The elephant in the room.

All are welcome to this forum, which is for debating the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools. This forum can be boisterous, and you should not participate if easily offended.

Moderator: Moderators

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby Moon Fire » Mon Dec 26, 2011 10:29 pm

Luke Tyler wrote:Without wishing to sound annoying, this surely defeats the point of it being a vestigial organ?

Please bear in mind I'm not trying to argue for or against anything here.


Vestigal DOES NOT mean that it's useless!! Just that the organ no longer has the function it did in our ancesters. Our cocxycx (sp) is the vestigal remains of our tail bone, and sometimes (due to a genetic fluke) some kids are born with a short tail.

Luke Tyler wrote:
How about you READ up on things a little before posting? Whilst it's full of inherent weakness in the fact it's open to abuse by those that vandalise entries wikipedia is a useful starting tool.

I'm not entirely sure what I've done that's angered you?!


Ignorance, lack of research, acting like you know more than adults that have read up on the subject. Yes I know that you are 16, no I do not expect you to do any sort os subserviant actions around us, but I would expect someone that is engaging in this sort of discussion to get googling things.
Moon Fire
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 12:50 pm

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby Luke Tyler » Mon Dec 26, 2011 11:20 pm

Moon Fire wrote: Vestigal DOES NOT mean that it's useless!! Just that the organ no longer has the function it did in our ancesters. Our cocxycx (sp) is the vestigal remains of our tail bone, and sometimes (due to a genetic fluke) some kids are born with a short tail.

Interestingly enough, the coccyx is number four on this fascinating list: http://www.livescience.com/11317-top-10-useless-limbs-vestigial-organs.html
Dr. Jordan has given a helpful explanation for me on the previous page. I just didn't understand it properly, and he was happy to correct me.
Ignorance, lack of research, acting like you know more than adults that have read up on the subject. Yes I know that you are 16, no I do not expect you to do any sort os subserviant actions around us, but I would expect someone that is engaging in this sort of discussion to get googling things.

Intending nothing rude here, but I honestly didn't know much about vestigial organs. I've not met anyone else my age who knows about them either. I'm sorry if I'm ignorant over that issue, but I am doing 5 A-Levels which use up a lot of my time. Some things I just don't have enough time for. I do my best, but I'm hoping that people here can help me understand things if I've not encountered them, like Dr Jordan did on the last page.

I'm really not acting like I know more than you, I don't. If I'm getting something wrong, please correct me.
Luke Tyler
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:58 pm
Location: Cheshire, England

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby Roger Stanyard » Mon Dec 26, 2011 11:48 pm

Luke Tyler wrote:
Intending nothing rude here, but I honestly didn't know much about vestigial organs. I've not met anyone else my age who knows about them either. I'm sorry if I'm ignorant over that issue, but I am doing 5 A-Levels which use up a lot of my time. Some things I just don't have enough time for. I do my best, but I'm hoping that people here can help me understand things if I've not encountered them, like Dr Jordan did on the last page.

I'm really not acting like I know more than you, I don't. If I'm getting something wrong, please correct me.



I think you should feel free to ask anything you want -you'll probably find a lot of people here willing and happy to help. There's a huge range of skills and knowledge amongst members of this forum, often to the highest levels and at the cutting edge of science. Robert Byers apart, the people here are exceedingly bright (I've learned a huge amount from them) and the range of knowledge very varied - theology, education, geology, medicine, maths, engineering and economics to name a few in addition to the natural sciences.

It's always a good thing in life to surround one's self with bright people. The dividends are immense.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby Luke Tyler » Mon Dec 26, 2011 11:53 pm

Roger Stanyard wrote: I think you should feel free to ask anything you want -you'll probably find a lot of people here willing and happy to help. There's a huge range of skills and knowledge amongst members of this forum, often to the highest levels and at the cutting edge of science. Robert Byers apart...
I had a good chuckle there!
the people here are exceedingly bright (I've learned a huge amount from them) and the range of knowledge very varied - theology, education, geology, medicine, maths, engineering and economics to name a few in addition to the natural sciences.

It's always a good thing in life to surround one's self with bright people. The dividends are immense.


Definitely. It was one of the reasons I came here in the first place. A lot of the people here really know their stuff. Dr Jordan has been very helpful, Dr Hurd is a very useful for geology and you yourself have said some very helpful things.
Luke Tyler
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:58 pm
Location: Cheshire, England

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby Dr_GS_Hurd » Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:57 am

I'll need to be careful now....

I once had a medical student who believed anything I said. That is not a good idea generally. It is fine to be somewhat trusting, and better to be selective, but nobody ever knows everything. There is nobody that does not make mistakes. So, what I did was to start bull shitting to this poor student. I would make up the most outrageous stories that she finally started to question my "authority." I doubt she ever realized why I was doing this- the one time she asked, I just made up another story. It did mean that she only learned one thing from me in 5 years, which was to double check your sources.
User avatar
Dr_GS_Hurd
 
Posts: 242
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 9:45 pm
Location: Dana Point, California

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby cathy » Tue Dec 27, 2011 10:24 am

Intending nothing rude here, but I honestly didn't know much about vestigial organs. I've not met anyone else my age who knows about them either.
No reason why you should, and you do have the added disadvantage that you will have had lifelong access to the creationist versions of everything. They are all desperate attempts to discredit the idea by finding functions for vestigial organs, but that relies on distorting (lying about) the real definition which is actually things that no longer perform their original function. But the creationist definition is incorrect, like just about every other creationist definition. It's always worth asking whether what you've heard is correct-but assuming it isn't is always a fairly safe bet as well I'm afraid. Whenever creationists are talking about science you can be 99% certain it will be lacking in some fact or other.

The thing about vestigial organs is not whether they do anything now but the fact that most really can only be explained by evolution. Why give whales hind limbs to assist with reproduction? What sort of half baked designer would do that when there are far more effecient options? Evolution works with what is there, efficient designers can start from scratch and do a really good job. Why bother with the hind limb option, or the appendix that can randomly kill if you don't have to?

Look a bit more deeply into a lot of the creationist arguments, like the coccyx being somehow useful, and you'll find the coccyx has its own set off muscles attached which appear to only have one function-to wag a non existent tail. In the embyro the coccyx is actually formed as part of a tail but the extra vertabrae are then reabsorbed (which doesn't always happen hence some children are born with a tail). What sort of designer would design such a useless procedure. And do you rely on goosebumps to keep you warm anymore (actually you probably do ooop North-where the manly eschew coats and cardies-us softies further South have long since bowed to fact winters are cold and developed uses for wool :lol: and I know I'll get stick for that from the many northerners heres :cry: )?.

roger wrote: There's a huge range of skills and knowledge amongst members of this forum, often to the highest levels and at the cutting edge of science. Robert Byers apart...

I'm sorry Roger but I don't like exclusion! You've forgotten Marc Surtees. That should have read Robert Byers and Marc apart should it not :wink: :lol: ?
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby Roger Stanyard » Tue Dec 27, 2011 10:58 am

cathy wrote:I'm sorry Roger but I don't like exclusion! You've forgotten Marc Surtees. That should have read Robert Byers and Marc apart should it not :wink: :lol: ?


Yer, also forgot about ex-UKIP head and YECer Tony Bennet who was in this forum a few years back. Mad as they come and a paranoid conspiracy theorist. Got done by the rozers for destroying road signs in Kent. Apparently he'd got it into his head that the traditional English road sign had been replaced as a result of dictats from EU bureaucrats. It's a complete myth, btw.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby cathy » Tue Dec 27, 2011 12:06 pm

I've not met anyone else my age who knows about them either. I'm sorry if I'm ignorant over that issue,
Oh and Luke thanks, that is exactly the reason the BCSE exists and the creationists are so keen to get into state schools!!! No schoolchild could conceivably be expected to know everything, understand all the issues, understand the deceits or understand fully the workings of science. As it stands they learn those in school and come out with the rudiments so that even if they don't go further they won't fall prey too easily to creationist nonsense. You are confused because of what you've heard via your dads friends. Nobody has the right to deliberately confuse others to indoctrinate them-people should choose what to believe based on honesty not creationist lies. They certainly should never have the right to do that in state schools. The whole of our science dept would walk if Marc and co ever got their way-cos they would not feel happy lying. Creationists are free to present their arguments to scientists with the requisite skills not kids who haven't

Apparently he'd got it into his head that the traditional English road sign had been replaced as a result of dictats from EU bureaucrats. It's a complete myth, btw.
What like from 12 furlong farthings to ye olde village of Birmingham pop 24.8 plus twelve sheep? In Ireland they had an EU grant for 50% of cost of changing road signs to km. So they did 50% of road signs randomly. V confusing!
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby Roger Stanyard » Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:11 pm

cathy wrote:
In Ireland they had an EU grant for 50% of cost of changing road signs to km. So they did 50% of road signs randomly. V confusing!


Irish road signs have always been legendary! Always the subject of much mirth amongst English people who had been there.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby Moon Fire » Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:23 pm

Luke Tyler wrote:Definitely. It was one of the reasons I came here in the first place. A lot of the people here really know their stuff. Dr Jordan has been very helpful, Dr Hurd is a very useful for geology and you yourself have said some very helpful things.


I can also handle questions on Geology, and whilst i might lambast you other things (i have a very blunt style for dealing with things when debunking) if you are ever asking a question you'll see my fluffier side ;)
Moon Fire
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 12:50 pm

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby marcsurtees » Fri Dec 30, 2011 11:53 am

Moon Fire wrote:Vestigal DOES NOT mean that it's useless!! Just that the organ no longer has the function it did in our ancesters. Our cocxycx (sp) is the vestigal remains of our tail bone, and sometimes (due to a genetic fluke) some kids are born with a short tail.


It seems that the word vestigial is a rather slippery word and has changed its meaning.
Darwin talked about organs that had become useless and later others referred to organs that persist as mere vestiges. Plenty of scope for confusion here.

And you should be careful about the what you say about kids born with short tails. This is not correct, you are referring to reports of pseudotails. These are rare case of a tail-like protruberance which contain no bone, cartilage, notochord, and spinal cord elements. The bones of the coccyx are in the right place although sometimes deformed. To refer to these things as tails is misleading. And how do you know it is due to a genetic fluke?
(Or is that how whales got their tails :P)
Marc
_______________________________________________________
"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing
— they believe in anything." (commonly attributed to) G.K. Chesterton
marcsurtees
 
Posts: 1180
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:05 pm
Location: Edinburgh

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby Brian Jordan » Fri Dec 30, 2011 12:11 pm

marcsurtees wrote:And you should be careful about the what you say about kids born with short tails. This is not correct, you are referring to reports of pseudotails.
Oh dear, we had all this out in the Summer. Anyway, if said appendages are unrelated to tails, why don't they appear at other places on the body?
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby cathy » Fri Dec 30, 2011 1:28 pm

And you should be careful about the what you say about kids born with short tails. This is not correct, you are referring to reports of pseudotails. These are rare case of a tail-like protruberance which contain no bone, cartilage, notochord, and spinal cord elements. The bones of the coccyx are in the right place although sometimes deformed. To refer to these things as tails is misleading. And how do you know it is due to a genetic fluke?
Tails were done to death last summer Marc where you failed to explain the embryonic development and subsequent reabsorbtion of bones beyond the coccyx and cartilage and notochord in creationist terms. Failed to explain the extensor coccyxgis muscle (tho made a valient attemtp by describing a completely different muscle) and lied about humans born with tails which you claim are bones of the coccyx. I recall I found a picture on our works intranet of a child with an obvious tail but was unable, for reasons of needing to remain employed, to link to.

Have you anything new to add?
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby marcsurtees » Fri Dec 30, 2011 3:03 pm

cathy wrote:
And you should be careful about the what you say about kids born with short tails. This is not correct, you are referring to reports of pseudotails. These are rare case of a tail-like protruberance which contain no bone, cartilage, notochord, and spinal cord elements. The bones of the coccyx are in the right place although sometimes deformed. To refer to these things as tails is misleading. And how do you know it is due to a genetic fluke?
Tails were done to death last summer Marc where you failed to explain the embryonic development and subsequent reabsorbtion of bones beyond the coccyx and cartilage and notochord in creationist terms. Failed to explain the extensor coccyxgis muscle (tho made a valient attemtp by describing a completely different muscle) and lied about humans born with tails which you claim are bones of the coccyx. I recall I found a picture on our works intranet of a child with an obvious tail but was unable, for reasons of needing to remain employed, to link to.

Have you anything new to add?


I stand by what I wrote.
By any reasonable standard these things are not tails.
Marc
_______________________________________________________
"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing
— they believe in anything." (commonly attributed to) G.K. Chesterton
marcsurtees
 
Posts: 1180
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:05 pm
Location: Edinburgh

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby cathy » Fri Dec 30, 2011 3:42 pm

By any sane and reasonable standard Marc they are. You and reasonable are not really well acquainted so I can understand you may struggle. And you have yet to explain the tail/reabsorbed tail/embyro issue and the extensor coccyxgis muscle (spelling). Add those to the equation they become more tail like.

The picture we use for gcse revision is unmistakably a tail on a small child. Location and length-can't be anything else.

On another thread it has been suggested that you are an atheist mole. Are you? Cos if so you're excellent. If not you're doing a grand job anyway.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

PreviousNext

Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests