Posted on 03/05/2006 10:14:03 AM PST by PatrickHenry
I'd guess that perhaps the extra long nerve could perhaps provide some *give* to it, the same way a coiled cord (like the kind the dentists have for their drills-shudder) would. But I'm no expert in giraffe neck pyhsiology. My point was mainly that while it makes sense that ID would perhaps have done it differently for efficiency, if someone goes on the assumption that everything was intelligently designed and it doesn't make sense, then there is probably some reason for it that hasn't been discovered yet. I guess that's where the *faith* part comes in; I believe that God did it and trust that He had a good reason for making it as it was even though it makes no sense yet.
Maybe it's the *multi-potential* aspect that's the key. Perhaps it just gives time for the cells to specialize and provide a greater variety of uses for the cells? I'm out of my element here so it's only a guess. I changed from a Bio major long before I would have got into that kind physiology.
Since no one has attempted to identify anything in my photo montage, I think I'm beyond that. I have a good variety of vertebrates.
The paragraph:
In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors; (CAN'T DO THAT) but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition. (CAN'T DO THAT) Amongst existing Vertebrata, we find but a small amount of gradation in the structure of the eye, and from fossil species we can learn nothing on this head. In this great class we should probably have to descend far beneath the lowest known fossiliferous stratum to discover the earlier stages, by which the eye has been perfected.
In other words, he can't show the evolution of the eye via the means he would have preferred.
He has to go to brachiopods to make his theory work.
The second (Can't do that) has no basis in the text.
I did consider the evidence and even agreed with you on some points. But the link you directed me too led to Talk Origins not to anything on FR.
Now, I'm inclined not to call people liars when I debate. Wrong, yes, but it seems rather pointless to try to determine intent which is required for a lie.
If I did accuse someone of a lie, I'd certainly be able -- and willing -- to back it up.
I'll spell the second one out for you again.
we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition. Amongst existing Vertebrata, we find but a small amount of gradation in the structure of the eye, and from fossil species we can learn nothing on this head.
In other words, he is forced to look to "species of the same group" to see the possibility of "some gradations having been transmitted from earlier stages of descent" and finds "but a small amount".
Incorrect.
The sequence was as follows:
1. you demanded, of others, repeatedly (#229 et alia), to be given exact citations of in-thread mendacity.
2. at post #235, I set forth specific parameters with implicit questions (which "ifs" you have not as yet answered), then explained that meeting your challenge would violate the specific command of the Mods, and finally laid down a set of two logical if-then statements concerning your issuing that challenge - raising the *possibility* of your malice, not making a positive assertion thereof.
3. You then heckled (#299) without addressing the ifs, without asking for confirmation of the Moderator command, without refuting the logical statements, and included a rather petty insult (paranoia)
4. At post #303, I refuted your heckling and insult, asserting that it has indeed been the creo side who have engaged in the three forms of specified behavior - the behaviors you have yet to confirm constitute "lies" under the terms of your challenge. I also set forth a third logical if-then statement, noting the apparent limited option set between a) your illogic, and b) your mendacity.
5. at #305 you responded with "ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
6. at #310, I indicated that such insubstantial response was "typical"
7. at #12, you posted yet another bandwidth-waster: a tinfoil hat jpeg, with the text "Ready for the creationist conspiracy"
8. at which point, #326, the duckpond-in-winter jumped in with a definition of paranoia. This led to a brief spate of the two of you caressing each other's egos in public in a most unseemly manner.
9. I interrupted your mutual admiration fest and responded to the both of you with a slightly annoyed brief of the situation (#341) and note concerning the continued insubstance of your entries.
10. to which the both of you have now at this point replied. This post forms a terminus to the direct reply to your #392, 396, and 400. There is no need to detail the remainder of duckpond-in-winter's contributions, aside from noting that in that dialogue the Mod's will was verified.
so - there above is the *actual* sequence.
It bears little resemblance to your characterization of the sequence ("You say people are lying. I ask where. You say you can't tell me and that I'm part of some malicious plot for asking. LOL.")
If you cannot address implicit questions, debate clear logical sets, or even keep straight the sequence of posts in a hypertext forum conversation in which you have been directly and significantly active, why should I or *anyone* take *you* seriously?
I no longer shall.
good day.
"In other words, he is forced to look to "species of the same group" to see the possibility of "some gradations having been transmitted from earlier stages of descent" and finds "but a small amount"."
In other words, he can, though it is difficult. The creationist claim that Darwin had no answer to the eye and was upset about it is classic misspeak.
I see nothing in the head and neck which *requires* gill-slits for their eventual formation.
I do not see why gill-slits would be needed in the tissues destined to be head and neck, but not needed in the tissues destined to be thorax, abdomen, or limbs.
and, again - efficiency + special creation wouldn't have side-tracks, but would instead go directly to the human body pattern immediately after the layer separations.
if efficiency is taken out of the Given, then no problem with special creation and gill slits. I have no issue with the creator being prone to whimsy. however, efficiency was stipulated by Red, so...
given the timing, that seems more probable than not.
Embryonic stem cells are not considered potential revolutionary cures and adult stem cells are considered much more likely to be of use.
Why do you evade the actual topic?
Keep it in the cult I see.
Get real, henry linked to the post on this thread otherwise I wouldn't have known about that specific comment.
Earlier he and some others went forward trying to support Haeckel's ideas about embryos.
This gets surreal.
That's whom I thought you were accusing of lying, and I doubt very much showing that a Freeper is lying would get you banned. I can see, however, that accusing a Freeper of lying without being able to show such might get you in trouble.
Concerning Talk Origins links. What I scanned appeared to much, if not mostly, ad hominem. It shouldn't be taken seriously
Why would this no sense in intelligent design?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.