Happy Atheist Forum

Compatible Senders and Receivers

QuoteOnly intelligence creates codes, programs, and information (CP&I). Each involves senders and receivers. Senders and receivers can be people, animals, plants, organs, cells, or certain molecules. (The DNA molecule is a prolific sender.) The CP&I in a message must be understandable and beneficial to both sender and receiver; otherwise, the effort expended in transmitting and receiving messages (written, chemical, electrical, magnetic, visual, and auditory) will be wasted.

Consider the astronomical number of links (message channels) that exist between potential senders and receivers: from the cellular level to complete organisms, from bananas to bacteria to babies, and across all of time since life began. All must have compatible understandings (CP&I) and equipment (matter and energy). Designing compatibilities of this magnitude requires one or more superintelligences. Furthermore, these superintelligence(s) must completely understand how matter and energy behave over time. In other words, the superintelligence(s) must have made, or at least mastered, the laws of chemistry and physics wherever senders and receivers are found. The simplest, most parsimonious way to integrate all of life is for there to be only one superintelligence.

Also, the sending and receiving equipment, including its energy sources, must be in place and functional before communication begins. But the preexisting equipment provides no benefit until useful messages begin arriving. Therefore, intelligent foresight (planning) is mandatoryâ€"something nature cannot do.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp1821409 (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences19.html#wp1821409)

Obvious troll is obvious!

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages20.fotki.com%2Fv374%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6116196%2FRealityKick-vi.gif&hash=45fd5ffc5df6c89e73a9fdcc5dbbd6e44aa5051f)

Ok... Let's play. Have I seen you somewhere before BTW?

Quote from: "Pahu78"Only intelligence creates codes, programs, and information (CP&I).

Intelligence also utilises and tries to understand those NOT created by it. There are codes and programs in every pattern. There is information in EVERYTHING.

Quote from: "Pahu78"Each involves senders and receivers.

Only those actively used for something or actively being percieved.

Quote from: "Pahu78"Senders and receivers can be people, animals, plants, organs, cells, or certain molecules. (The DNA molecule is a prolific sender.)

Can this be?! You are correct. Although senders and recievers are not limited to those you named.

Quote from: "Pahu78"The CP&I in a message must be understandable and beneficial to both sender and receiver; otherwise, the effort expended in transmitting and receiving messages (written, chemical, electrical, magnetic, visual, and auditory) will be wasted.

And thus, to us most codes and programs and information out there is perfectly useless.

Quote from: "Pahu78"Consider the astronomical number of links (message channels) that exist between potential senders and receivers: from the cellular level to complete organisms, from bananas to bacteria to babies, and across all of time since life began.

Life is not a requirement. It is only if you mean to understand or cathegorise the code, but it is not essential to the code being there in the first place.

Quote from: "Pahu78"All must have compatible understandings (CP&I) and equipment (matter and energy). Designing compatibilities of this magnitude requires one or more superintelligences.

No.

Quote from: "Pahu78"Furthermore, these superintelligence(s) must completely understand how matter and energy behave over time. In other words, the superintelligence(s) must have made, or at least mastered, the laws of chemistry and physics wherever senders and receivers are found. The simplest, most parsimonious way to integrate all of life is for there to be only one superintelligence.

No.

Quote from: "Pahu78"Also, the sending and receiving equipment, including its energy sources, must be in place and functional before communication begins. But the preexisting equipment provides no benefit until useful messages begin arriving. Therefore, intelligent foresight (planning) is mandatoryâ€"something nature cannot do.

You assume that every message that is being communicated is in some way useful. Say a star some thousands of light years away is producing a massive energy outburst every 100 years. There is a basic code for you. On its basis you can make a program, which in this case would predict when the next outburst hits. Thus, you obtain information. Is it useful? Not to me, it isn't.

The first claim is false on so many levels. That inflicts that the entire line of thought is meaningless. Read some REAL science articles, where conclusions are derived from facts and not the opposite.

Quote from: "Pahu78"Compatible Senders and Receivers

Only intelligence creates codes, programs, and information (CP&I). Each involves senders and receivers. Senders and receivers can be people, animals, plants, organs, cells, or certain molecules. (The DNA molecule is a prolific sender.) The CP&I in a message must be understandable and beneficial to both sender and receiver; otherwise, the effort expended in transmitting and receiving messages (written, chemical, electrical, magnetic, visual, and auditory) will be wasted.

Consider the astronomical number of links (message channels) that exist between potential senders and receivers: from the cellular level to complete organisms, from bananas to bacteria to babies, and across all of time since life began. All must have compatible understandings (CP&I) and equipment (matter and energy). Designing compatibilities of this magnitude requires one or more superintelligences. Furthermore, these superintelligence(s) must completely understand how matter and energy behave over time. In other words, the superintelligence(s) must have made, or at least mastered, the laws of chemistry and physics wherever senders and receivers are found. The simplest, most parsimonious way to integrate all of life is for there to be only one superintelligence.

Also, the sending and receiving equipment, including its energy sources, must be in place and functional before communication begins. But the preexisting equipment provides no benefit until useful messages begin arriving. Therefore, intelligent foresight (planning) is mandatoryâ€"something nature cannot do.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp1821409 (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences19.html#wp1821409)

This person has been warned that this post constitutes spamming and will not be tolerated. If it occurs again, he will be banned from the forum.

HAHA... if the message is do damned important, why do you have to pay for it?

Quote from: "McQ"This person has been warned that this post constitutes spamming and will not be tolerated. If it occurs again, he will be banned from the forum.

Before he gets the ban hammer, I would like to see how he tries to refute our responses to the article that he had posted. Not that I'm advocating ID, but I find it interesting to see how they can wriggle their way out of a corner, especially without resorting to logical fallacies.

If he is a troll, let's let him out from under his bridge and see what kinds of tricks he can perform.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FForums%2F3e8b6f05.gif&hash=76fadf74b876bd360c09bdf12a7c91e8b5219326)

Quote from: "Benoît Bôls"

Quote from: "McQ"This person has been warned that this post constitutes spamming and will not be tolerated. If it occurs again, he will be banned from the forum.

Before he gets the ban hammer, I would like to see how he tries to refute our responses to the article that he had posted. Not that I'm advocating ID, but I find it interesting to see how they can wriggle their way out of a corner, especially without resorting to logical fallacies.

If he is a troll, let's let him out from under his bridge and see what kinds of tricks he can perform.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FForums%2F3e8b6f05.gif&hash=76fadf74b876bd360c09bdf12a7c91e8b5219326)

I highly doubt s/he'll be back. Unfortunate, really.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"I highly doubt s/he'll be back. Unfortunate, really.

I doubt it, too. I see that sort of thing on my own forum all the time: Spam n' Run.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FSpam%2F6a88ce19.gif&hash=ec1fce5d8106db7781a63e805bb0aa2fcdb9c000)

But, I was hoping s/he would stay. S/he would make a nice pet.

Yeah, not sure if I should have termed him "spammer" or "troll". The post is simply a cut and paste from the link he put in, with no introductory remarks or position statement. Not even a, "Hey this is what I think! Anyone care to discuss?"

Neither did he make a point of any kind, other than that he is able to cut and paste garbage from a creationist website. Then he had the nerve to message me and ask me what part of his message constituted spam.

Hmmm....where to start?
 

Quote from: "McQ"Hmmm....where to start?
 :D

McQ:   Yeah, not sure if I should have termed him "spammer" or "troll". The post is simply a cut and paste from the link he put in, with no introductory remarks or position statement. Not even a, "Hey this is what I think! Anyone care to discuss?"

Pahu:   One would think that I agree with the scientific facts I am sharing.

McQ:   Neither did he make a point of any kind, other than that he is able to cut and paste garbage from a creationist website.

Pahu:   So you believe any scientific fact with which you disagree is “garbage”?

McQ:  Then he had the nerve to message me and ask me what part of his message constituted spam.

Hmmm....where to start?

Pahu:   Just can’t figure it out, eh?

I am not interested in entering into endless quibbling over the information I am sharing because I believe the information speaks for itself. If you disagree, that ‘s fine. I believe the free exchange of facts is a healthy, profitable way to discover truth, but your disagreement is with the scientists being quoted, not me. As I mentioned in my private message to you, which you have chosen to partially make public, the mentality of unredeemed human nature has remained unchanged since Cain murdered Abel over a disagreement. History is full of examples of people silencing those with whom they disagree:

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were thrown into the fiery furnace because they refused to worship the king’s idol.

Daniel was thrown into the lion’s den for worshipping God, contrary to the king’s decree.

Jesus was crucified because the religious authorities disagreed with Him.

His disciples were tortured and murdered because the authorities disagreed with them.

Thousands were murdered for disagreeing with the Roman Catholic church during the inquisition.

Hitler murdered six million Jews and seven million Christians because he disagreed with them.

Over 100,000,000 people have been murdered under atheist communism for disagreeing with them.

Muslims murder anyone who disagrees with them.

So you are definitely in the majority when you want to silence me because you disagree with the facts I am sharing that challenge your world=view.

The refusal to believe facts in this and other instances may run deeper than just simple fear, hatred or partisanship. Perhaps some people invest so much of themselves into a certain political, religious, philosophical or scientific viewpoint, that their identity and sense of self becomes bonded to it. The bond is so strong that any fact that disproves even a small part of their particular viewpoint is interpreted as a direct attack upon their own self-identity. This can lead to retaliation in the form of wild accusations or character attacks upon the people promoting such facts (I.E. stop the message by killing the messenger).

If this is true, then you can probably never prove any disagreeable facts to such people. They’ve traded introspection and reason for the security, comfort, and certainty that their viewpoints, and thus their identify, are always 100 percent correct.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages38.fotki.com%2Fv1213%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6116196%2Fwrong-vi.gif&hash=3ac4899e06e04f2d006f1b54466cd934448c2eeb)

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages38.fotki.com%2Fv1213%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6116196%2Fwrong-vi.gif&hash=3ac4899e06e04f2d006f1b54466cd934448c2eeb)

QFT. *resists stating the obvious all over again*

...MUST ... ... RESIST..! MU... S... TRE... SIS... T...  

Pahu78 has been issued his/her second and last warning via pm:

QuoteThis warning is issued for you being disrespectful to those who organize this board by claiming, without reason, that we are attempting to silence you due to disagreement.  If we wanted to silence you you would have been banned already and your posts deleted.  If we do ban you your posts will remain for others to read and take from what they wish.  

If you want to stick around you need to start treating everyone on this forum with the same respect you would afford to them if they were sitting at your dinner table.  So far all I've seen from you is spam and personal attacks.

No more warnings will be issued the next step is banning.  This is also a public warning free to be viewed by other members.

[/color]

Okay, its pretty obvious that Pahu doesn't want to actually talk about anything.  

Nowhere in the few paragraphs of information on the page you linked to, is there anything that seems to support your claim.  I'm calling "Science disproves Evolution" as your claim as its not mentioned anywhere on the page you linked to.  Now if you want discussion, then by all means state your thesis, link to-copy/paste some info, and explain how this information supports your thesis.  

Drive by copy past jobs, with nothing from you explaining what its for or why you linked to it, is not a very good way to start a positive discussion.  

Playing the victim card after being told your original post was spammy, is not a good way to start a positive discussion.

Now, if you want to discuss something make a point, find some supporting evidence or make some arguments for your point, and be ready for an actual discussion/debate.

ZOMG!!!11

I see the light now! I read that post and it makes SO MUCH SENSE TO ME NOW! How could i have been so stupid before?? How could i have wasted so much of my life bereft of a god?

What else to trollers expect to see when they post that shit?

Meh.

Convergent Evolution or Intelligent Design? 1

When the same complex capability is found in unrelated organisms but not in their alleged evolutionary ancestors, evolutionists say that a common need caused identical complexities to evolve.   They call this convergent evolution.

For example, wings and flight occur in some birds, insects, and mammals (bats). Pterosaurs, an extinct reptile, also had wings and could fly. These capabilities have not been found in any of their alleged common ancestors. Other examples of convergent evolution are the three tiny bones in the ears of mammals: the stapes, incus, and malleus. Their complex arrangement and precise fit give mammals the unique ability to hear a wide range of sounds. Evolutionists say that those bones evolved from bones in a reptile’s jaw. If so, the process must have occurred at least twice (a)â€"but left no known transitional fossils. How did the transitional organisms between reptiles and mammals hear during those millions of years (b)? Without the ability to hear, survivalâ€"and reptile-to-mammal evolutionâ€"would cease.

Concluding that a miracleâ€"or any extremely unlikely eventâ€"happened once requires strong evidence or faith; claiming that a similar “miracle” happened repeatedly requires either incredible blind faith or a cause common to each event, such as a common designer.

a.   â€œ... the definitive mammalian middle ear evolved independently in living monotremes and therians (marsupials and placentals).”  Thomas H. Rich et al., “Independent Origins of Middle Ear Bones in Monotremes and Therians,” Science, Vol. 307, 11 February 2005, p. 910.

“Because of the complexity of the bone arrangement, some scientists have argued that the innovation arose just onceâ€"in a common ancestor of the three mammalian groups. Now, analyses of a jawbone from a specimen of Teinolophos trusleri, a shrew-size creature that lived in Australia about 115 million years ago, have dealt a blow to that notion.” Sid  Perkins, “Groovy Bones,” Science News, Vol. 167, 12 February 2005, p. 100.

b.   Also, for mammals to hear also requires the organ of Corti and complex “wiring” in the brain. No known reptile (the supposed ancestor of mammals), living or fossil, has anything resembling this amazing organ.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp1612912 (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences21.html#wp1612912)

Quote from: "creationistBS.com"Concluding that a miracleâ€"or any extremely unlikely eventâ€"happened once requires strong evidence or faith; claiming that a similar “miracle” happened repeatedly requires either incredible blind faith or a cause common to each event, such as a common designer.

If I don't believe in miracles and understand that "un-likely" is a matter of perspective, this statement's point melts like a snowman in Sahara on a particularly hot day.

That said, if you don't care to discuss what you post and people's responses to you and are only here to hotlink this site to that creationist dump, I suggest you go somewhere else. Spam is against forum rules.

QuoteSo you are definitely in the majority when you want to silence me because you disagree with the facts I am sharing that challenge your world=view.

Bro - it's just the way you came on the board. I think if you take time to look at the site you'll find plenty of discussion regarding these issues, ad-nauseum.

If you're here to chat, Welcome. Consider introducing yourself to let us know a little about you. Tell us why you're posting your information here. You may feel the information speaks for itself, but it's nice to hear what your take on it is. If it's as simple as: "you guys are wrong and I'm right - here look at this stuff I've copied and pasted" - it doesn't make your case very appealing to read. Maybe try putting one topic at a time into a thread and we'll discuss it.

Quotea. “... the definitive mammalian middle ear evolved independently in living monotremes and therians (marsupials and placentals).” Thomas H. Rich et al., “Independent Origins of Middle Ear Bones in Monotremes and Therians,” Science, Vol. 307, 11 February 2005, p. 910.

It’s fun when people quote studies that they haven’t read.  The line is mined from the abstract of the paper and they omit the preceding part.  Here is the entire abstract:

QuoteA dentary of the oldest known monotreme, the Early Cretaceous Teinolophos trusleri, has an internal mandibular trough, which in outgroups to mammals houses accessory jaw bones, and probable contact facets for angular, coronoid, and splenial bones. Certain of these accessory bones were detached from the mandible to become middle ear bones in mammals. Evidence that the angular (homologous with the mammalian ectotympanic) and the articular and prearticular (homologous with the mammalian malleus) bones retained attachment to the lower jaw in a basal monotreme indicates that the definitive mammalian middle ear evolved independently in living monotremes and therians (marsupials and placentals).

To understand what we’re talking about, we need to understand what organisms are involved.  Monotremes are mammals belonging to the order Monotremata.  Monotremes are mammals which lay eggs including platytypuses and echidnas.   Monotremes also, like many fish, have the ability of electroreception.

Now, what the article is looking at is if the jawbones were on their way to becoming inner ear bones prior to or after the divergence of the two clades.:

QuoteIn other words, did the accessory jaw bones that gave rise to the ear ossicles and ectotympanic become detached from the lower jaw only once in the common ancestry of monotremes and therians (a monophyletic origin), or did they become detached from the jaw independently in the two living groups subsequent to their evolutionary divergence from a common ancestor (a polyphyletic origin).

The authors examine several specimens and their possible taxonomic placement in relation to the two clades.  While they view some of the evidence as possibly showing the formation of the inner ear bones took place following divergence, they do end the paper with this statement:

QuoteAs noted earlier, a well-developed mandibular trough, indicative of a complete Meckel's cartilage and postdentary jaw bones contacting the dentary in adult individuals, occurs in a number of Mesozoic mammals (or near-mammals) other than Teinolophos. However, because of the uncertain phylogenetic positions of these taxa with respect to true mammals (monotremes and theriiforms), none provides unequivocal support for the multiple origin of the definitive mammalian middle ear bones. Nonetheless, they suggest the possibility that the freeing of the mammalian ear bones from the lower jaw may have occurred more often than can be conclusively documented at present. If the postdentary bones were already functioning in hearing in late nonmammalian cynodonts and basal mammaliaforms , then this final step in the functional separation of the mammalian middle ear system from the feeding apparatus would be expected to occur in all later lineages.

Contrary to what some would attempt to lead others to believe, this is not some evidence that evolution is mistaken theoretically, on the contrary, it shows support for common ancestry.

Quote“Because of the complexity of the bone arrangement, some scientists have argued that the innovation arose just onceâ€"in a common ancestor of the three mammalian groups. Now, analyses of a jawbone from a specimen of Teinolophos trusleri, a shrew-size creature that lived in Australia about 115 million years ago, have dealt a blow to that notion.” Sid Perkins, “Groovy Bones,” Science News, Vol. 167, 12 February 2005, p. 100.

This quote is from an article in Science News which is referring to the article above which I just explained, therefore no further explanation is needed.

Quoteb. Also, for mammals to hear also requires the organ of Corti and complex “wiring” in the brain. No known reptile (the supposed ancestor of mammals), living or fossil, has anything resembling this amazing organ.

In keeping with the common ancestry idea of the precursors to the vertebrate ear - a year after Rich et al. published their paper Brazeau and Ahlberg published a paper which they state shows precursors of the later middle ear beginning to “migrate” toward where they would eventually come to be.  They examined a specimen of Panderichthys, a Devonian fish. They found this fish to have what is effectively a spiracular tract which was utilized for breathing, yes breathing.  Aside from this, other findings link this morphology to later tetrapods:

QuoteDespite its tetrapod-like spiracular tract, Panderichthys lacks a true stapes. Like typical osteolepiforms, Panderichthys has a slender, rod-like hyomandibula. However, we observe considerable differences in the hyomandibula of Panderichthys that show the earliest evidence of significant modification in the tetrapod stem lineage.

Also, last year, a specimen from the Cretaceous period was examined in a paper in the journal Nature.  Luo et al. (2007) found particular aspects of the formation of the inner ear that were in keeping with what evolution would predict.  The specimen showed how the bones have yet to become the inner ear configuration that we have today.  This adds to findings of other specimens of early mammals from the Jurassic such as the Morganucodon.
The fossil evidence is also supported by molecular inquiries.  Examination of the cellular physiology and its evolutionary history show, as Fritzsch et al. (2007) state unequivocally:

QuoteMechanosensory cells may represent an evolutionary variation of a generalized cellular theme.

The precursors of the ear we know today were there long ago and evolution as the ever-tinkerer, played with configurations and through natural selection we eventually get those wonderful structures that let us detect soundwaves.  As to the actual “hearing” as we think of it also involves the brain.  The efferent pathways from ganglia in the cochlea first links to the medulla (one of the older evolutionary structures of our brain).  It then passes through the pons, the midbrain and finally reaching the primary auditory cortex found in our temporal lobe.  This pathway is known as the central auditory pathway (Hudspeth, 2000).  The simple examination of this pathway alludes to a long evolutionary history for this sensory system.

We also have to remember that hearing itself is not limited to some bones vibrating to innervate sensory pathways.  Hearing in flies utilizes what is called Johnston’s organ found in the antennae which is important for mating .

In summary, the evolution of the ear and its functional parts is not as big of a mystery as some people would like to think.  The scientific evidence doesn't disprove evolution, it supports but you have to understand it first and that is where most evolution opponents fail - not because they can't understand it but because they either don't want to or rely on the fact that the average Joe won't and try and dazzle them with bullshit.

You should really stop getting your scientific information from creationist sites - go to the library and read the scientific publications themselves instead of someone's spin on it.

References

Fritzsch, B., Beisel, K., Pauley, S. & Soukup, G. (2007). Molecular evolution of the vertebrate mechanosensory cell and ear.  Internation Journal of Developmental Biology, 51 663-678.

Hudspeth, A. (2000). Hearing. In E. Kandel, J. Schwartz & T. Jessell (Eds.). Principles of Neural Science (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Luo, Z., Chen, P., Li, G. & Chen, M. (2007). A new eutriconodont mammal and evolutionary development in early mammals.  Nature, 446, 288-293.

Rich, T., Hopson, J., Musser, A., Flannery, T. & Vickers-Rich, P. (2005). Independent Origins of Middle Ear Bones in Monotremes and Therians.  Science, 307, 910-914.

Squid, did I ever tell you that I love the way you operate?  

Squid, that broad side of knowledge reminds me of a time I was parked next to a battery of Paladin self propelled artillery who were in the process of sending about fifty rounds down range in the span of a few minutes.  Very impressive.

Hooray for APA citation!

Thanks.  I do what I can.

Please don't ban the christians immediately- they're funny. Let them say what they have to say, and threaten them with a ban if there are too many cursewords used (ouch, I hope you fundies realize that everytime you curse, god kills a baby duck).

Convergent Evolution or Intelligent Design? 2

It is illogical to maintain that similarities between different forms of life always imply a common ancestor (c); such similarities may imply a common designer and show efficient design. In fact, where similar structures are known to be controlled by different genes (d) or are developed from different parts of embryos (e), a common designer is a much more likely explanation than evolution.

c.   â€œBy this we have also proved that a morphological similarity between organisms cannot be used as proof of a phylogenetic [evolutionary] relationship ... it is unscientific to maintain that the morphology may be used to prove relationships and evolution of the higher categories of units, ...”  Nilsson, p. 1143.

“But biologists have known for a hundred years that homologous [similar] structures are often not produced by similar developmental pathways. And they have known for thirty years that they are often not produced by similar genes, either. So there is no empirically demonstrated mechanism to establish that homologies are due to common ancestry rather than common design.” Jonathan Wells, “Survival of the Fakest,” The American Spectator, December 2000/January 2001, p. 22.

d.   Fix, pp. 189â€"191.

Denton, pp. 142â€"155.

“Therefore, homologous structures need not be controlled by identical genes, and homology of phenotypes does not imply similarity of genotypes. It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. ... But if it is true that through the genetic code, genes code for enzymes that synthesize proteins which are responsible (in a manner still unknown in embryology) for the differentiation of the various parts in their normal manner, what mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same ‘patterns’, in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes? I asked this question in 1938, and it has not been answered.” [Nor has it been answered today.] Gavin R. deBeer, formerly Professor of Embryology at the University of London and Director of the British Museum (Natural History), Homology, An Unsolved Problem (London: Oxford University Press, 1971), p. 16.

e.   â€œStructures as obviously homologous as the alimentary canal in all vertebrates can be formed from the roof of the embryonic gut cavity (sharks), floor (lampreys, newts), roof and floor (frogs), or from the lower layer of the embryonic disc, the blastoderm, that floats on the top of heavily yolked eggs (reptiles, birds). It does not seem to matter where in the egg or the embryo the living substance out of which homologous organs are formed comes from. Therefore, correspondence between homologous structures cannot be pressed back to similarity of position of the cells of the embryo or the parts of the egg out of which these structures are ultimately differentiated.” Ibid., p. 13.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp1612912 (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences21.html#wp1612912)

Boy, ya just don't get it, do ya...

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages39.fotki.com%2Fv1236%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6116196%2F1213351739840-vi.gif&hash=0a367a333c920a53200cb92109763c29fceb45bb)

Food, anyone?  

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mentalfloss.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F02%2Fspam-special.jpg&hash=86a91faa7e3222102c7411d46d97c7c62ec03f3d)

Quote from: "Pahu78"Convergent Evolution or Intelligent Design? 2

It is illogical to maintain that similarities between different forms of life always imply a common ancestor (c); such similarities may imply a common designer and show efficient design. In fact, where similar structures are known to be controlled by different genes (d) or are developed from different parts of embryos (e), a common designer is a much more likely explanation than evolution.

That's a huge stretch to assume there's a designer just because life forms on earth are similar.

The only way to come to the conclusion that there's a designer based on the presented information is because you presupposed one before you started.  

Be honest: were you familiar with the Bible before you became familiar with evolution?

Pahu78 has been given a 1 month ban for spamming after being asked not to do so.  If s/he decides to return after his/her current ban and decides to spam again, a permanent ban will follow.

Additionally, as mentioned by myself previously in this thread...Since it is not obvious that the posted content is not his/her own without clicking the link, the manner in which Pahu78 has decide to post his sources is borderline plagerism.  If Pahu78 returns and continues to post in that manner, even while using his/her own words, it will result in a permanent ban.  It's not that hard to use the quote feature.

-admin

He's pulling the exact same crap on other boards as well:

http://www.atheistnation.net/forums/index.php/topic,1656.0.html

A quick Google search shows that this person or bot is very busy spreading this crap:

Clicky (http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=pahu+science+disproves+evolution&btnG=Google+Search)

I'd just go ahead and permaban the account.

Holy Shit, very busy!

And to think, all that effort and time wasted, because the only impact he had was aggravation.

Quote from: "Squid"He's pulling the exact same crap on other boards as well:

I KNEW I've seen it before!  :unsure:  )

Quote from: "Squid"He's pulling the exact same crap on other boards as well:

http://www.atheistnation.net/forums/index.php/topic,1656.0.html

A quick Google search shows that this person or bot is very busy spreading this crap:

Clicky (http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=pahu+science+disproves+evolution&btnG=Google+Search)

I'd just go ahead and permaban the account.

Thanks for the info. I should have checked this myself. I appreciate you doing that. I'll make the ban now. What a waste of time that guy is!

Problem solved. I've sent domokun after him.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages38.fotki.com%2Fv1212%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6116196%2F532851_Grrr-vi.gif&hash=b7c1337de445e20577c7c3550ca1c35799313530)

Squid = SuperCop!

Quote from: "Jolly Sapper"Squid = SuperCop!

*Raises hand* I havesed my suspicions first!  :beer:

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Problem solved. I've sent domokun after him.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages38.fotki.com%2Fv1212%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6116196%2F532851_Grrr-vi.gif&hash=b7c1337de445e20577c7c3550ca1c35799313530)

what is it with you and these little videos. where the hell do u find them????  :beer:

Quote from: "jcm"

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Problem solved. I've sent domokun after him.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages38.fotki.com%2Fv1212%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6116196%2F532851_Grrr-vi.gif&hash=b7c1337de445e20577c7c3550ca1c35799313530)

what is it with you and these little videos. where the hell do u find them????  :beer:

psstt... http://cgi.4chan.org/gif/imgboard.html soooo nsfw

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Problem solved. I've sent domokun after him.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages38.fotki.com%2Fv1212%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6116196%2F532851_Grrr-vi.gif&hash=b7c1337de445e20577c7c3550ca1c35799313530)

You GO, Domo!

(We love that little brown guy here... hubby has a 12" one at his desk at work and the Kid has a tshirt with Domo on it... thank goodness for the huge asian market near us!  LOL!)