A simple case for intelligent design

[BilliardsBall]

Wait, where did the additional 1000 come from again?

Are you now saying that modern primate hemostasis requires 1030 proteins?



Good question - I have no idea what you mean and I also think that you don't either, and are just adding extraneous criteria to avoid admitting that you earlier claim was nonsense.


Again, what does that mean?


There are NO other body systems that "recognize bleeding, enforce clotting, send white cells to the site, etc.", but I am getting a kick out of your crazy anthropmomorphizing and pretty obvious shallow understanding of how hemostasis works. See below.


No idea what you mean.


You can calculate the odds on anything, but like any calculation, if what you stick into the calculation is garbage, what you get out will also be garbage.

From your previous and this post, I can see that 1. you don't understand hemostasis, not to mention the fact that there is more than 1 way to stop blood loss, and 2. you seem to think that you can bolster your case by just throwing more and more variables into the mix, hoping that they will stick and/or make others 'back down' in awe at your amazing stats ability.



HEMOSTASIS

As a biologist, this question of yours:

"Can you name 10 other body systems to recognize bleeding, enforce clotting, send white cells to the site, etc.?"

told me a great deal about how much you actually know about this topic.

Hemostasis does NONE of those things.

General flow of events ending with clotting:

1. Trauma to tissue including blood vessel
2. Damaged blood vessel and tissues release various compounds due to damage (note that these compounds are similar, but not identical in all vertebrates)
3. Damage to vessel endothelium creates 'rough' surface; blood components now exposed to collagen and other extravascular proteins ('foreign' materials, in effect); larger blood vessels experience muscular spasm
4. Platelets bind to 'rough' damaged endothelium, release clotting factors
5. Clotting factors (not the same in all vertebrates) initiate cascade of reactions that results in cleavage of fibrinogen, which then reforms as a fibrin network, 'catching' RBCs
6. clotting factors, material released from damaged tissues, and some clotting cascade intermediates act as chemo-attractants for some WBCs

There is not 'recognition' of bleeding; no 'enforcement' of clotting; no act of sending white cells, etc. It is all in effect a series of simple stimulus-response cycles governed by chemical interactions.

I get your line of reasoning, it is pretty common - you are looking at a current extant complex system, rejecting/ignoring/not understanding its lengthy 'history' to get where it is today, and 'wondering' how it all could have come together by 'random change' (and toss in any additional creationist tropes as needed).

As a crude analogy, it would be like someone visiting NYC, being amazed at how many systems have to be operating to keep so large and vibrant a city going - sewage disposal and treatment, water supply, electrical grid, communications lines, safety systems, mass transit, etc., and declaring that since all of these systems have to be in place and up and running for the city to function, that they must have been implemented all at once at the same time, thus only aliens could have built NYC - all the while ignoring/forgetting that NYC has several hundred years of history during which it grew and those complex systems were implemented as technology allowed and constantly upgraded or replaced as needed to get to where NYC is today.




For further info, I suggest you read up on hemostasis -

Evolution of Primary Hemostasis in Early Vertebrates


REVIEW ARTICLE
450 million years of hemostasis
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1046/j.1538-7836.2003.00334.x
"...Biochemical evidence, molecular cloning data and comparative sequence analysis support the existence of all components of this network in all jawed vertebrates, and strongly suggest that it evolved
before the divergence of teleosts over 430 million years ago.
Phylogenetic analysis of the amino acid sequences of the Gla–EGF1–EGF2–SP domain serine proteases (FVII, FIX, FX, PC) and the A domain-containing cofactors (FV and FVIII) strongly supports the evolution of the blood coagulation network through
two rounds of gene duplication, and supports the hypothesis that vertebrate evolution benefited from two global genome duplications. The jawless vertebrates (hagfish and lamprey) that diverged over 450 million years ago have a blood coagulation
network involving TF, PT and fibrinogen..."

And to revisit this claim:



I note that you did not, in fact, do any odds calculating, even with your apparently fabricated new numbers.

Kindly read my posts carefully before replying.

When challenged re: 30 proteins being less than unique, I suggested as a conservative allowance (to make the odds INCREASE for evolution) that 1,000 hypothetical proteins, any 30 of which will work. The odds are still quite high, even though I've gone ahead via natural selection and etc. to increase them by billions.

The odds are also astronomical of simultaneity regarding the evolution of the six factors you cited (note my remarks added to the below):

1. Trauma to tissue including blood vessel (to some of a population)
2. Damaged blood vessel and tissues release various compounds due to damage (note that these compounds are similar, but not identical in all vertebrates) (compound release factors evolve)
3. Damage to vessel endothelium creates 'rough' surface; blood components now exposed to collagen and other extravascular proteins ('foreign' materials, in effect); larger blood vessels experience muscular spasm (spasm response evolves or has already evolved)
4. Platelets bind to 'rough' damaged endothelium, release clotting factors (platelets "release clotting factors" evolve)
5. Clotting factors (not the same in all vertebrates) initiate cascade of reactions that results in cleavage of fibrinogen, which then reforms as a fibrin network, 'catching' RBCs (fibrinogen in organic life evolves)
6. clotting factors, material released from damaged tissues, and some clotting cascade intermediates act as chemo-attractants for some WBCs (WBCs naturally selected to bind, cascade intermediates evolve)

The just-so story is vastly, exponentially enlarging, given the fact that the mutations in DNA needed to build a complicated new part (or up to 6 parts in the above, not including cellular motor parts to drive them except platelets as you wrote) quietly accumulate in duplicate genes, because by themselves each of the necessary mutations is neutral, neither beneficial nor harmful. Then, thousands to millions of years later, all are in place, while the species that needed clotting survives when it bleeds from natural causes or prey attack.

The new part starts working, (clotting) natural selection chooses it, and the improved creature is off to the races.

Since this is a religiousforum, I feel it's okay to mention, respectfully, you have a spiritual block in place that makes you believe evolution is magic, all-powerful.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Amazing stuff - I was unaware that bacteria are now considered fluids and that their movements require neurological and multiple systems also moving/catalyzing - even at a level devoid of life! Amazing insights!

But I note that did not explain why none of the papers (at least one of them from which you must have gleaned your appendix information) even contained the word "enzyme" even as they described the function of the appendix.

I would also like to learn more about this movement and catalysis - what is moving and what needs to be catalyzed for fluid bacteria to re-colonize the gut after a bout of diarrhea. I am especially intrigued about this prior-to-life level that you speak of - is that the spirit realm? Can't wait to see the evidence!


Having taught college genetics for about 6 years, yes, yes I am. Not sure what that has to do with enzymes or bacteria being fluid or the Spirit realm.

The prior to life referent are the proposed probionts. It's unfair of me to assault abiogenesis without recognizing modern theorizing the in a RNA-world or otherwise, prebiotic precursors to life were formed first, via mechanistic processes.

You believe in seafloor vents creating hypothetical probionts suspended in lipids for endless years, recombining against the 2nd law of thermodynamics and vulcanism and tide action and seawater to "make life". The probionts and bacteria of abiogenesis were IN a fluid system called an ocean.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You know what else should be at the fore and is vital to understanding things like biology and phylogeny? BIOLOGY and PHYLOGENY.

You could be the greatest statistician alive, but if you think that all observable genome sequences were the result of 'random change, all at once' forces (as many creationists do), then who cares that you can run an equation?


Interesting cut off of 10^50. Did you get that from Dembski?



Can YOU?

It seems not.

GARBAGE IN:


Why do creationists do this? WHY 'no harmful mutations'?

Is it your learned and open-minded position that the existence of a harmful mutation anywhere in the gene(s) associated with the appendix nullify the beneficial mutations?

If so, please explain - with references - how this was determined.

Also let us know how many beneficial mutations (with, of course, no bad ones) were required to get a bit of cecum to expand into an appendix, and how this was determined.

After all, if you cannot provide your numbers and JUSTIFY them, why take you seriously?


Please explain the anatomy of the appendix and the cecum, and explain what structures must have also been altered to get the appendix.

Is it your understanding that, say, the cecum also has to be mutated in order to allow the appendix to be present?

Please establish that there must be a 'system' to "release" bacteria from the appendix - which you have indicated are now a liquid.


GARBAGE OUT:


And there we have, a great example of GIGO.



Multiple independent appearances of the cecal appendix in mammalian evolution and an investigation of related ecological and anatomical factors

"No correlation was found between appearance of an appendix and evolutionary changes in diet, fermentation strategy, coprophagia, social group size, activity pattern, cecal shape, or colonic separation mechanism."
"Keith's ideas were supported by numerous others in the following decades (Barker et al., 1988, Boroda, 1961, Bremner, 1964, Burkitt, 1969, Burkitt, 1971, Gelfand, 1956, Janssens and de Muynck, 1966, Scott, 1980, Trowell, 1960, Walker et al., 1973), culminating with the identification of the vermiform appendix as a “safe-house” for beneficial bacteria with the capacity to re-inoculate the gut following depletion of the normal flora after diarrheal illness (Bollinger et al., 2007, Laurin et al., 2011)."

I checked several of this paper's cites, and none indicated what you are implying ('system' to "release" bacteria from the appendix).


Again, I see no actual math, just a series of largely bogus assertions, culminating in a reiteration of your initial assertions.

You clearly did not read my post. It's unfair to take random odds only, therefore I reduced an initial figure of 10^32 by saying natural selection et al reduced the figure by 10^16! (Making natural selection far less odds than even 1:1.

It was reasonable to set a semi-random occurrence driven by selection, mutation, biological necessity (cecal appendix first forms) at 1:10. Since evolutionists claim this occurred 32 times, I set the odds at a reasonable 10^32, then reduced all the way down to 10,000,000. In my post, which you didn't read, being dismissive, rude and saying GIGO--I reduced my odds of a cecal appendix being formed 32 times from 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 10,000,000.

Be reasonable. Think!

 

[BilliardsBall]

I don't hate teaching, I do it professionally. What I DO hate is when people that claim to want to learn demonstrate that they do not at all want to learn, and in fact, actually want to try to score rhetorical points for their faith.

And if we removed faith from your post, we'd see why it's hard to talk to you. Of course, you haven't claimed you want to learn anything, and instead of reading my post you labeled in GIGO.

I cited the ability of the magic known as natural selection et al to INCREASE the odds of beneficial mutation by not less than -1^16!

I am going overseas for two weeks, I hope you will calm down enough to read my posts before replying, when I return. If not, tell me where you teach, and I'll see if I can afford the expenses to debate you at a forum at your institution.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

My prior statement, "Natural selection should avoid parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work. Thus 100% of the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen simultaneously," also applies to the cup, the lens, the other parts you are just-so theorizing, regardless of the lack of forensic evidence for your just-so claims.

No, it doesn't, because these mutations are merely slight variations on existing organs, cells or abilities. Nothing had to happen "simultaneously".

 

[BilliardsBall]

FYI, this is why no one takes you seriously. The fact remains, you challenged us to provide an example of a "proto-wing". One was provided. But since then, you've done everything but directly address that and instead are dancing all around.

This is also why creationists always lose in court and science. You can get away with this sort of evasive behavior in internet forums, but not in courts or in science. Dodging around like you are here carries serious consequences in those arenas.

Crucify me, for I used the wrong term? A protowing is a fully formed appendage, it speaks only to the just-so story of how saying the mutations in DNA needed to build a complicated new part quietly accumulate in duplicate genes, because by themselves each of the necessary mutations is neutral, neither beneficial nor harmful. Then, millions of years later, all are in place. The new part starts working, natural selection chooses it, and the improved creature is off to the races... but, the responses here continued to be rude to my inquiry, and apparently, only I wrestle with the magic powers that determine in evolution what is a protowing, what is vestigial, ancillary, etc. -- wait I forgot, you simply swap around the phylogenic trees more.

Erm... do you want to ask me any questions about my beliefs and notions or simply bash me as an ignoramus. Are all creationists idiots, do you think?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yay! I'm impressed!



No, I do not see your point.

I do see that once again you are trying to create an analogy. Like your other analogies, it is terribly flawed. Why do you think anything happened ONCE? Nothing in nature happened ONCE! If I roll a single di the correct answer will statistically come up once in every six tries. If I throw the di 1,000 times, 5 will statistically come up 166 times.


I see you've given up trying to convince anyone that monkeys could type Shakespeare. I hope you understand that nature doesn't work that way.

The dice point is this, given large populations and millions of years plus helpful impetus for evolution, millions of species have made substantial leaps forward. The odds are there for you, if you think about them--however, evolutionists tend to talk in this vein: "the odds of this are probably one out of 12, but everyone time nature threw the dice, she rolled 7," if you follow me.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Crucify me, for I used the wrong term? A protowing is a fully formed appendage, it speaks only to the just-so story of how saying the mutations in DNA needed to build a complicated new part quietly accumulate in duplicate genes, because by themselves each of the necessary mutations is neutral, neither beneficial nor harmful. Then, millions of years later, all are in place. The new part starts working, natural selection chooses it, and the improved creature is off to the races... but, the responses here continued to be rude to my inquiry, and apparently, only I wrestle with the magic powers that determine in evolution what is a protowing, what is vestigial, ancillary, etc. -- wait I forgot, you simply swap around the phylogenic trees more.

This is all just garbled nonsense. We've already explained to you that every appendage at every evolutionary stage is a "fully-formed" appendage. There's no such thing as a "half arm". Evolution doesn't start with an idea of an end goal and painstakingly move towards that goal over millions of years, with many steps along the way being of little or no benefit. Evolution improves gradually on existing formations that are already there and refines them. This is basic biology.

Erm... do you want to ask me any questions about my beliefs and notions or simply bash me as an ignoramus. Are all creationists idiots, do you think?

Not all of them. Some of them are just outright dishonest.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The dice point is this, given large populations and millions of years plus helpful impetus for evolution, millions of species have made substantial leaps forward. The odds are there for you, if you think about them--however, evolutionists tend to talk in this vein: "the odds of this are probably one out of 12, but everyone time nature threw the dice, she rolled 7," if you follow me.

Talking about a biological process in terms of numerical possibilities in meaningless because the variables are far too many to be able to account for, and the forces working on these variables influence the outcomes in significant ways. I suggest you look into statistical thermodynamics to understand why attempting to assign probability to biological formations is a completely fruitless and meaningless exercise.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I was using eternity as a time frame because many Christians say God has existed for Eternity. So now it seems you are saying God has only exist since just before our universe. OK. If we use the age of our universe, in 5 trillion days He spent 6 making our universe and A&E and animals...and, some angels and some other universes (maybe). Not very productive. Especially when you consider that one of those angels became His worst enemy (Satan) and A&E really messed up (as He programmed them to).





Not at all. I'm just bringing up things you probably want to ignore.

I'm not sure I follow your train of thought, but I can try...

Eternity means backwards in infinite time. My understanding of time, which is hard to think around, same as you, is based on all time being dependent on light, from lightspeed to the day/night cycle and etc. in science, and in practicality.

The BB singularity brings light to a dark place, and the Bible agrees insofar as even before the Sun and Moon, light (and linear time!) entered the universe (Genesis 1).

I don't know if I'll grasp eternity well in Heaven, but I can report to you that while having some past memories, I live in the present time. I think I'll always enjoy living in the present in eternity, joy which is the goal of most people.

You are having trouble reconciling God existing for a long time, but there was no linear time before light here, and an eternal and omniscient being (who has complete recall of past memory and total "recall" of future events) must experience time much differently:

* I don't think God was lonely in eternity, since He is triune in fellowship
* I don't think God was alone in eternity, since the angels were witnesses of this creation and our creation, with God
* I try not to accuse God of doing nothing for eternity, since it is a baseless accusation, and unwarranted, just like I never would accuse older parents, giving birth in their 40s, of NOT loving children--they had children but their timing was their timing

Does that help? I'm going overseas for two weeks and hope we can catch up then.

But you wrote, "...things you wish to ignore..." and I'm not!

 

[BilliardsBall]

I find that people that post statements that they intentionally end with a question mark that is not actually a question are being dishonest. Do you find that to be true as well?

Do you believe I am dishonest?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I thought you were a skeptic thinker:

* Beauty
* Diversity
* Thermoregulation
* Mating calls
* 18 other reasons thinkers can conjecture, especially just-so-story evolutionists!

Oh okay, so made up reasons. Thanks.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Kindly read my posts carefully before replying.

When challenged re: 30 proteins being less than unique, I suggested as a conservative allowance (to make the odds INCREASE for evolution) that 1,000 hypothetical proteins, any 30 of which will work. The odds are still quite high, even though I've gone ahead via natural selection and etc. to increase them by billions.

The odds are also astronomical of simultaneity regarding the evolution of the six factors you cited (note my remarks added to the below):

1. Trauma to tissue including blood vessel (to some of a population)
2. Damaged blood vessel and tissues release various compounds due to damage (note that these compounds are similar, but not identical in all vertebrates) (compound release factors evolve)
3. Damage to vessel endothelium creates 'rough' surface; blood components now exposed to collagen and other extravascular proteins ('foreign' materials, in effect); larger blood vessels experience muscular spasm (spasm response evolves or has already evolved)
4. Platelets bind to 'rough' damaged endothelium, release clotting factors (platelets "release clotting factors" evolve)
5. Clotting factors (not the same in all vertebrates) initiate cascade of reactions that results in cleavage of fibrinogen, which then reforms as a fibrin network, 'catching' RBCs (fibrinogen in organic life evolves)
6. clotting factors, material released from damaged tissues, and some clotting cascade intermediates act as chemo-attractants for some WBCs (WBCs naturally selected to bind, cascade intermediates evolve)

The just-so story is vastly, exponentially enlarging, given the fact that the mutations in DNA needed to build a complicated new part (or up to 6 parts in the above, not including cellular motor parts to drive them except platelets as you wrote) quietly accumulate in duplicate genes, because by themselves each of the necessary mutations is neutral, neither beneficial nor harmful. Then, thousands to millions of years later, all are in place, while the species that needed clotting survives when it bleeds from natural causes or prey attack.

The new part starts working, (clotting) natural selection chooses it, and the improved creature is off to the races.

Since this is a religiousforum, I feel it's okay to mention, respectfully, you have a spiritual block in place that makes you believe evolution is magic, all-powerful.

I"m curious as to how you would calculate the probability that the specific God you believe in exists.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Crucify me, for I used the wrong term? A protowing is a fully formed appendage, it speaks only to the just-so story of how saying the mutations in DNA needed to build a complicated new part quietly accumulate in duplicate genes, because by themselves each of the necessary mutations is neutral, neither beneficial nor harmful. Then, millions of years later, all are in place. The new part starts working, natural selection chooses it, and the improved creature is off to the races... but, the responses here continued to be rude to my inquiry, and apparently, only I wrestle with the magic powers that determine in evolution what is a protowing, what is vestigial, ancillary, etc. -- wait I forgot, you simply swap around the phylogenic trees more.

Erm... do you want to ask me any questions about my beliefs and notions or simply bash me as an ignoramus. Are all creationists idiots, do you think?

You're being "crucified" for blatantly ignoring the very evidence you requested in the first place.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Smith, Heather F., William Parker, Sanet H. Kotze, Michel Laurin. 2013. Multiple independent appearances of the cecal appendix in mammalian evolution and an investigation of related ecological and anatomical factors. Comptes Rendus Palevol, 16 pages. DOI:10.1016/j.crpv.2012.12.001

No link? Try again. The odds are that your source was a creationist one and at best they got a valid source wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why do you ask a question, then make a generalization, then a rhetorical reply? This is absurd on its face and shows you've never read one page of any leading creation site, one white paper, one proposal:

"What should we observe in the fossil record if creationism is true and why? No creationist seems to be willing to answer this question."

I've seen numerous proposals explaining diverse speciation, abundant marine life, etc.

REally? I have never seen one example of such by creationists that was not immediately refuted. Once an idea is refuted it should no longer be used in an argument.

Please give me your best example.

And the point of my question was to see if you could spot the errors that you keep making.

 

[ecco]

...

The dice point is this, given large populations and millions of years plus helpful impetus for evolution, millions of species have made substantial leaps forward. The odds are there for you, if you think about them--however, evolutionists tend to talk in this vein: "the odds of this are probably one out of 12, but everyone time nature threw the dice, she rolled 7," if you follow me.

No. That is absolutely incorrect. There are two reasons why you would make such a false assertion.

1. You are completely ignorant of what evolutionists say.
2. You know what evolutionists say but intentionally lie.

I'll let you respond as to which is correct.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Now we get to the question. I can see you are using this to commit me to something you can turn back on me. I am pretty confident that your attempts will be about as good as they have been so far. You can calculate the odds for that if you want.

Modern birds, including species with vestigial wings, should impact our understanding of evolution in general.

We have evidence for wing evolution, so we do not have to speculate on what we should expect to see.

I am confident in the reports I have read that demonstrate the evolution of wings leading up to and through the evolution of birds.

Do you know what you are asking here? I do not. Classification changes based on evidence.

Of course. Here is the case cracker. Phylogeneticists are in disagreement of something, that means evolution did not happen. We can all go home.

You like to ask silly questions that do not have an impact on the discussion. I applaud you on injecting humor into this.

Inserting technical terms without valid context or appropriate use does not make you look like you know what you are talking about. Very much the opposite. If you are going to do that, then at least write them in proper sentences.

I think that my answer to abiogenesis was very clear for some time. We do not know.

Do you really expect an answer here. Like a lot of questions you post, all they do is tell me that you really do not know as much about science, or discussion for that matter, as you claim you do. It is interesting that you name scientists that would not say the phrases you mention, side by side with the phrases you mention. I was almost feeling bad that I had labelled you dishonest, now I am feeling pretty good for having caught you when I did.

Consider this example, if you would. I feel (honestly) like I'm interested in the underlying statistics

I agree that you believe it. I still continue to feel very confident that you do not.

This just looks like a back-handed attempt to claim I am not a "true" Christian, because a "true" Christian would deify the Bible and believe anything another claiming to be Christian says, even if it defies reason and is against the evidence.

How do you know who is a Christian and who is not? I bet you believe you know how. Again, I remain extremely confident that you do not know.

I think the Bible is inspiring, but I know it is not without error. I know a lot of people try to rationalize those errors out of existence from fear and ignorance.

How one side of this discussion was framed was certainly a witness statement for me. I hope that in time, you will find the means to overcome your bias and give a serious review to the science and perhaps gain some real understanding that is not tainted by an all consuming desire that your religious views be infallible.

The reason that several people, including those that have indicated they are educated and practiced in science, is that:
1. you make claims without support of logic, theory or evidence;
2. you ignore the information they provide you;
3. you use hyperbole and speculation as if they were validated facts;
4. you show a propensity for not understanding what you claim you understand.

You may be well meaning and think you are doing everything right, but the holes in your arguments make Swiss cheese envious.

I hope that you do move forward and make a serious effort to learn from valid sources. I hope you can find the patience that will require, because it is going to take time. Like living things and systems in living things. Understanding does not spring fully formed into existence.

You identified as a Christian, that's how I know you are a Christian. We are both called to honest rapport and to love one another.

I believe I have over-complicated the issues, and feeling your time eroding, you have moved to quick hits on my messages. I made a concerted effort to detail a statistical inference, but I will attempt to redact and reduce it below:

It seems unlikely (to my limited understanding) that rather than from one common line of descent, a cecal appendix evolved 32 separate times in the animal kingdom. Naturally, if we see new phylogenic descent lines soon and etc. this would change the assumption, but it still seems unlikely, to me.

Your previous responses had to do with trivializing the source I quoted and saying "evolution finds a way". Do you want to restate your position? Perhaps I could get from you what no other person at RF is now offering me, factual responses, in terms of I'm quite weary of the usual "no one can possibly calculate the odds" and "you don't understand how marvelously evolution is proven to work". That's rhetoric to me.

I'm rather going by what I assume are your concepts:

1) Evolution wouldn't have made an appendix 32 separate times unless it was a good organ for animals--so perhaps we can consider the odds of having no such organ, then moving to have one
2) Science is in the business of observing natural law (things that tend to always occur) including evolution, rapid speciation, etc.
3) Scientists are curious--why did the appendix evolve 32 separate times?

What is the difference between me saying goddidit and you saying, "Shut up, BB, evolutiondidit"? (Rhetorical, none.)

I'm asking you, as a fellow Christian, to re-read this or other recent posts to me, and ask of yourself, "Is my behavior Christian here? Is BB's?"

 

[tas8831]

Multiple independent appearances of the cecal appendix in mammalian evolution and an investigation of related ecological and anatomical factors

"No correlation was found between appearance of an appendix and evolutionary changes in diet, fermentation strategy, coprophagia, social group size, activity pattern, cecal shape, or colonic separation mechanism."
"Keith's ideas were supported by numerous others in the following decades (Barker et al., 1988, Boroda, 1961, Bremner, 1964, Burkitt, 1969, Burkitt, 1971, Gelfand, 1956, Janssens and de Muynck, 1966, Scott, 1980, Trowell, 1960, Walker et al., 1973), culminating with the identification of the vermiform appendix as a “safe-house” for beneficial bacteria with the capacity to re-inoculate the gut following depletion of the normal flora after diarrheal illness (Bollinger et al., 2007, Laurin et al., 2011)."

I checked several of this paper's cites, and none indicated what you are implying ('system' to "release" bacteria from the appendix).


Again, I see no actual math, just a series of largely bogus assertions, culminating in a reiteration of your initial assertions.

i should also have noted that in that paper, there is a representation of the form the appendix takes in a sample of mammals - it is VERY diverse in form. I should also note that looking at their various phylogenetic trees, it looks more to me like an appendix did not 'evolve' 32 separate times, but that it is an ancestral trait that is 'revivied' - i.e., it looks like an atavism - somewhat haphazardly in 32 taxa, seeing as how they show no correlation to pretty much anything and the possession of an appendix. Interesting that they do not mention such a possibility in their paper. I have seen this kind of thing more than once - folks looking to make a name for themselves by claiming to have discovered something that shows 'Darwin was wrong'...

 

[BilliardsBall]

LOL!

Right -

It is an OSTRICH.

Somebody wrote "For example, I could look at a modern flightless bird, but assume it could fly, if I only saw its wings or a skeleton with wings."

Hmmm.... Who was that, I wonder...​

On another forum, a few years ago, there was this creationist computer tech guy who fancied himself the greatest expert on all science - yes, he was wrong about almost everything. And we enjoyed calling him out.
At one point, when he was leaving the forum, he tried to get 'the last laugh' - he declared that all those times we had proved him wrong, he wasn't actually wrong, he just wrote the wrong things on purpose so that we would correct him and that this somehow made US look bad. It didn't.

Food for thought.

Is it to your benefit to treat me with a fraction of the respect with which I treat you? It is not. You are blocking yourself from engaging, learning.

I'm not claiming to be a great science expert--indeed, I've said multiple times on this forum that I'm really strong in some areas (history, psychology, etc.), but not in STEM fields--rather, I'm seeking intelligent discourse with the other side. Can I get that from you or should I move on? Think about that, perhaps, while I travel this week.