"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

swiftblade

J C wrote: »

Like I have previously said, they're a common design feature that is largely turned off in Humans.:)

But if we are designed by a creator, why would he put small versions of them there? Why not just leave them off?

J C

swiftblade wrote: »

But if we are designed by a creator, why would he put small versions of them there? Why not just leave them off?

They have the important function of holding our ears firmly in place, by anchoring them.

swiftblade

J C wrote: »

They have the important function of holding our ears firmly in place, by anchoring them.

You win

J C

swiftblade wrote: »

You win

The truth always wins ... and will also set you free.:)

... so its 'game set and match' ... to Creation Science.:D

... love and logic to you all.

dlofnep

Why did God give the Kiwi useless wings?

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

Why did God give the Kiwi useless wings?

Probably because He thought that they looked better with wings.:D
The presence of flightless birds with wings argues for a designer, because such structures cannot be explained by natural selection for the simple reason that they confer no known survival advantage ... and should have been eliminated by NS.
Even in the plant world there are many examples of structures that cannot be explained by natural selection. Some flowering plants (such as dandelions) are self-pollinating and consequently have no need for flowers. NS should have ensured that these plants lost their bright yellow flowers millions of years ago ... but then they haven't been around for millions of years ... so perhaps that explains it.:)

Sonics2k

Why do men have nipples?

J C

Sonics2k wrote: »

Why do men have nipples?

Male mammals need the genetic CFSI to ensure female Mammals have mammary glands ... with which to produce milk to feed their young ... and that is also why men (and other male mammals) have hormonally controlled (non-functional) nipples !!!

swiftblade

This thread is pointless, though I assume we all know it at this point.
JC isn't going to ever accept any of our points. When you can out a point by saying, "because God thought it looked better" , you know you can't win.

I won't be posting on this thread anymore.

sephir0th

J C wrote: »

Probably because He thought that they looked better with wings.

Science and JC...

robindch

J C wrote: »

The presence of flightless birds with wings argues for a designer, because such structures cannot be explained by natural selection for the simple reason that they confer no known survival advantage ... and should have been eliminated by NS.

I can't think of a better piece of cretin science than that - jesus designed birds without wings coz birds with wings will survive coz they're the fittest and fittest things make baby jesus cry.

Nice!

Sarky

J C, why do you say such incredibly stupid things?

Also, why haven't you been able to supply that rigorous mathematical definition of cfsi? Could it be that you simply can't find one?

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Probably because He thought that they looked better with wings.
The presence of flightless birds with wings argues for a designer, because such structures cannot be explained by natural selection for the simple reason that they confer no known survival advantage ... and should have been eliminated by NS.
Even in the plant world there are many examples of structures that cannot be explained by natural selection. Some flowering plants (such as dandelions) are self-pollinating and consequently have no need for flowers. NS should have ensured that these plants lost their bright yellow flowers millions of years ago ... but then they haven't been around for millions of years ... so perhaps that explains it.:)

I think I'd look better with wings. Why didn't god give me any? What the hell did a kiwi do to deserve wings. Screw you god.
On a (slightly) more serious note, don't you think it's a bit strange that the only flightless animals with wings just happen to be similar in a lot of other ways to those which can fly? You know, it's almost like they might have had some kind of common ancestor. Crazy talk, I know. It's much more likely that God made the kiwi, thought 'hmmm that looks a bit like that flying thing I made, I think I'll give it the flying things to, but not let it use them. Just for the laugh.'
Seriously J C, things just aren't instantly eliminated by natural selection just because they don't have a use. Over the course of a few million years, it's possible that these flightless birds will lose their wings. Or maybe not. If they don't have a clear disadvantage either (which as far as I am aware, they don't) why would they be selected against?
Your entire last paragraph once again shows your limited understanding of natural selection. It's not a case of a feature just disappearing instantly the moment it becomes useless. That's just absurd.
I have no expectations of you actually addressing any of the points I just made, I'm sure you'll just come out with your usual waffle about me being sectarian or some nonsense like that.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Male mammals need the genetic CFSI to ensure female Mammals have mammary glands ... with which to produce milk to feed their young ... and that is also why men (and other male mammals) have hormonally controlled (non-functional) nipples !!!

What's CFSI?

J C, you're acting like a child who knows he's done something wrong but is too proud to admit it, so instead throws a tantrum in the hope that shouting NO as loudly as he can and insulting everyone will make everyone who disagress with him go away and stop being mean to him.

J C

swiftblade wrote: »

This thread is pointless, though I assume we all know it at this point.
JC isn't going to ever accept any of our points. When you can out a point by saying, "because God thought it looked better" , you know you can't win.

I won't be posting on this thread anymore.

Sour grapes ... and denial ... but there you go.

J C

sephir0th wrote: »

Science and JC...

When you don't have science on your side ... I suppose all you can do is descend to an ad hominem ... and a totally unfounded - and childish one, at that!!!!

J C

robindch wrote: »

I can't think of a better piece of cretin science than that - jesus designed birds without wings coz birds with wings will survive coz they're the fittest and fittest things make baby jesus cry.

Nice!

That wasn't what I said ... and I notice that you carefully avoided my point on both flightless birds ... Dandelions.

... once again an example of an evolutionist, on this thread, trying to make up for a lack of scientific support for his point of view, by making unfounded insults ... to both God and me.

Sarky

You know it's your own fault for posting rubbish. If you were ever able to back up a single claim, things might be different, but you never do.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

When you don't have science on your side ... I suppose all you can do is descend to an ad hominem ... and a totally unfounded - and childish one, at that!!!!

you're the one who doesn't have science on their side. You're arguing in favour of the bible creation parable as fact. That's not even close to being science.

You can't even provide a definition of CFSI.

Genghiz Cohen

Also haven't seen an actual ad-hominem in a while.

Love the anchoring ears comment, simply amazing.

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

Probably because He thought that they looked better with wings.

You've never seen a Kiwi, have you? Their wings are NOT visible. What an utterly absurd response. Admit it, your schtick is up.

J C wrote: »

The presence of flightless birds with wings argues for a designer, because such structures cannot be explained by natural selection for the simple reason that they confer no known survival advantage ... and should have been eliminated by NS.

Arguing from ignorance again I see? Only natural selection can explain flightless birds. Flightless birds like the Kiwi, have very little danger when foraging on the ground. Therefore, it is advantageous to be wingless and more mobile on the ground where there are no predators to cull the population.

Secondly - in other flightless birds like the Ostrich, wings do have a survival advantage - in that they give balance to the ostrich whilst running at high speeds, and are used to shade their young from the soaring heat.

Penguins use their wings to their advantage to propel them through water.

Only natural selection can explain this. Not a deity. You lose, game over.

Jarndyce

J C wrote: »

Probably because He thought that they looked better with wings.
The presence of flightless birds with wings argues for a designer, because such structures cannot be explained by natural selection for the simple reason that they confer no known survival advantage ... and should have been eliminated by NS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBkiT0zyYm0

joseph brand

J C wrote: »

Probably because He thought that they looked better with wings.

Now THAT'S funny.

I suppose god had a box of leftover wings and started sticking them onto animals that 'looked better' with them. rofl :D:D

joseph brand

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I think I'd look better with wings. Why didn't god give me any? What the hell did a kiwi do to deserve wings. Screw you god.
On a (slightly) more serious note, don't you think it's a bit strange that the only flightless animals with wings just happen to be similar in a lot of other ways to those which can fly? You know, it's almost like they might have had some kind of common ancestor. Crazy talk, I know. It's much more likely that God made the kiwi, thought 'hmmm that looks a bit like that flying thing I made, I think I'll give it the flying things to, but not let it use them. Just for the laugh.'
Seriously J C, things just aren't instantly eliminated by natural selection just because they don't have a use. Over the course of a few million years, it's possible that these flightless birds will lose their wings. Or maybe not. If they don't have a clear disadvantage either (which as far as I am aware, they don't) why would they be selected against?
Your entire last paragraph once again shows your limited understanding of natural selection. It's not a case of a feature just disappearing instantly the moment it becomes useless. That's just absurd.
I have no expectations of you actually addressing any of the points I just made, I'm sure you'll just come out with your usual waffle about me being sectarian or some nonsense like that.

Tears of laughter here. Sore jaw.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

I can't think of a better piece of cretin science than that - jesus designed birds without wings coz birds with wings will survive coz they're the fittest and fittest things make baby jesus cry.

Nice!

That wasn't what I said ... and I notice that you carefully avoided my point on both flightless birds ... Dandelions.

... once again an example of an evolutionist, on this thread, trying to make up for a lack of scientific support for his point of view, by making unfounded insults ... to both God and me.

I addressed those points, as did others, and you've decided to totally ignore us

Sarky

It's a fairly common tactic with J C. He runs away from anything difficult (cfsi, anyone?), or throws the old ad hominem accusation at you (usually when someone calls a retarded argument retarded, as opposed to an actual ad hominem). Sometimes he has the audacity to liken himself to a Holocaust victim, painting those who disagree or point out obvious flaws with his bullsh*t as big mean Nazi truth-suppressors. There are several examples in the past of this thread if you're bored enough to search.

The depths to which he stoops to deny reality are just amazing.

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

You've never seen a Kiwi, have you? Their wings are NOT visible. What an utterly absurd response. Admit it, your schtick is up.





Arguing from ignorance again I see? Only natural selection can explain flightless birds. Flightless birds like the Kiwi, have very little danger when foraging on the ground. Therefore, it is advantageous to be wingless and more mobile on the ground where there are no predators to cull the population.

Secondly - in other flightless birds like the Ostrich, wings do have a survival advantage - in that they give balance to the ostrich whilst running at high speeds, and are used to shade their young from the soaring heat.

Penguins use their wings to their advantage to propel them through water.

Only natural selection can explain this. Not a deity. You lose, game over.

NS is capable of getting rid of various characteristics ... what it's not able to do, is to produce the genetic information for new characteristics ... so birds can lose the ability to fly and bacteria can lose the abilty to metabolise antibiotics.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

NS is capable of getting rid of various characteristics ... what it's not able to do, is to produce the genetic information for new characteristics ... so birds can lose the ability to fly, bacteria can lose the abilty to metabolise antibiotics.

It's my understanding that antibiotics attack a virus and that over time the virus evolve so they can metabolise the antibiotics.

J C

joseph brand wrote: »

Now THAT'S funny.

I suppose god had a box of leftover wings and started sticking them onto animals that 'looked better' with them. rofl :D:D

I think that He deep-fried them ... and put them into a chichen box with chips instead!!!:D

Sarky

koth wrote: »

It's my understanding that antibiotics attack a virus and that over time the virus evolve so they can metabolise the antibiotics.

Antibiotics do buggerall to viruses. They're just bits of DNA or RNA in a protein shell. They're mostly not affected by antibiotics because they don't metabolise, they're not even alive in most senses of the word. Until they get into a cell, whereupon they hijack a cell's machinery to replicate themselves in a variety of interesting ways.

Generally they insert their own DNA into the host's chromosome (it's quite easy to see that parts of the human genome contain bits and pieces that are obviously viral in nature) and force that region to be translated over and over again, producing protein shells and replicated viral DNA/RNA to put inside them.

The process is error prone like everything else (More so in the case of RNA viruses, as their genomes don't have the double helix structure to provide extra stability), and often a virus will copy too much or too little, and the new viruses can contain bits and pieces of host DNA/RNA. Their lack of repair enzymes allows for plenty of mutation and variability as errors go uncorrected, especially given the number of viruses even one host cell can produce before it dies from exhaustion or bursts open after producing too many viruses or any number of other factors. They're orders of magnitude above even bacteria for replication numbers. Evolution is extremely obvious in viruses for these reasons. Well, viruses themselves are extremely hard to see, being only a few nanometres in length, but we can measure their effects on cells and we can easily examine their genomes.

This is mostly 1st or 2nd year undergrad biology stuff, and the fact that J C doesn't seem to know about the intricacies of basic microbiology like this either means that his "conventional scientific qualification" has nothing to do with the topics covered here (rendering it useless for trying to add weight to his claims), or that he has no qualification at all. Given his lack of honesty about pretty much everything else, I'd suspect the latter, but he could always put such speculation to rest by growing a pair and telling us.