your bare hand in a wood burning fire at sea level on planet earth, you will be burned. This is a recognition of a simple fact.
Likewise evolution. Species change over time. This is an observable fact. The "theory of evolution", as the scientific community uses it, does not convey (as so many would have us believe) that there is some doubt about the fact that species change over time.
The questions about evolution, in the scientific world, are only about "how" evolution happens. There are no "laws" in biology, as in math and physics, because we are dealing with extremely complex systems that are very difficult to study, and the specific mechanisms are still being worked out. None of which changes the fact of evolution, as it is an easily observable phenomenon. So easily observed at present that it is no more in question than the fact that you will be burned if you stick your hand in my fire, or that the daytime sky appears blue, or that the sun sets in the west.
In my experience there are a limited number of reasons why a person is willing to deny the obvious fact of evolution. They don't (or are unwilling to) understand the basic science, or they have some previously held notion that is contradicted by the science which they refuse to let go of, or some combination of the two. (yes, I'm sure there are other reasons, but those seem to be the most common, in my experience)
Seriously, doubting evolution is like doubting gravity. |
Oh no... don't get me wrong Evolution is doubtless. Creatures do evolve, but evolve doesn't necessarily mean "gets better" or "improves" the changes maybe relative to survival in it's environment, but not necessarilly improve the creature. I.e. the sickle cell virus is suppossed to be a mutation beneficial to people in malaria infected environments, yet sickle cell has many detrimental effects too.
I don't doubt the adaption of species, nor the diversification of species. Those are ideas that actually came about before Darwin, the only thing I do doubt is that species can diversify on such a level that over a 100 million years, fish can become men.
The reason why I doubt the theory is because I'm yet to find a single line of evidence for it that isn't entirely speculative. It may have happened, it may not, but I don't believe so, not until shown otherwise.
Originally posted by filthy
We speak of supportive evidence, which, in the case of the ToE is overwhelming. As I recall, you claim to have studied Talk Origins. I suggest that you look at it a little closer. |
I did, it doesn't really have anything to offer me. I find them to be a little too biased, not because of any personal benefit, but mainly due to frustration from creationist pressures. Especially stupid creationist pressures...
Originally posted by filthy
Where might I find reference to these studies? |
Sources sources... where's my sources?
Ah... here it is. http://www.iovs.org/cgi/reprint/31/7/1398.pdf
Originally posted by filthy
I am well aware that the naked mole rat can perceive light, however such animals as the golden mole, also of Africa, cannot.
Edit: The naked mole rat is not related to moles; rather it is a rodent and the only known mammal with a true hive society. They also regulate their body temperatures by going deeper or shallower in their hive burrows -- almost exothermic. They are fascinating animals and well worth researching just for the pleasure of knowing about them. |
I was talking about the "Blind Mole Rat" not the "Naked Mole Rat".
Actually Golden Moles (Afrosoricida), Marsurpial Moles (Notoryctemorphia), Mole Rats (Rodentia) and True Moles (Soricomorpha) are all completely separate groups of creatures, yet they resemble each other in morphology greatly especially for the case of the Golden Mole and the Marsurpial Mole, they were once considered related, but they unfortunately aren't.
I wasn't going to cover the uses of each one, I decided to get one of the worst ones, the Blind Mole Rat, which actually has a layer of skin covering it's eyes. Scientists done tests and found that although they deem it regressive, it does have it's functional importance aswell, which are beyond merely photoperiod perception.
Originally posted by filthy
Here's something on blind cave fish:
The manner in which the evolution of flightless birds or eyeless, cave-dwelling animals might have come about was a problem that Charles Darwin considered; his answer was that disuse would lead to the progressive reduction, or degeneration, of organs over time. We do not believe this is correct anymore, but many share Darwin's confusion, even today. Stephen Jay Gould, in his 2002 magnum opus, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, listed the three things that his readers found most confusing, as measured by the correspondence he received:
"I can testify that three items top the list of puzzlement: (1) evolution seen as anagenesis rather than branching ('if humans evolved from apes, why are apes still around'); (2) panselectionism ('what is the adaptive significance of male nipples'); and (3) Lamarckism and the failure of natural selection ('doesn't the blindness of cavefishes imply a necessary space for Lamarckian evolution by disuse')."
While all three are interesting questions, let's consider just the third, which Darwin failed to answer. Why should animals living in total darkness lose their eyes? It's a question that highlights the importance of developmental biology in explaining some evolutionary phenomena...and it's also an excellent way to introduce this new column, in which I'll regularly be discussing the evo-devo way of thinking.
One possible answer is that it is an economical adaptation. This scenario allows that it requires energy and effort to build something as intricate and fragile as an eye, so shutting off that pathway would be a sensible strategy in the embryo. The energy that would be used in constructing and maintaining the eye could instead be diverted to other growing organs. For the cavefish, those embryos that did not bother to build an eye that would never be used acquired some slight advantage over their fellows that did bear the burden of an eye, and so gradually came to dominate the cave population.
In the case of the Mexican blind cavefish, though, there is a striking observation against this explanation: The embryos make eyes! They initially develop, they form an eye cup, they develop the beginnings of neural circuitry, neurons proliferate...and then they stop. The rest of the skull continues to grow, overwhelming the budding eye with new tissue. It's as if one paid to have a picture window built into a house and then, halfway through construction, had it ripped out and a wall put in. This would hardly be economical.
~~PZ Myers |
And you see from the research on the Blind Mole Rats, that have the picture ripped out and a wall put over it, the space behind the wall still has it's functions oddly enough. As much as your seedsmagazine article finds it hard to believe, ripped out wall actually does have it's funtions. This shows us how silly it is to make analogies on things we don't truly understand or haven't researched. It seems that all creatures with vestigial structures, have those structures for their own individual and perhaps even unique reasons.
Originally posted by filthy
These muscles would work quite well attached elsewhere and eliminate an area with the potential for a very painful and often debilitating injury.
The human coccyx
If a single bone is required, why does the coccyx start as separate ones that just happen to look like little vertebrae, which then fuse into a single lump? Why is there a muscle -- the extensor coccygis -- which would flex these bones, if only they weren't fused -- isn't that rather pointless? And why is the coccyx's development controlled by the same genes that make tails in other mammals?
When a coccyx is longer and its bones not fused, we call that sort of coccyx a 'tail'. Or conversely, a really shortened tail with the remaining bones fused would look different from a coccyx how?
~~Oolon Coluphid
Just because it has a use, of sorts, does not mean that it is other than vestigial. |
I've heard these types of things before... People saying how the back bones and urine was poorly designed and how it should be better etc etc... well if you use it wrongly it's going to end up giving you problems I like to say. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the coccyx it's a perfectly functioning part of the body, reasons such as you think it would have been nice if it was somewhere else or that you don't like the lump at the bottom of it are entirely subjective and don't add anything to the debate really.
That's what happens when you get bias involved. If I quote this article on the Wikipedia, they don't seem to have the same problem your friend Oolon Coluphid had with it. It even alludes that Oolon may have been reading some questionable anatomy books, apparently the coccyx isn't fused at all according to the article.
It seems this is a good example as to how being uninformed can misguide Oolon, he should be careful what he claims too. It was a very subjective quote nevertheless. Biases never help...
Most anatomy books wrongly state that the coccyx is normally fused in adults. In fact it has been shown[3] [4] that the coccyx may consist of up to 5 separate bony segments
Originally posted by filthy
As I said earlier: "Republican politician." I just tossed it in because it was available, cheap & easy. They may not be vestigial but they are still useless. |
Well, lets try to avoid tossing things around and debate seriously then. If you say something is vestigial, I'm going to assume you mean vestigial, not something else you were thinking about.
As for the republican politician joke, I'm sorry, I didn't quite get the gist of that. I'm not American, nor do I live there. Hence the constrast in demeanor...
Originally posted by filthy
Right back at'cha! |
Actually, you were still a little misguided.
Originally posted by filthy
Who is Toodles? |
It just means goodbye...
Edited to correct an URL-tag (quote chars needed) //Dr. Mabuse |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 10/25/2007 07:39:35 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2007 : 11:14:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Coelacanth
Oh no... don't get me wrong Evolution is doubtless. Creatures do evolve, but evolve doesn't necessarily mean "gets better" or "improves" the changes maybe relative to survival in it's environment, but not necessarilly improve the creature. I.e. the sickle cell virus is suppossed to be a mutation beneficial to people in malaria infected environments, yet sickle cell has many detrimental effects too. |
The only people who claim that "evolve" means "gets better" are those who don't understand evolutionary theory, or those who - like creationists - are attempting to make a strawman out of the science in order to tear it down and then claim "victory."| ...the only thing I do doubt is that species can diversify on such a level that over a 100 million years, fish can become men. |
That took over 350 million years, actually.| The reason why I doubt the theory is because I'm yet to find a single line of evidence for it that isn't entirely speculative. |
Since when is evidence speculative? How could it be?| It may have happened, it may not, but I don't believe so, not until shown otherwise. |
Is there a non-speculative alternative? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Fish fin gene gave us the finger
Topic Locked
