Denial of Evolution VII (2015)

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I've mentioned several times that the Giraffe's anomaly* strongly supports the ToE but if one insists on taking the ID /creationist's POV, it must be modified. I. e. not an "Intelligent Designer" but a very, very stupid one. That alternative of a SD (Stupid Designer) is at least plausible / supported by facts.

* It seems likely that the distant ancestor of the giraffe was a four legged creature with probably shorter than average neck (or possibly none) as one of the nerves that told "cheek information" (i.e that bee stung there or he bit his cheek, happen to pass below a bone before going to the brain for processing. Getting it on top of that bone can not be done via a set of many very tiny "analog changes" accumulating over thousands of generations. The relocation of that nerve to the top side of the bone, which later became the "collar bone" is a "binary change" I.e. there are only two "states" ("under" or "on top" of the bone.) So the long necked giraffe of today learns he bit his cheek with considerable neural delay as the bite induced neural signals leave the cheek area, travel all the way down that long neck, go under the bone still and then travel all the way up that long neck and finally reach the brain. - If the giraffe was "designed" the designer must be very stupid.

In contrast the length of the neck can increase via tiny incremental changes accumulating over thousands of generations. For example the average length of the giraffes in generation n+1 can be 0.1mm longer than the average neck length in generation n. Evolution can (and did) change the length of the neck of giraffes as that is an ANALOGUE CHANGE. I don't know why it happened but perhaps the short necked ancestor of the giraffe liked the taste of the leaves at the top of the short bush it feed on more than the slightly more dusty ones closer to the ground - Why the change occurred is not important as it did occur as each tiny stage of that analogue change gave a slight benefit.

BTW, the human retina is also "built backward" from good design practice. The photo detector cells are BEHIND the network of shadow casting blood vessels, and all the nerves collecting data from them. This makes the signals coming to V1 from an object image be cut into many dozens, (or hundreds for a large image) of separate pieces by the shadows. A lot of extra computational work must be done in V1, just to fill in the shadow gaps, with best guesses - not always correct, but I skip here describing how that "fill in" error can be demonstrated.

The octopus has a correctly designed eye - the photon sensitive cells of the retina are in front of all this shadow casting support structure. If god, the creator exists and made anything in his image, eyes correctly, etc., he must look like an octopus. Think how much more work I could do, if I too had eight arms and hands like God probably does if he/she exists!

 

Perhaps "8" is the special number you may be on to something...

 

Yes. It is the symbol for Infinity rotated 90 degrees. Do you think that is hint about eight armed God's true nature?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

God, in the female form, (and a tiger) posed for an artist to paint.

 

Well it was the answer I used to disprove the Riemann hypothesis so I find that very interesting also my sun is in the 8th house. You see how amazing God is 90, 8, and, 72 are all related to each other plus, they all are synonymous to God now this is no coincidence. Twistyness !!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

God is usually depicted by the lion so I think what the message here is showing is that Gods creations seek to become greater than God the multidimensional beings you have one here on sci forums the 8 arms in this case is signifying the multidimensional nature of separation from God and descendance into duality the same as what davinci was trying to communicate in his artwork he was known in the multidimensional realms and communicated with the biengs and they showed him many visions. And this women here in the picture is a descendant of an ancient alien race that works for God they are suppose to return not too long from now after the beacon is erected to broadcast the signal.

 

i would if i could, but unfortunately this discussion is distributed amongst about 6 or more threads.
and i'm not going to search all of them, IF i could find them

the source was posted in one of threads i mentioned above.

i haven't seen the issue where ayala wrote to science denying he made the remark, have you?

go for it james.
you are talking about an editor of one the most respected names in science.

science says he did

i'm sorry, science refered to him as "the moremost proponet of evolution in the US.

ask lewin, or the paleontologists that were there, they probably knows why

probably for the same reason some of my best links in this area has stopped working.
and the word "genetic" wasn't in his remark.

yes, like almost all of them.

i am proposing that this snafu with ayala is a charade.

no it isn't, it's on a personal website james.
there is no record ayala ever contacted the source of the alleged "misquote".

ayala based his remark on the evidence presented by paleontologists.
gould addresses the same gaps.
these gaps are mentioned no less than 3 times in the article.

 

Beating a 30 year old dead horse seems silly to me.

 

exposing fraud in science isn't a laughing matter kristoffer.
i wonder how many of these other so called "retractions" are bogus.

 

because i don't like your pedantry.
for example:

i specifically said concept.
can you formulate a concept james?
how do you like MY pedantry?

 

Exposing fraud in science isn't a laughing matter, true, but what you're doing is NOT that.

 

So state your position.

 

You may have mistaken some L. Ron Hubbard science fiction for reality. He wrote a lot of it. There really are no Thetans, and people can't levitate.

 

All this jibber jabber bores me I will return once something being said can properly stimulate my cerebral cortex.

 

have you read the article in question from jstor?

 

I have. It ain't that.

 

Actually, that part wasn't. I believe he meant it as a distinction from the clearly morphological: and this would be a relevant point.