I “Debate” With Evolutionauts at richarddawkins.net-pt.2
Again, here are the questions that were posed to the evolutionauts at http://www.richarddawkins.net. You be the judge. See if you think any of them were actually answered in the miles of dialogue below:
Question #1. Eye Evolution
Evolutionists say that eyes evolved using 100,000 to 500,000 mutations (generations). Since eyes have a small number of parts, let’s say thirty, the question here would be: How do the mutations divvy up among the eye parts. Did 20,000 mutations form the retina and it’s 130 million cells? Were the 20,000 mutations working like a team, each mutation knowing what its job was and what the last mutation accomplished in making retinal cells? What about the visual cortex and thalamus? How many mutations were required to evolve these, and did the mutation work like a team here? While your at it you can provide me with some mutations that would form retina or iris cells? good luck
Maxillary and mandibular teeth: It is also not even imaginable that maxillary teeth could form through mutations and natural selection, and articulate like perfect puzzle pieces with mandibular jaw teeth. The maxillary teeth mutations would have to know what the mandibular teeth mutations were doing to an exact degree. That would require intelligence, and evolutionists say there is no intelligence. You would have to believe in miracles to go for this one, which would make evolution no more than a religion.
Add to that the fact that humans have primary(children’s) teeth, an entire separate set that fit the mouth size of the young of our species, also with perfect matching of the anatomy of the maxillary teeth with the mandibular, and you have a nightmare for evolutionists! How did the mutations know that the younger of the species needs smaller more suitable teeth, someone pls provide physical evidence, not just stories, I’ve heard too many stories.
Essentially, if heart/lung and eye systems evolved, the pre-functioning organs would be no more than useless tumors. Species would have to carry around these useless tumors for hundreds of thousands or millions of years before they would become functioning organs. What force would cause these useless tumors to continue to evolve into the incredibly complex organs represented by heart/lung and eye systems?
Again, here are the color codes:
(STRAWMAN):” The argument evolutionauts are most sensitive about. Evolutionauts have no trouble using it, though. A strawman argument is when a debater assigns a position to his opponent that he knows he doesn’t have, and then argues that position.
(ADHOM): Ad hominem attack. A personal attack on the person holding a different position than that of the user.
(MOD ANAT & GEN): Using current pathology, anatomy and genetics et al of modern species as an answer to a question on how evolution millions of years ago formed nature.
(DEMEAN Q OR Q): Trying to make the question look silly, or demeaning the questioner.
(READ PPRS): Because he doesn’t have the answer, refer the questioner to a plethora of books/papers that don’t have the answer either.
(HAS NOTHING TO DO W/ QST.): Discussing evolution of the subject question without answering the question at all. This answer will have nothing to do with the question, but it will seem technical in hopes the questioner will scare off. Crap!
(ACTUAL ANS ): Actual answers TO THE QUESTIONS POSED will be in black bold letters. I doubt we will see many of these, so I want it to be easily found if there is.
[ME] A comment by me, Dr. Stephen B. Lyndon.
by LucidFlight » Wed May 13, 2009 1:56 am
Some “choice cuts” from the master himself (Steve):
From the comments on this site written by yours truly: OK, do a mind experiment: Visualize that only a single species today has eyes. Say an elephant. No other species are eyed. How many species on earth would have eyes in 500 million years? You are a math major,(another fun subject), so you should get a pretty good idea of what I am talking about. A population that splits and can’t breed with it’s former peers would not spread eyes. And if it did, all of the un-eyed species would be going through the same splits, producing more un-eyed species.
C’mon Hooya2, bad math. Each speciation would still take 20k years, but the numbers would go 2,4,16,32…..All non-eyed species would be doing the same thing in this imaginary world, resulting in thousands of trillions of species, if that were the case. The millions of non-eyed species would outnumber the eyed overwhelmingly. The eyed would start at 1, the non eyed would start at millions. The eyed would be crushed. But good effort. And again, you are throwing logic out the window.
(DEMEAN Q or Q): Yes, where are the trillions of species of no-eyed creatures? Haha! Checkmate, evos! [ME: HA HA HA This guy doesn’t come close to understanding the question. If you read this Lucid, give it a little more thought, then try. It’s only an imaginary example. And if evolution was the way things came about there WOULD be a huge percentage of multicellular species that were eyeless. Try thinking for once instead of spouting.]
More comments on this site written by yours truly: A tree falling makes no sound if there is no hearing equipped observer. Sound is made by air waves that reach an ear drum, which vibrates, then is codified by nerves and sent to the audio cortex of the brain which then manufactures the sound. IN THE BRAIN OF AN EQUIPPED OBSERVER. Likewise, light is manufactured by the visual cortex of an equipped observer. You need to think just a little more on this one to get it. Try reading “The Symbiotic Universe” by George Greenstien, an evolutionaut BTW.
So, sound and light are manufactured in the brain. Of course! [ME: That is correct. Do a little study and you will find out this true and really is a juicy cut.]
More comments on this site written by yours truly: The problem with evolution is that it IS established as a religious belief in schools. Of course the belief is atheism, which IS a religious belief. Atheism depends on evolution for its existence, which is why so many people believe the unbelievable. No evolution, no atheism. It is more important to support your/their religious belief than to have honest objective science. Honest science would rule out selected mutations as the source for all of nature.
End of Lucid’s “quote mine” from my site.
(DEMEAN Q or Q): Wow. Simply amazing.
by ChasM » Wed May 13, 2009 3:01 am
Dr Steve is a doctor of dentistry, so shouldn’t he be talking about the impossibility of the evolution of teeth or plaque or something? [ME: I do. And I have a YouTube video on the subject.]
by LucidFlight » Wed May 13, 2009 5:13 pm
I’ve just been reading through the comments section of The Age of the Universe: a Paradox, and it’s as if the words come straight out of a madhouse full of psychotic solipsists… hell-bent on torturing any sane person who should happen to walk in. It’s absolutely astounding. The “Symbiotic Universe” seems to be the source of their fantasy reality. [ME: Lucid, again, the Symbiotic Universe is written by a staunch evolutionaut. FYI.]
by LucidFlight » Wed May 13, 2009 6:08 pm
Gosh, I hope Steve turns up here so we can ask him.
by Fnordensen » Wed May 13, 2009 6:19 pm
Also, I’d like to know what the following means: stevebee92653 (1 week ago)
Consciousness doesn’t create matter, but it does bring it into existence. Since when did new-age pseudo-philosophical wankery have to make sense?
by justwondering » Wed May 13, 2009 6:34 pm
I thought about it! I thought about it! And it burrrrrrrnnnnnnnsssss!!!! [ME: Good!]
by Jared_Jff » Wed May 13, 2009 11:48 pm
cognitive dissonance at it’s finest. The truth is out there, and its coming for you.”
by Shrunk » Thu May 14, 2009 2:22 am
LucidFlight wrote:Gosh, I hope Steve turns up here so we can ask him. He says he’s on his way, once he finishes his vacation:
by LucidFlight » Thu May 14, 2009 2:42 am
stevebee92653 said, May 14, 2009 at 3:53 am
See you in a few days. Don’t get nervous now. Don’t forget to study those peer reviewed papers.
Shrunk said, May 14, 2009 at 10:17 am
That’s a relief. The blue butterfly was getting hungry. Your fanboy, Jerry, was little more than an appetizer to him. If he doesn’t get some fresh meat soon, we’ll have to feed him one of ourselves….OMG! This has the potential to be epic.
[ME: A religious creationist came on the thread and left this comment:
christjesusisking Fri May 15, 2009 1:09 pm
well,docjohn, no duh the earth is round and the sky is blue. what does that prove about evolution? we could have not have come from an ameba because it is a single cell organism and can not reproduce cells. we have billions of cells so that proves right there that evolution is not true. if it is true than where is the missing link? why isn’t there an animal that died right in the middle of the process of evolving into another? creation is how we got here.
[ME: The vaunted blue butterfly responded so intelligently with this comment:
by Calilasseia » Fri May 15, 2009 5:25 pm
(DEMEAN Q or Q): Bullshit. Do you have any evidence to support the idea that humans were the result of a cheap conjuring trick by an invisible magic man playing with a ball of dirt? No? Thought not. Fuck off and go and learn some real science, you miserable little jerk, and come back when you’ve learned some scientific facts instead of filling your head with the masturbation fantasies of Bronze Age nomads.
Fucktarded nonsense. YOU came from a single cell. Called an ovum. Which then divided into two cells, then four, then eight, then 16, and so on, once it acquired the diploid chromosome set after fertilisation.
[ME: Then chrisjesusisking got some “peer reviewed’ paper recommendations to read from cali! What else! This is the beautiful writing of the blue butterfly. I wonder if he was censored for this excellent expression. I doubt it. I was censored on dawkins.ner for writing fool, and chihuahua terds. This is such an objective site. Also, is a “fucktard” worse than a “creatard”? Or “leotard”? Where does “retard” fit in to the hierarchy? Is that somebody that is late a lot? Just wondering. ]
by LucidFlight » Fri May 15, 2009 5:33 pm
I hope you enjoyed that snack as much as I did. Hopefully the main course, aka Stevebee, turns up this weekend. [ME: They want ME! Wow, I feel honored. And after that wonderful writing by the blue butterfly, it looks like it’s going to be fun fun fun.]
by LucidFlight » Sat May 16, 2009 2:38 am
Spearthrower wrote:Or that he’s decided not to give up his day job!
Oh well, another nugget:
stevebee92653 (3 months ago)
So you are saying that the birds that “figured out” how to make a full nest survived? How could a bird who has NEVER made a nest, (which HAD to be the case, at some point in time) “figure it out”? Nests had to evolve just like birds, one step at a time, and there are no microsteps possible with nests. One stick couldn’t hold an egg, and couldn’t lead to two, then four…..Unless the intelligence for making nests was somehow planted in their brains. Which really makes no sense either. So, birds gradually learning, as a species (via evolution) makes no sense; and, having the intelligence implanted (being created with this knowledge, probably by a creator) makes no sense. What options do we have left?
[ME: Whilst waiting for me to appear, LuicdFlight quote mines a question from my blog. Foolishly. Of course he and the other evolutionauts can’t answer it. It seemed so simple when Lucid copied it over. So, it’s just kind of left hanging, unanswered, and they look a bit silly. But group psychology prevents ego damage.]
by FraggedMind » Sat May 16, 2009 2:44 am
So, birds gradually learning, as a species (via evolution) makes no sense; and, having the intelligence implanted (being created with this knowledge, probably by a creator) makes no sense. What options do we have left? [ME: How about “We just don’t have enough information to make a plausible theory”? Ya know, REAL SCIENCE.]
by ADParker » Sat May 16, 2009 9:42 pm
pontius-ft wrote:Does anyone have “The Blind Watchmaker” and know what page this quote is from? [Ido! Ido!] If so, please post what comes after what I quoted Dr. Steve quoting. If memory serves me, it will be something similar to what Charles Darwin wrote.
It’s from page 36 of my paperback edition (last full paragraph. Near the end of about 15 pages on echolocation. (look up “echolocation” in the index if you can’t find it people )
Dr. Steve’s Quote (mine):
20. Who said: “Echo-sounding by bats is just one of the thousands of examples that I could have chosen to make the point about good design. Animals give the appearance of having been designed by a theoretically sophisticated and practically ingenious physicist or engineer………..” “The Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.”
The actual text:
“Echo-sounding by bats is just one of the thousands of examples that I could have chosen to make the point about good design. Animals give the appearance of having been designed by a theoretically sophisticated and practically ingenious physicist or engineer, but there is no suggestion that the bats themselves know or understand the theory in the same sense as a physicist understands it. The bat should be thought of as analogous to the police radar trapping instrument, not to the person who designed that instrument…”
This is from chapter 2 “Good Design”. So yes it is taken out of context, as that chapter is simply setting up the argument for the rest of the book, which explains why this “design” can be explained as “designer-less.”
[ME: Does ADParker actually think the additional “quote” changes in any way the context of the quote that I used? Only evolutionauts would think that, because it’s detrimental to the cause. The context is no different. Because police use the radar, there still has to be a designer/engineer who designed it, but isn’t a user. There is no change in meaning. Sorry.]
[ME: Next Grizby takes me on in an attempt to dispute a video I made on: The Age of the Universe. I detail the fact that a conscious observer is required for the existence of anything, including the universe.]
by Grizby » Sun May 17, 2009 2:04 am
Ah the usual relativistic “reality is subjective” crap, unfortunately this argument is put forward without any explanation of the substrate required for our subjectivity. He makes the mistake of regarding perception as the primrary phenomenon and completey diregarding the initial reception that occurs when factors from the environment inpinge on our physical presence.
Reception is the substrate with perception being the emergent property.
…it does not take a genius to learn what it has taken a genius to invent. Gilbert Ryle.
[ME: This is a pretty sad attempt at an answer. By saying “completey diregarding the initial reception that occurs when factors from the environment inpinge on our physical presence.”, he just doesn’t realize that the initial reception REQUIRES AN OBSERVER. Try thinking, understand the challenge, then answer. Wouldn’t you think SOMEONE at dawkins.net would have actually thought, then let Grizby know he was wrong? Not. Also, me, a genius? Thanks!]
by LucidFlight » Sun May 17, 2009 2:27 am
Indeed… I’m not even going to start on the wrongness. It’s fascinating how people’s reasoning and logic seem so reasonable up to a point, and then there’s that funny twist just before the end, and it all goes back-to-front. So close, yet so utterly and completely in the wrong direction at the final turn. For them, the finish line is the start line. That is the real paradox, I find.
Anyway, here’s a transcript I made for quick reference:
The Age of the Universe: A Paradox
[ME: LucidFlight then copied down the entire dialogue on this vid (not copied here), which took a fair amount of time. The video can be seen on my channel, stevebee92653, at YouTube.com. What really amazes me is the fact that before I ever wrote a single word on richarddawkins.net I was vilified there by the evolutionauts. Yet they spend tons of time quote mining my blog AND my videos, and discussing my stuff. What’s the attraction? Very strange, since I am soon going to be eaten alive by the blue butterfly. Here are some of the other responses to this vid:]
by RoaringAtheist » Sun May 17, 2009 2:32 am
The basic error in that is so obvious I can’t even spell it out. 😛
I think it’s peculiar how the subjective reality (that is, to a person) is apparently the objective reality (that which is actually there.)
The soundwaves of the falling tree would still be there if there was no observer. The light of the distant star would still reach us, even if there was no observer to take note.bleh.
[ME: This guy doesn’t understand that light and sound are manufactured in our cortices. But he over commits, as usual.]
by FraggedMind » Sun May 17, 2009 2:50 am
[ME: This guy used HUGE BOLD LETTERS to let me know how wrong I was. Fish takes bait! The “conscious observer concept” is way over this guys head. And he over commits, which is really dumb, particularly when you are wrong.]
FM NOTE: (DEMEAN Q or Q):And here is where you screw up-The universe would still exist even if your dumbass did not.
(ME:) Remember, I am saying it is a paradox. The universe APPEARS to be 13.7 BYO, but a conscious observer cannot be discounted.
(HE/SHE:) You wanna paradox? You are your own father.
(ME:) Ask yourself what color was a rose FOR YOU ten years before you were born? What WAS a rose? What WAS the universe? FOR YOU. Ten years before you were born. Roses, red, and the universe, of course, didn’t exist FOR YOU ten years before you were born.
(HE/SHE:)Exactly, I was not a sentient being in 1969
(ME:)And, what if no one was born? What if there was no life? Would anything exist, since everything exists in our consciousness?
(HE/SHE:)the answer is Yes because regardless of my or your existence the universe moves on and we are just minute specks in the universe with no real importance to it and our existence is merely consequential. the conscious mind only translates what is in existence, doesn’t make it exist.
(ME:) A conscious observer must view, record, and can contemplate everything that exists. Otherwise, nothing exists.
(HE/SHE:) (DEMEAN Q or Q): WRONG, Now it is just easier to point out you are an idiot that can’t think outside the box. I chalk this up to higher education in America.
(ME:) If you still don’t get it, listen to Professor Linde at the end of “Paradox” again. Carefully.
(HE/SHE:) Anyone else? was this peer reviewed?
(ME:)And if you still don’t get it, read “The Symbiotic Universe”. An excellent read written by George Greenstein.
(HE/SHE:) Again…Peer review please?
[ME: Would you ask the blue butterfly to peer review it for me? Thanks!]
by Spearthrower » Sun May 17, 2009 3:26 am
(DEMEAN Q or Q):What fatuous nonsense. Stick to dentistry Steve. [ME: Another guy that doesn’t get it. There’s more, but this is a good sampling.]
by Grizby » Sun May 17, 2009 6:52 am
I see Stevebee92653 has already signed up, we wait with baited breath
Shrunk » Sun May 17, 2009 6:02 am
On a related note, I received an email from Steve B. asking which thread evocritic posted in. So lay off the YouTube commentators, Cali. You may have a huge helping of creotardation on the way….[ME: Oooh, more anticipation of my arrival.]
by theropod » Sun May 17, 2009 7:17 am
It’s very much like a military unit. In our first few combat missions we are all afraid and don’t know if our training will see us through but the more we encounter our adversaries the less we worry about things and actually welcome the intensity of action. [ME: Scary. Little ole me?] Some of us start to get a little strange and collect ears or fingers but most of us just go about the business of taking the field and driving the enemy back into the hole from which they spring. When we are fortunate enough to take captives and conscript them into our service is the greatest thrill of all for me. Most often they are unwilling to surrender and fall on their own swords. I see no honor in such self destruction.
[ME: Is this science or war? Methinks war.]
by LucidFlight » Sun May 17, 2009 7:24 am
I might sit back and enjoy the initial melee from the bunker — maybe come and have a wee poke later on with my bayonet. [ME: Keep your head down!]
by hackenslash » Sun May 17, 2009 8:33 am
It must be a little daunting, with him seeing us all lining up waiting to have a pop at him.
Come on, Steve, don’t be frightened. We don’t bite, although we like a good chew…
by theropod » Sun May 17, 2009 9:22 am
(STRAWMAN): The basic problem with the creationist attack on evolution is that they offer no alternative for the robust diversity of the biosphere aside from God-Done-It. [ME: You forgot the biggest alternative: “We don’t have enough information to make a plausible theory”. This alternative is ignored and not even considered by evolutionauts, because it is logical. They always run the to “God-Done-It” or “Magic Fairies” strawman to make skeptics look silly.] Oh sure, they offer up conjectures heaped on assertions to explain their “science” but they never do any real work that one could remotely consider as science. When this is pointed out they claim a grand conspiracy is set against them when mainstream science refuses to accept the mass of conjecture they see as creation science. When further explanation is given to them that their work must be testable by independent parties with repeating positive results [ME: Of course this is never the case with evolution either. Neither scenario can be proven.] we usually see blustering claims that mainstream science is just as faith based as their view. After careful instruction in the difference between a mass of data being accepted at face value and believing in a position devoid of evidence the trouble really starts. The willful misrepresentation of the issue then degenerates into the creationists labeling those that accept the mass of supporting evidence as “materialistic” and incapable of understanding the mysterious ways of a perfect being. When reminded that they have also be attempting to establish their position via “materialsitic” methods the creationist usually blow a seal and start preaching about our minds are controlled by Satan and until we accept that which is untestable we will never understand, and it is our loss for not doing so. When we remind them that such behavior is not allowed in a debate centered on reason they either withdraw, switch the subject or deny that we have established anything of value.
Rarely we actually see a creationist grasp the issue and begin to question their indoctrination. That rare instance is what makes the effort and stress of these endless confrontations worthwhile.
[ME, Re above sentence: Rarely we actually see an evolutionaut grasp the issue and begin to question their indoctrination. This guys problem is he does the strawman thing of assigning me belief in biblical creationism. Which I am not, in any way. Sorry, wasted writing. But they always have to do that, because they have nowhere else to go.]
by theropod » Sun May 17, 2009 9:57 am
Well, he must be a little freaked that his shit has been ripped wide open before he ever shows. [ME:Do they really wonder why I wasn’t real buddy buddy when I showed up?] (DEMEAN Q or Q): I doubt he’s too willing to jump in when there are so many people here that actually know what they’re talking about, and not the fundiform fools to which he usually preaches. Still, if he has a position worth a shit I’d love to read it.
Come on in Dr. Steve. The water’s fine, but there are sharks! [ME: I let them know the sharks and the people don’t bother me a bit. They could get a thousand if they want. They all have the same fantasies to defend. So make it a million. A billion. But I don’t know. That blue butterfly……]
by theropod » Sun May 17, 2009 11:42 am
(DEMEAN Q or Q): Well, I wouldn’t put Cali into the ear taker classification but more of one that drives them back into the hole from which they crawled. When nukes are used the only safe place is a very deep hole, or a vast distance from ground zero. [ME: Why the hell do they think Cali is so great? They couldn’t possibly have read his stuff. Cali is a charlatan and a fake who tries to overwhelm with bad language and tons of useless information. And not one of these people can pick that up?]
[ME: I came on their site and wrote the following response to Cali’s less than intelligent response to evocritic’s (my) challenges:]
by stevebee92653 » Sun May 17, 2009 12:59 pm
This is a reply to Calilasseia, who must be a hero on this site, since he is the only one to try and take on evocritic’s challenges. I guess they overwhelmed the rest of you believers.
Sorry Calilasseia, you wasted a lot of time. Your response was to demean the questions posed without answering. Just calling a challenge tired and old does not answer. “Oh dear, not this tiresome canard again” All I can say is, : “Oh dear, not this tiresome canard again”.
Tell evocrititic that he didn’t pay attention in class. Are you kidding?
Your answer to his challenge:
You referred him to a couple of ancient books (1922) on the evolution of teeth that won’t have any answers, since no one who has ever lived on the face of the earth has those answers.
You wrote tons and tons of words in hopes of scaring evocritic off with the illusion that you have too much knowledge for him even to think of competing.
You referred him to 1300 papers on the evolution of teeth written by writers who have no idea how teeth evolved, but have lots of fantasies about the subject. The papers use descriptions of the history of teeth, what fish teeth are like, and diseases of teeth to mask the lack of understanding of how they formed in the first place. “The main body of a tooth consists of a calcified tissue called the dentine, which is secreted by odontoblasts, cells of cranial neural crest (cnc) origin…….Enamel, the hardest tissue of the human body………Modern birds do not have teeth.”……….zzzzzzzzzz “The evolution of the mammalian jaw and teeth CREATED occlusal surfaces that are adequate for a great variety of foods.” CREATED? Was your paper writer a creationist? Hahaha So evolution just created those incredible occlusal surfaces of our teeth. Evolution sure is SMART. Look what else it CREATED: “Later, comparable, geometrically complementary structures were formed on the occlusal surface of the lower molars too, resulting in a dramatic increase in the masticatory efficiency of the molars [34, 35].” Natural selection did this on its own? No help? All I can say is wow. And how can you believe that? Just wondering.
Here is another trite demean of the question that you can’t answer. So, you are right on with your evo-strategy. “Worthless argument from incredulity. This is merely a rehash of the stupid “what use is half an eye” nonsense so beloved of creationists.” Actually, you need to answer what use is a hundredth thousandth of an eye, with no optic nerve, code, or visual cortex? In other words, of what use would blindness be to the species carrying the eye/tumor?
And, no, that isn’t a stupid question. It’s a VERY valid question. It has no reasonable answer for evolutionauts, so the question is routinely demeaned.
Then your papers march on to hearts: “Traditionally, the embryonic tubular heart IS CONSIDERED TO BE a composite of serially arranged segments representing adult cardiac compartments. Conversion of such a serial arrangement into the parallel arrangement of the mammalian heart IS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND”. Actually it’s impossible to understand, but you’ll just gloss that over. Right? You CAN do that because this is evolution. In the real world there is no notion of how life could go from a single celled species to a fully beating single chambered pump, when pumps were non-existent on the planet Earth. So, evolution had to INVENT pumps without intelligence whatsoever, then evolve those pumps to the fully functioning four chambered heart of humans. I’m certain this is “easy evolution” in the world of evolution. But any person with a bit of skepticism and reason would say “wait a second. That’s just not possible.”
Evocritic wrote: Since eyes have a small number of parts, let’s say thirty, the question here would be: How do the mutations divvy up among the eye parts. You answered: “What a fatuously absurd account of the process. Once again, I suggest you read the real scientific literature instead of fabricating excremental garbage of this sort.” Again, a reasonable question you cannot answer, so you demean the question in typical evolutionaut fashion. You don’t have the answer, so you tell him to “look it up”.
You have completely wasted your time with lots of words that total up to nonsense. And if that’s the best you got, you are a failure. But don’t feel bad. It’s not your fault. You are saddled with lots of peer reviewed papers that would make good use a toilet paper. And lots of made up “evidence”. Your science is at fault. It’s nothing but a major hoax. You are a committed believer, and you have nowhere to go but to use the “tired old canards” of evolution. You can’t refute what you NEED to refute. But pretend like you did a great job, and Richard will be proud of you. And just keep demeaning those questions you can’t answer. You need to, there are so many tough ones. And if all of you evolutionauts keep demeaning the big questions, when you are stuck, you can simply say “That was refuted long ago.”
by hotshoe » Sun May 17, 2009 1:10 pm
Hello, hello, stevebee, nice to meet you.
by pontius-ft » Sun May 17, 2009 1:11 pm
by RoaringAtheist » Sun May 17, 2009 1:13 pm
It’s hilarious how this guy just comes on here an immediately insults Cali, who consistently provides evidence which this guy just tosses aside without reading beyond maybe a page of it. Honestly.
I love the fact that he just misrepresents pretty much everything, then goes and shouts a lot at his own little straw man. 😀
[ME: I would have loved to come to this site with a bit of calmness, but with the demeaning way I was invited, the way my challenges were demeaned and evocritic was insulted, and the idiotic and insulting response from Cali, I was pissed. And I’m sure it wasn’t difficult to tell from my first entry.]
by MGNSketchpad » Sun May 17, 2009 1:13 pm
pontius-ft wrote:He’s heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrre.
Calm down. [ME: Good idea MGNSketchpad.]
by chem_major » Sun May 17, 2009 1:17 pm
Has anybody notified Katherine yet? I suspect she’s gonna have quite a mess to clean up. [ME: They want to bring all of the big guns for the big attack on lil ole me!]
(DEMEAN Q or Q): Calilasseia wrote:Trouble is, some creationists will think this [Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus] is a valid representation of evolution. After all, they think The Flintstones is a documentary.
by hotshoe » Sun May 17, 2009 1:17 pm
In light of the anticipation, I feel sadly let down that Stevie has no arguments or evidence of his own side to present, and the best he can do is claim that the evo side can’t be true. [ME: This guy could not have possibly read my challenges or the responses from his teammates. Or my blog.]
Even conceding that to be true (that evo does not explain what we think it does) well then, Stevebee, what IS the explanation ? You’re so smart, surely you’ve got it figured out ?
But that’s all for me … at least temporarily … need a nap … [ME: Nighty night.] Check y’all later – may the best side win. [ME: Uh, that would be me. Thanks.]
by Shrunk » Sun May 17, 2009 1:18 pm
pontius-ft wrote:He’s heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrre. [ME: Gee, I do feel so important here.]
But he seems to have forgottten to bring his evidence. Unless repeatedly shrieking “It’s not possible!” constitutes evidence.
stevebee92653, Calilasseia made several specific references to evidence from the peer reviewed literature documenting evidence for evolution of dentition. Are you actually going to refute those arguments, or do you figure it’s sufficient to just hand wave it away by saying, “Peer reviewed papers…. make good use a toilet paper”? Is that really all the evidence you have?
by The Ecophysiologist » Sun May 17, 2009 1:22 pm
stevebee92653 wrote:…since he is the only one to try and take on evocritic’s challenges. I guess they overwhelmed the rest of you believers…
I’m afraid evocritic was buried before Cali wasted his time on him. [ME:Not close, but ignorance is bliss.]
And the rest of your post is the best you’ve got? You’ve had so long to prepare.
No rebuttal to the discussion of functional Euglena and dinoflagellate eyespots, that isphotoreception in unicellular organisms? Instead there’s an argument from incredulity that ‘metazoa couldn’t possibly have evolved eyesight’ when their unicellular cousins could.
Derision instead of a response on teeth? [ME: This guy didn’t read my response?]
And an argument from incredulity on the substantial data on heart evolution? [ME: This guy didn’t read my response?]
Very disappointing, but not surprising.[ME: Yea, the “light sensitive spot” evolved into an eyeball, optic nerve, code, and visual cortex. Right. And Alice in Wonderland went…..I just love how these evolutionauts make such fun of creationists and their miracles, but don’t realize they have bigger ones of their own.]
by Shrunk » Sun May 17, 2009 1:38 pm
I hope Cali doesn’t take steveB’s criticism too hard. No doubt he’s picking up the shattered remains of his ego as we speak. I wonder if we’ll ever hear from him again?
He shouldn’t take it so hard, however. Look at the quality of the arguments that steveB’s minions can produce:
Brian (9pt9 on YouTube)
So did fruit and vegetables evolve out of a self sacrifice? We’ll go this way and stop at being food so the upper echelon can have something to further the pointless cause with. What environmental pressure causes on speciation to become a mango and another a bird. Hmm Maybe if I learn to evolve eye appealing, juicy meated , sweet tasting fruit, it’ll be beneficial! [ME: Actually this is semi-tongue in cheek, but the humorless Shrunk has no idea. It STILL is a good notion. Why did those fruits and veggies evolve that way from the same common ancestor we have? To be the very bottom of the food chain? Thanks fruits and veggies.]
by LucidFlight » Sun May 17, 2009 1:39 pm
I think what he has to say is fascinating, if you just give him the chance. [ME: Hey, a little ray of hope in a very dark room. Uh oh. The BLUE BUTTERFLY returns! Scary. To put me in my place again. So, here is the color code, so we can keep track of his very organized rants and peer reviewed papers.]
by Calilasseia » Sun May 17, 2009 1:52 pm
(DEMEAN Q): Well look who’s turned up! Let’s see if you have any substance to provide instead of drivel and blather, shall we?
stevebee92653 wrote:This is a reply to Calilasseia, who must be a hero on this site, since he is the only one to try and take on evocritic’s challenges. I guess they overwhelmed the rest of you believers.
(STRAWMAN): Oh dear. Once again, I see the “believers” canard being erected. Supernaturalists really love their projection, don’t they? [ME: Is a supernaturalist like an evolutionist, the word so hated by cali? I just love the “oh dear”.]
Here’s a clue for you. When there exists a large body of evidence to support a set of postulates, belief is superfluous to requirements and irrelevant. [ME: No, a large body of fantasies needs a great deal of belief.]
stevebee92653 wrote:Sorry Calilasseia, you wasted a lot of time.
I don’t consider subjecting canards to well deserved destruction to be a waste of time. your mileage may vary.
stevebee92653 wrote:Your response was to:
(STRAWMAN): You’re now going to claim that you can describe my response better than I can myself? Where have I seen this level of hubris before? Oh, yes, that’s right, it’s standard operating procedure for supernaturalists, because they think they possess “ultimate truth” because a 3,000 year old book of myths says so. [ME: Here is a clue for the blue butterfly. He needs to find out who he is arguing with before stupidly assigning beliefs to his opponent. That alone is a huge strike. Then he won’t look as foolish as he does.]
stevebee92653 wrote:Demean the questions posed without answering.
Try READING the post next time. What part of “providing extensive citations from the peer reviewed scientific literature, including relevant excerpts therefrom” constitutes “not answering the question” in any logically consistent universe? [ME: Does providing “extensive information” that has absolutely nothing to do with the question I posed count? Oh, excuse me, yes, this is evolution. It does with the blue butterfly and his peers.]
(STRAWMAN): Oh, and if I happen to pour scorn and derision upon creationist masturbation fantasizing, that’s because creationist masturbation fantasizing deserves it. “Magic Man did it” isn’t an “explanation”, it’s a statement of wilful ignorance. [ME: clueless again. I didn’t know butterflies masturbated! He must do it a lot, he mentions it so frequently.]
stevebee92653 wrote:Just calling a challenge tired and old does not answer. “Oh dear, not this tiresome canard again” All I can say is, : “Oh dear, not this tiresome canard again”.
(DEMEAN Q or Q): Well since the tiresome canards erected on your behalf here by your pet poodle ARE canards, and ARE tiresome in the extreme because we’ve heard the likes of this before here at RDF, one can hardly be surprised that I regard them as such.[ME: Ya know why they make the blue butterfly tired? Because it fries his brain that he can’t answer them. That does get exhausting]
stevebee92653 wrote: Tell evocrititic that he didn’t pay attention in class. Are you kidding?
(ADHOM): No, because he manifestly didn’t pay attention in any science classes as I would recognise them, namely places where proper science is taught instead of mythology-based nonsense. [ME:Actually the blue butterfly doesn’t know shit about about evocritic, or how we and nature got here, and he spouts out like a know-it-all about both.]
stevebee92653 wrote:Referred him to a couple of ancient books (1922) on the evolution of teeth that won’t have any answers, since no one who has ever lived on the face of the earth has those answers.
(READ PPRS): And here we see supernaturalist hubris at work again. Once again, read those peer reviewed papers, which DO contain more answers than you are prepared to admit exist because you prefer adherence to a doctrine to reality.
stevebee92653 wrote:Write tons and tons of words in hopes of scaring evocritic off with the illusion that you have too much knowledge for him even to think of competing.
Well I certainly possess more knowledge than he does. Did you see the part where he thought light wasn’t a part of the electromagnetic spectrum? Several of the critical thinkers here enjoyed much laughter over that one. [ME: Amazing how the ignorant can laugh when they don’t understand something that is really pretty basic. Blue butterfly needs to read a paper on how visual images work. It will be helpful, then he will find out what a fool he is.]
stevebee92653 wrote:Refer him to 1300 papers on the evolution of teeth written by writers who have no idea how teeth evolved, but have lots of fantasies about the subject.
(STRAWMAN): And here we see supernaturalist hubris at work again. “I know more than those scientists because my book of myths says so!”
I’ll give you three guesses into which orifice you can insert that idea, prior to igniting it with a superoxide accelerant, and thus using said orifice as a rocket motor to launch yourself into low Earth orbit. [ME:This guy is hilarious!]
stevebee92653 wrote:The papers use descriptions of the history of teeth, what fish teeth are like, and diseases of teeth to mask the lack of understanding of how they formed in the first place. “The main body of a tooth consists of a calcified tissue called the dentine, which is secreted by odontoblasts, cells of cranial neural crest (cnc) origin…….Enamel, the hardest tissue of the human body………Modern birds do not have teeth.”……….zzzzzzzzzz “The evolution of the mammalian jaw and teeth CREATED occlusal surfaces that are adequate for a great variety of foods.” CREATED? Was your paper writer a creationist? Hahaha So evolution just created those incredible occlusal surfaces of our teeth. Evolution sure is SMART. Look what else it CREATED: “Later, comparable, geometrically complementary structures were formed on the occlusal surface of the lower molars too, resulting in a dramatic increase in the masticatory efficiency of the molars [34, 35].” Natural selection did this on its own? No help? All I can say is wow. And how can you believe that? Just wondering.
(ADHOM): Oh so you ignored the parts where specific genes were expressed in the production of those structures and their retgulatory patterns elucidated by experiment? So much for your supernaturalist hubris. Come back when you’ve spent time learning some real science. [ME: That’s how the blue butterfly shows how two entirely different genetic pathways can perfectly evolve to match maxillary against mandibluar teeth? Name the genes that do it currently! Now there is a fine answer. Or a joke. I’m not sure which. You can fool your fellow evolutionauts, but not me.]
stevebee92653 wrote:Here is another trite demean of the question that you can’t answer. So, you are right on with you evo-strategy. “Worthless argument from incredulity. This is merely a rehash of the stupid “what use is half an eye” nonsense so beloved of creationists.” Actually, you need to answer what use is a hundredth thousandth of an eye, with no optic nerve, code, or visual cortex? In other words, of what use would blindness be to the species carrying the eye/tumor?
(WRONG EVO-ANS): Farcical appeal to personal incredulity on your part. You do realise that scientists have documented the relevant genes responsible for eye evolution and tracked the modifications that they underwent in numerous lineages? Oh, and try reading the literature on blind cave fishes sometime, where eye development has been experimentally manipulated in order to determine the underlying molecular biology. [ME: Oh, so they can name currently existing genes as the ones that evolved teeth? Now, how did they figure that out. Does he mean the genes that hold the blueprint for teeth? Those? And they tracked the modifications? Sorry, but that is not possible. We both know it. Where did they get the information? From fossils?]
stevebee92653 wrote:And, no, that isn’t a stupid question. It’s a VERY valid question. It has no reasonable answer for evolutionauts, so the question is routinely demeaned.
(READ PPRS): Bollocks. Once again, try reading the peer reviewed scientific literature, written by the people who conduct active research in the field, and who as a consequence know more than you do. [ME: The blue butterfly’s samples had no answers. I wonder if I read those 1300 papers…….hmmm.]
stevebee92653 wrote:Then your papers march on to hearts: “Traditionally, the embryonic tubular heart IS CONSIDERED TO BE a composite of serially arranged segments representing adult cardiac compartments. Conversion of such a serial arrangement into the parallel arrangement of the mammalian heart IS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND”. Actually it’s impossible to understand, but you’ll just gloss that over. Right?
Oh dear, someone else is twisting the scientific subjunctive to mean something other than the author’s intentions.
(ADHOM): If you had ever worked upon a real scientific paper in your life, you would know the underlying purpose of the scientific subjunctive. The fact that you seek to twist it for specious apologetic purposes suggests either ignorance or duplicity on your part. I personally suspect both are applicable.
stevebee92653 wrote: You CAN do that because this is evolution.
Which has been demonstrated to work in real living organisms. Or did you not receive the memo on that one? [ME: What? Hearts work in real living organisms?]
stevebee92653 wrote: In the real world there is no notion of how life could go from a single celled species to a fully beating single chambered pump, when pumps were non existent on the planet Earth.
You might not have any idea how this could be achieved, [ME: Neither does the blue butterfly.] but your ignorance of the appropriate mechanisms doesn’t invalidate a theory that has passed every critical test thrown at it.[ME: True bullshit.] (DEMEAN Q or Q): Oh, and the real scientists have subjected evolution to far more critical test than propagandists for mythology-based masturbation fantasies are even capable of imagining exists. [ME:There is always tests, but no person has any idea how four chambered hearts…..one chambered for that matter, formed. Most peer reviewed papers start with a one chambered, instead of zero to one, and stumble around to try to find a way a four-chambered could have evolved. They fail badly. But they are PEER REVIEWED.]
stevebee92653 wrote:So, evolution had to INVENT pumps without intelligence whatsoever, then evolve those pumps to the fully functioning four chambered heart of humans. I’m certain this is “easy evolution” in the world of evolution.
(READ PPRS): Once again, try reading the actual research papers before purporting to be in a position to criticise the work of people who have manifestly forgotten more than you have thus far demonstrated that you are capable of learning. [ME: Translation: The blue butterfly doesn’t know at all.]
stevebee92653 wrote:But any person with a bit of skepticism and reason would say “wait a second. That’s just not possible.”
(STRAWMAN):Poppycock. Your incredulity with respect to this isn’t a criticism of the theory. “I can’t imagine how a natural process could have done it, therefore no natural process could have done it, therefore magic man did it” is laughable. [ME: Same old tired canard.]
stevebee92653 wrote:Evocritic wrote: Since eyes have a small number of parts, let’s say thirty, the question here would be: How do the mutations divvy up among the eye parts. You answered: “What a fatuously absurd account of the process. Once again, I suggest you read the real scientific literature instead of fabricating excremental garbage of this sort.” Again, a reasonable question you cannot answer, so you demean the question in typical evolutionaut fashion. You don’t have the answer, so you tell him to “look it up”.
(DEMEAN Q): Bollocks. Evocritic was manifestly ignorant of the underlying science, and so, it seems, are you, if you think that question is in any way reasonable. (MOD ANAT): You do realise that genes can code for proteins that perform more than one function, depending upon where those proteins are expressed? The protein coded for by the shh gene, for example, which is a downstream regulator of the products of HOX genes, and has different effects upon different HOX gene products in different parts of the organism. (READ PPRS):Go and learn some real molecular biology before posting more drivel of this sort.
stevebee92653 wrote:You have completely wasted your time with lots of words that total up to nonsense.
(STRAWMAN): Only as seen through your ideological blinkers. I’m sure the various authors of those scientific papers would love to see your alternative explanation that renders their hard research “nonsense”. Especially as thus far, your entire attack on evolutionary theory consists of “I can’t imagine how a natural process could have done it, therefore no natural process could have done it, therefore magic man did it”.
stevebee92653 wrote:And if that’s the best you got, you are a failure.
(DEMEAN Q or Q): It’s that supernaturalist hubris rearing its ugly head again. Tell me, what do you have other than bluster, specious apologetics and appeal to personal incredulity? Only thus far, that’s all you have, and that makes you a FAR bigger failure here than me. [ME: Oh, so the blue butterfly admits he’s a failure? I don’t. Not close.]
stevebee92653 wrote:But don’t feel bad. It’s not your fault. You are saddled with lots of peer reviewed papers that would make good use a toilet paper.
Oh that hubris is really being paraded here on an epic scale today, isn’t it? [ME: Yes.]
(STRAWMAN):“I know better than all those scientists because my book of myths tells me so”.
stevebee92653 wrote:And lots of made up “evidence”.
Oh, you’re accusing the authors of those papers of scientific fraud now are you? [ME: Yes.] Care to write to Nature and the other respective journals with that accusation? it’ll be fun watching the outcome.[ME: It would be exactly like trying to discuss on http://www.richarddawkins.net.]
stevebee92653 wrote:Your science is at fault. It’s nothing but a major hoax.
(DEMEAN Q or Q): Bollocks. Keep posting the bluster, the hubris, and the specious accusations of scientific fraud aimed at people who possess more honesty in their toenail clippings than I’ve seen in any creationist to date, and you’ll simply continue to demonstrate why your masturbation fantasy of a doctrine is just that – a masturbation fantasy.
stevebee92653 wrote:You are a committed believer, and you have nowhere to go but to use the “tired old canards” of evolution.
(STRAWMAN): Crap. Since the evidence I presented is good enough for the world’s scientific community, the only reason I can arrive at why you dismiss it summarily with your snide, condescending jibes is because it makes a mockery of your beloved doctrine, and you can’t stand this because you’ve invested so much emotional capital into believing that you are so special because your magic man told you so. I have news for you. On the cosmic scale, you are insignificant. You are an irrelevance. Which also applies to the rest of us. We don’t need the security blanket of a magic man to face this reality.
stevebee92653 wrote: You can’t refute what you NEED to refute.
Bollocks. Your assertion and bluster are manifest. I see no substance emanating from you thus far. [ME: The blue butterfly could see it if he wasn’t so goddamned indoctrinated.]
stevebee92653 wrote:But pretend like you did a great job, and Richard will be proud of you.
(DEMEAN Q or Q): I don’t need his accolades. All I need is the knowledge that I’m far more likely to be right than you, because all you have to offer is bluster, hubris, blind assertion, cheap condescension and duplicity.
stevebee92653 wrote: And just keep demeaning those questions you can’t answer.
You mean, those questions that you assert I can’t answer because your doctrinal blinkers tell you so? [ME: No the ones the blue butterfly didn’t and couldn’t answer.]
stevebee92653 wrote:You need to, there are so many tough ones.
(DEMEAN Q or Q): Oh, quite the amateur psychologist, aren’t you? Yawn. [ME: Nighty night.]
(STRAWMAN): Funny how those questions are so tough that the only answer creationists can come up with is “Magic man must have done it!” [ME: Funny how he says the same thing over and over and over. Why? Pretty obvious. When people feel insecure, they tend to repeat themselves over and over and over. And the blue butterfly IS insecure. And he knows it.]
stevebee92653 wrote:And if all of you evolutionauts keep demeaning the big questions, when you are stuck, you can simply say “That was refuted long ago.”
(DEMEAN Q or Q): Reality refuted your nonsense even before you asserted it.
(STRAWMAN): if this is your attempt at an “answer”, then I can see I need not trouble myself too much dealing with you, because your above “answer” was nothing more than a pathetic litany of blind assertion, hubris, snide condescension and blather. You presented not one single piece of evidence to support your creationist fantasies, all you did was engage in the usual specious attack on valid science by asserting arbitrarily that the hard work of real scientists doesn’t count when it conflicts with your doctrine. You’ll probably last about a week here.
by zxcvbnm » Sun May 17, 2009 1:53 pm
Here’s another response that you appear to have missed
stevebee92653 wrote:And lots of made up “evidence”.
So multiple shared anatomical traits whose appearance in some species and absence in others can be mapped to flawlessly demonstrate their order of development without the slightest bit of overlap between separate taxa is made up? [ME: Of course.] The actual observation of speciation is made up??[ME: Of course.] Sequenced DNA from thousands of organisms is made up???[ME: Does this prove that they evolved one into another? Take a look at the fossil record. That is what needs to show evolution, and it doesn’t.] The fact that you can actually see the accumulation of mutations in the order that they occured and the fact that it correlates PERFECTLY with the order of occurance of anatomical features which can be observed is made up????[ME: Of course.]
And you say all this without providing ANY evidence to back up your own claims? [ME: I do, you didn’t read my blog. And, you need to prove the theory, not me. I have to provide evidence that it isn’t true? BULLOCKS!] Clearly evidence is irrelevant to you. The problem is that you seem to grossly misunderstand how natural selection works. [ME: Get over the idea that it’s so complicated. I used to believe in it very strongly, like you, and I know it well.] The bastardized concept of evolution that you’ve presented, [ME: Basterdized? How so?] as well as the strawmen that you posit for yourself to knock down, clearly demonstrates this. Instead of assuming that you know how scientists explain the evolution of novel anatomical features, I would suggest that you first give your interpretation of how you think it is explained, so that we can correct your misconceptions. [ME: The frequency of the use of the word “we” in evolution is bothersome. It sounds like a cult. If he is going to straighten me out, why doesn’t HE? Isn’t this HIS challenge to me?]
by zxcvbnm » Sun May 17, 2009 2:16 pm
I can give you a taste in the mean time, again from his own site:
“If eyes evolved in one species, vision could not be spread to other species due to the fact that species can only procreate with their own”.
Wow! So he thinks that people believe that anatomical variation is spread to other species like some kind of cross-species viral infection. [ME: A trait is passed on through procreation. A new trait in one species cannot be passed to another. This guy has no idea what I am talking about, and doesn’t answer; but does gripe.]
“The odds of eye evolution occurring in any single species is astronomically remote. The odds against this unbelievably unlikely event happening in thousands (millions) of species all at the same time is incalculable”.
And he thinks that the alternative explanation that scientists offer is that identical traits evolve multiple times in several species. [ME:Shocking! Well, what is the alternative?
No wonder he appears like such a lost cause. He has no clue what he’s arguing against.
(STRAWMAN): Steve, are you willing to actually learn what the theory of evolution is before you decide if it’s valid, or does your desire to latch onto your belief in an all-powerful creator prevent [ME: He still avoids the any answer.]
RaspK » Sun May 17, 2009 2:17 pm
(DEMEAN Q or Q): We’ve heard that one before, at least a variant thereof, by Bananaman, who combined it with the sex-bit; you can never really compete with that sort of statement — it is not even wrong, it is just moronic! [ME: Moronic, so the answer should be EASY! But, again, no answer.]
by LucidFlight » Sun May 17, 2009 2:24 pm
I should probably point out that, unlike your standard creationist, Steve doesn’t reference the Bible for his theories — well, not that I’ve seen, anyway. His alternatives aren’t really that clear. All he seems to do is criticise, yet offer no alternative theories. I think maybe he could be into panspermia, maybe? Still, that doesn’t account for biodiversity like we see today, unless, of course, koalas really do come from another planet.
by stevebee92653 » Sun May 17, 2009 8:55 pm
I’m heeeerrrrrrrrrrre again! And I never cease to be amazed. So, this is all you got? Nonsense from Cali? This? I have better things to do. One of you noted how I came, left a reply, and sped out immediately. Like I was overwhelmed by your stuff. Well, I am thoroughly disappointed. If you can come up with better than demeaning those that question your “science” (me, evocritic, eg.), demeaning valid questions, and anatomy lessons, let me know. Otherwise, why should I waste my time here and with the following garbage:
[ME: I copied and pasted a bunch of the inane comments from the site, aimed at me. Funny, they had no idea, and thought this was very crazy and bad writing on my part. They didn’t realize it was their own writings.]
Why do I have the urge to screech ‘More than meets the eye’ in a metallic voice? What’s the saying about the pot and the kettle? He’s heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrre. It’s hilarious how this guy just comes on here an immediately insults Cali, who consistently provides evidence which this guy just tosses aside without reading beyond maybe a page of it. Honestly. Has anybody notified Katherine yet? I suspect she’s gonna have quite a mess to clean up. In light of the anticipation, I feel sadly let down that Stevie has no arguments or evidence of his own side to present, and the best he can do is claim that the evo side can’t be true. But he seems to have forgottten to bring his evidence. Unless repeatedly shrieking “It’s not possible!” constitutes evidence. stevebee92653, Calilasseia made several specific references to evidence from the peer reviewed literature documenting evidence for evolution of dentition. Are you actually going to refute those arguments, or do you figure it’s sufficient to just hand wave it away by saying, “Peer reviewed papers…. make good use a toilet paper”? Is that really all the evidence you have?
[ME: These guys didn’t realize I just copy/pasted their own stuff!]
by ADParker » Mon May 18, 2009 9:05 pm
What the hel was that?!
It’s over the place, talking about yourself in the third person and all kinds of confused gibberish!
by Fnordensen » Mon May 18, 2009 8:03 pm
You could have just said “I give up” and saved yourself from typing out a tl;dr admission of defeat…
by LucidFlight » Mon May 18, 2009 9:23 pm
RoaringAtheist wrote: Could -someone- restructure that post into something coherent?
I think he quoted me in there, but it’s just impossible to say what the hell his point is. The second paragraph appears to be a sort of third-person summation (montage) and characterisation depicting us and him based on his previous visit here.
by RoaringAtheist » Tue May 19, 2009 2:10 am
Stevebee’s the guy who wrote all that nonsense linked earlier in the thread?
Why did he lose his ability to be coherent in the transition to this board?
[ME: Another one that can’t figure out that what I wrote is their own stuff?]
by LucidFlight » Mon May 18, 2009 8:03 pm
stevebee92653! You’re back. Look, how about a fresh start, away from all this chaos? What do you think about setting up a new thread, and we can discuss anything you like — your choice. What do you say? It’s entirely up to you. Let me know if you’d like us to set one up for you. Just name a topic, and it’s yours to discuss in a civilised and reasonable manner.
Just name a topic. Eye evolution? Evolution of sex? You name it. [ME: One of the more reasonable people on this site. Actually, what’s the point. There are questions posted here that still haven’t been answered.]
by zxcvbnm » Mon May 18, 2009 8:09 pm
(DEMEAN Q or Q): I would recommend that it just be about how evolution works in general. Because from his explanations on his blog, Steve doesn’t appear to have the slightes clue about what the theory of evolution even is. Talking about eye evolution with him would be like talking about quantum mechanics to someone who is in the middle of learning long-division. [ME: Yes, it’s so complex. What about zxcvbnm writing something so I will know he understands ID?]
by Latimeria » Mon May 18, 2009 9:24 pm
stevebee92653 wrote:One of you noted how I came, left a reply, and sped out immediately. Like I was overwhelmed by your stuff. Well, I am thoroughly disappointed. If you can come up with better than demeaning those that question your “science” (me, evocritic, eg.), demeaning valid questions, and anatomy lessons, let me know.
I deem this the only part worth responding to, since you did come back:
If you are so confident in your assertions, please, you are invited to do either or both of the following:
1) speak in a manner that shows you understand what it is you are criticizing, and criticize it on those terms. In other words, show that you understand even just the basic ideas of evolutionary theory, and we can build slowly from there. Where you have a lack, please let it be known. There is no shame in that. If molecular genetics confuses you, for example, say so. You’ll find that refutations on this site that are based on actual knowledge, even if lacking in some capacity, will be met with reasonable responses, and that perhaps if your animosity were dropped there would be less need to sift through the responses to that animosity to find the MANY well reasoned arguments against your position that came forth. [ME: This guy could not have possibly read the “well reasoned arguments. Or he simply isn’t educated enough to ascertain that they are not answers to anything.] (DEMEAN Q or Q):As it stands, you come across as enjoying a hit-and-run tactic of bothering people with raucous willful ignorance. (READ PPRS): For example, you could take one of the referenced scientific [sci-fi] resources, and show that you actually read and understood it next time you respond. OR
(DEMEAN Q or Q): 2) tell us precisely why it should not be criticized on the terms of rationality or science; why all this “science” stuff is an invalid way of understanding the world. This response should also attempt to show an understanding of what science is… and I suspect the problem might even lie that deep.
I suppose I could continue, but I’ll only bother to do so if you show a willingness to engage in a more productive form of discourse.
by Calilasseia » Mon May 18, 2009 10:23 pm
(DEMEAN Q or Q): So all that you have to offer here, Stevebee, is snide condescension and bluster?
(STRAWMAN):Congratulations on demonstrating to the critical thinkers here the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of creationism.
by stevebee92653 » Mon May 18, 2009 10:41 pm
My second paragraph was YOUR responses to my entry. It was hard for you to understand because it was your (pl) own writing, copied and pasted in order. So that’s why you think it was gibberish. It was your own stuff. And it WAS gibberish. You are right. If you couldn’t understand the first paragraph, then there is no use in communicating with you.
You guys can read, just like I can. You responded to my first entry by saying I must have not read the papers posted by Cali. Obviously I did, and many others besides those. I was once an indoctrinated believer, just like y’all are. I read many books and papers on the subject. And I WANTED evolution to be real, just like you.
If you read Cali’s papers, and you can’t see that they are descriptions of what is already here, aka anatomy lessons, with a hint of “this formed from that……”, which is useless fantasy information, then there is no use discussing anything with any of you. It’s very hard for me to believe you simply accept any pro-ev paper written as evidence. For sure, if this was any other topic, you would read his papers with a skeptical eye. But you cannot here, because your belief system overwhelms your ability to reason. And, you all do it unison, just like all indoctrinates would. Not one of you can look at what he wrote and see that it’s just empty rhetoric? Not ONE? Where is your sense of curiosity? Where is your skepticism? I know. You lost it in school to your teachers, who also lost theirs. And they were people that lost theirs………………
I have a blog. I have many YT videos on the reasons that I think Darwin wasn’t close. And that there is much more to the story. So feel free to come and attack me there. And I will check in here to see the comments on my past entries, and the ones that will surely follow this one. Ya know, how you defeated me. How I left in shame. How I wrote a couple of entries, and hightailed it out of here. That is expected fair for evolutionauts.
I don’t have time to manage a thread here at this time. And please don’t be absurd and accuse me of being scared of your “science”. I am not at all. Not one bit. If I were you I would be scared. Because your “science” isn’t, and it’s difficult to constantly be trying to defend a fantasy, which you have to do. And that’s what evolution is. Fantasy.
All of the my thoughts and research on the subject are on my blog at http://www.evillusion.net. (PS: it’s really ev-illusion, not evil…..so don’t waste any time on that.) Feel free to give it a read, and ridicule away. But maybe one or two of you just might have an open mind and have an idea where I am coming from. (Hint: it’s not creato/religion, so don’t waste your time on that. Or, what the hell, some of you will, so go ahead. It makes no difference.)
Bye for now. I will check in and enjoy reading any responses.
[ME: I say good bye. Getting the most incredible non-answers to my challenges, and having those celebrated as huge successes isn’t worth any more effort on my part.]
by Calilasseia » Mon May 18, 2009 10:47 pm
So in other words, you’re going to dismiss [si-fi] evidence accepted by the world’s scientific community simply because it doesn’t conform to your doctrine?
by Peter Harrison » Tue May 19, 2009 12:38 am
I do not only rely on peer-reviewed scientific papers. I observe evolution myself. I can assure you that the papers aren’t lying, and there isn’t a massive conspiracy of scientists all over the world with one secret agenda. I have directly observed evolution.
So, are you accusing me of lying? Am I part of the conspiracy? [ME: Is fantasy lying? That’s up to you.]
by Darkchilde » Tue May 19, 2009 2:12 am [a monitor]
Stevebee92653, you have an informal warning for trolling. You have not even answered any questions, and despite the answers, you still dismiss people’s answers, and their questions to you. Also, dismissing valid scientific papers in the way you did, is not welcome. If you dismiss something, we need reasons, based on logic, based on reason.
Please stop trolling, and start discussing. [ME: Gee, I quit, and I still get a warning!]
by Shrunk » Tue May 19, 2009 6:57 am
riddlemethis wrote:(DEMEAN Q or Q): Shrunk, I had a read over at his blog. Then I went to have a glass of wine b/c it is a much nicer way to loose brain-cells.
Actually, I think clubbing oneself over the head with a 2 x 4 would be more pleasant.
Spearthrower wrote:Why is our inability to copy something like organs posited as evidence of an intelligent creator? If we could make such things, surely that would be fractionally more supportive that intelligence could have created them.
What is it with these masters of woo and their illogical ramblings?
Exactly. I’ve never been able to follow this line of argument. “To our knowledge, no intelligent being has ever been able to create life. Therefore, life must have been created by an intelligent being.” I beg your pardon?
[ME: What really amazes me is the fact that Shrunk, who would rather club himself over the head than go to my blog, made over 80 comments there. 80 comments! He must love pain. Some of the others left huge and huge numbers of comments as well. So, what is the attractions? Do I challenge them more than they are willing to let on? Of course I do.]
May 19, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Why don’t you think we’ll ever find the answer(s), Steve?
May 20, 2009 at 3:33 am
Because it’s way over your head. And mine. Kind of like ants trying to figure out how the house they are in was built. And your simplistic science doesn’t come close. That’s why Lucid.
by stevebee92653 » Wed May 20, 2009 11:59 am
Hey, Cali, go into that composition you wrote regarding the evolution of teeth, and copy paste the parts of the papers cited that show how teeth evolved, and put them in a note to me. Please. I really had a problem finding it. So maybe it’s there. It wouldn’t take you much time. It’s just that I didn’t see anything that was more than empty words. What I read in those papers that supposedly showed the MO of tooth evo seemed to show that the writer had absolutely no idea. And they couldn’t have possibly had any idea as to the histology and embryology of tooth formation, or they ignored it. So they defer to “this evolved into that”. It seems that they think by merely saying it, it’s so. Anyway, that’s what I saw. As far as I have read here, and on other papers, there is no realistic notion of how teeth formed by an evolutionary scenario. So if you would just shift a few of the “how it happened’s” that I couldn’t find, I’d sure appreciate it. Maybe you could really help me to understand where you are coming from. Thanks!
by FraggedMind » Wed May 20, 2009 12:09 pm
With a quick search I found this: Development, Function and Evolution of Teeth By Mark F Teaford, Moya Meredith Smith Published by Cambridge University Press, 2007 ISBN 0521033721
Feel free to read it. Chapter 5 discusses the Evolution of Teeth.
[ME: Did you find it in the children’s stories section? Or sci-fi? I’m sure it really tells the true story of how the writer fantasizes teeth evolved. Thanx!]
by The Ecophysiologist » Wed May 20, 2009 12:22 pm
Actually just about the whole book is on the evolution of teeth, chapter 5 is just about the evolution of dentine.
PDF excerpt (on homeobox regulation of tooth formation) here: http://assets.cambridge.org/97805215/70 … xcerpt.pdf
This has also been the focus of a feature in Nature recently: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 … 09-11.html
…where RESEARCH is challenging old paradigms, [ME: How do you research something that doesn’t exist? Make up fables and get them peer reviewed by other fable makers. There is simply no way to research the evolution of teeth. Modern genes can be played with, but ancient genetic sources are gone gone gone.] and replacing them with a new developmental model of the evolution of vertebrate teeth:…(HAS NOTHING TO DO W/ QST.):Fate mapping of cells in the embryo reveals that oral teeth are derived from both ectoderm and endoderm: some even have a mixed ecto/endodermal origin. This implies a dominant role for neural crest mesenchyme over epithelia in tooth formation. The evolutionary implication is that the tooth-forming capacity of neural crest cells was the essential factor for teeth evolution, regardless of the ‘outside-in’ and ‘inside-out’ manoeuvres of the epithelium.
[ME: Ok, here comes the blue butterfly again. He must realize what a huge failure his first very long and disinginuous answers were. So he tries again!]
by Calilasseia » Wed May 20, 2009 12:51 pm
(DEMEAN Q or Q):Tell me, what part of inheritance don’t you understand? [ME: What a trite attempt to demean. Old canard time cali. He is losing it. He looks bad to the congregation, he can’t answer a single question I posed. Inheritance isn’t evolution cali.]
This is a concept so simple that even mythology accepts the validity of it. Though mythology would look even more stupid than it does if it tried to deny it. [ME: What question that I wrote is this trite response an answer to? None that I can see.]
(MOD ANAT): That’s what evolution is based upon. Inheritance. All it does is generalise the concept and expand it to apply to the whole biosphere in a unified fashion, based upon the hard evidence from relaity that you keep dismissing as “fantasy” simply because said evidence doesn’t genuflect before your presuppositions. [ME: I dismiss inheritance? Quote please? The blue butterfly can sure make things up.]
(DEMEAN Q or Q): You claim to be working in a science based discipline and yet you have problems reading scientific papers? [ME: Does this wind bag have any idea how many scienific papers I have read in dental school, and in studying evolution? Of course not. But the ad hom guns are blazing. And, of course, I know the difference between science papers and sci-fi papers. It’s not hard to tell if you are not indoctrinated. ]
This gets better and better.
stevebee92653 wrote:So maybe it’s there. It wouldn’t take you much time. It’s just that I didn’t see anything that was more than empty words.
(READ PPRS): So THIS part of the Koussoulakou et al paper you didn’t bother reading? Namely: How these inductive interactions were modified during evolution to generate the numerous anatomical features of teeth is a major interest in evolutionary biology. Interestingly, genes and signaling factors playing leading roles in teeth morphogenesis are also involved in the development of many other organs in various animals [10, 12]. [ME: Note: “is of major interest in evolutionary biology”. Translation: The writer has no idea how teeth evolved, and from this, the blue butterfly tries to push that he does, ergo, neither does the blue butterfly. They both live in a fantasy world. ]
(WRONG EVO-ANS): Note where it says genes and signalling factors, the latter themeselves being coded for by genes. And genes are inherited. Therefore, changes to those genes can be inherited. This is elementary level knowledge for the critical thinkers here. [ME: Just say genes and signaling factors and your have it. Simple! How stupid of me that I couldn’t see that. How could an intelligent person actually think that this is an answer to anything I asked? HOW?]
(READ PPRS): Plus, what part of the Harris et al paper did you not read?
(MOD ANAT): The paper in which scientists experimentally turned on tooth coding genes in birds that were previously inactive and as a consequence, produced bird mutants with teeth?
[ME: I’ve seen those “teeth”. They are tiny bumps “called” teeth by the evolutionauts with big imaginations who are going for grants. And, there is no doubt that all of nature is related in some way. All cells have DNA, with blueprints for the entire organism. The chicken bumps don’t prove evolution. They may show relatedness. But the noisy celebration by evolutionauts overwhelm skepticism. What question that I posed does this answer anyway? The blue butterfly is desperate.]
(WRONG EVO-ANS): Now why would any “intelligent” designer leave dead genes for teeth in bird lineages? This makes perfect sense from an evolutionary standpoint, namely that birds inherited those genes from their theropod ancestors but acquired mutations that switched off tooth generation and morphogenesis genes which persisted because birds didn’t need teeth. But from a “design” standpoint, it’s farcical, unless your “designer” was a klutz.
Note: the one on the right has “teeth”.
BIRD TEETH SHUT ON AND OFF
(READ PPRS): This isn’t fiction, Steve, this is a REAL experiment that scientists performed and documented in their paper. They also demonstrated in that paper, that when they turned on those tooth genes, the resulting teeth possessed the exact morphology one would expect if the genes in question had been inherited from a reptilian ancestor. This is hard fact, Steve, as documented in that paper. If you had read it, you would KNOW this. [ME: What question that I posed does this answer? The blue butterfly is really really desperate.]
(READ PPRS): Plus, referring back to the Koussoulakou paper, what part of THIS did you not read?
Koussoulakou et al, 2009 wrote:2.1 The ancestors of teeth were dermal appendages
(WRONG EVO-ANS):In a few organisms there is substantial evidence to suggest that teeth may have derived from both ectoderm and endoderm [20, 21]. In most cases, teeth evolved from scale-like epidermal structures, the odontodes, which “migrated” into the mouth after enough mutations. This process is visible in modern sharks, which have placoid scales on the skin that grade into the teeth on the jaws. In certain cases, however, dermal denticles did not transform into teeth and underwent independent evolution . Natural selection has favored toothed organisms, which have a major advantage in their ability to capture and process food. Teeth can be classified into three types, based on where they are formed: jaw, mouth and pharyngeal. The close relationship between past and present teeth can be demonstrated by a phylogenetic analysis. Using this type of analysis, amelogenin appears to have been duplicated from SPARC (SPARC, secreted protein, acidic, rich in cysteine), 630,000,000 years ago, i.e., long before the Cambrian explosion [23, 24].
In other words, the genes coding for amelogenin have been found to possess homologies with another gene coding for a dermal protein, which suggests that the amelogenin gene originated from that gene via a duplication event followed by subsequent mutation of the duplicate copy. The numbers in square brackets refer to the list of scientific papers containing the relevant research at the end of the paper, which were cited as prior art supporting the author’s conclusions.
[ME: What question that I posed does this answer? The blue butterfly is really really really desperate. The blue butterfly says I can’t read sci-fi papers. Can he read basic simple questions? ]
(MOD ANAT): Also, did you not read THIS part of the paper? The part in which it cites precisely which genes are involved as the master genes for odontogenesis? [ME:Odontogenesis is the embyonic-to-mature formation of the dentition . It has nothing to do with evolution, or the questions I posed. Cali has struck out so many times it’s hard to count.]
Koussoulakou et al, 2009 wrote:3.2. FGF8 and BMP4 are master molecules of odontogenesis
The complicated, sequential, reciprocal interactions between the dental epithelium and dental ectomesenchyme that are required for tooth formation are mediated by the spatiotemporal expression of tooth-related genes (approx. 300) and the secretion of growth and transcription factors (approx. 100) that are reiteratively used in regulatory loops . Epithelial cells secrete specific sets of growth factors [e.g., FGFs (FGF3, FGF4, FGF8, FGF10), BMPs (BMP2, BMP4)] and signaling molecules [SHH and WNTs (WNT3, WNT7, WNT10)] some of which regionalize the oral ectoderm (FGF8: molar=proximal=posterior domain, BMP4: incisor=distal=anterior=mesial domain) before the arrival of the cranial neural crest cells. The stimulus dividing the oral ectoderm into proximal and distal domains is of endoderm origin. The new qualities of ectodermal domains greatly influence the fate determination of the cnc cells that migrate and populate the first branchial arch. The distinction between proximal and distal domains is achieved by cells responding according to their proximity to the source of the signal. BMPs and FGFs are expressed in both the ectoderm and ectomesenchyme, whereas SHH and WNTs are expressed only in the ectoderm. Proteins that are secreted in one germ layer may diffuse to other layers, however. An important regulatory function of BMP4 is to inhibit FGF8 secretion. It has been suggested that BMP4 acts antagonistically with FGF8 to produce localized sites of ectomesenchyme that express PAX9 and specify where teeth will develop [31, 50]. Particularly BMPs have been suggested to play a role in the formation of periodic patterning by inhibiting spreading of FGF signaling. A lack of BMP4 signal results in the down regulation of MSX1 expression and distal extension of BARX1 into the incisor region . Insufficiency in BMP signaling (e.g., through loss of BMP receptors or overexpression of BMP inhibitors) results in various defects in different cusps and teeth, suggesting differential requirements for the level of BMP signaling . SHH is secreted early in the whole presumptive dental epithelium and specifies the sites of oral ectoderm proliferation, invagination into the ectomesenchyme and tooth initiation [52, 53]. The expected type of tooth (e.g., molar) can be changed to another type (e.g., incisor) by both up regulating the expression of incisor determinants (e.g., MSX1) and down regulating molar determinants (e.g., BARX1) [31, 51]. In general, the experimental modulation of various molecules can alter homeobox gene expression in competent tissues, resulting in altered teeth number, size and shape. For example, the addition of noggin (a neutralizer of BMPs) to early (ED 9-10) mouse mandibular arches results in the transformation of incisors to molars .
Regardless of its location and its type on the jaw (anterior: incisor, canine; posterior: premolar, molar) the development of each tooth passes through the same, four morphological stages: initiation, bud or blastema, cap and bell, corresponding to determination of tooth type/size/number, followed by morphogenesis, differentiation and mineralization, respectively (Fig. 4).
Oh look. It not only cites specific genes for specific proteins and regulation factors (the various fibroblast growth factors or FGFs, and bone morphogenic proteins or BMPs), but it ALSO CITES HOW MODIFICATION OF THE EXPRESSION OF THESE GENES CAN MODIFY TOOTH DEVELOPMENT. From the above:
In general, the experimental modulation of various molecules can alter homeobox gene expression in competent tissues, resulting in altered teeth number, size and shape. For example, the addition of noggin (a neutralizer of BMPs) to early (ED 9-10) mouse mandibular arches results in the transformation of incisors to molars .
Oh look at that. Scientists have been able to MANIPULATE tooth morphogenesis by manipulating these genes and their expression! They’ve been able to alter the growth pattern of incisors, changing the pattern experimentally and producing molars where normally incisors would be found!
This isn’t fantasy, Steve, it’s a hard experimental fact, and the paper that documents this, from the list at the end of the Koussoulakou et al paper is this one:
Transformation Of Tooth Type Induced By Inhibition Of BMP Signalling by Abigail S. Tucker, Karen. I. Matthews and Paul T. Sharpe, Science, 282: 1136-1138 (6th November 1998) (abstract to be found here):
Tucker, Matthews & Sharpe, 1998 wrote:Mammalian dentitions are highly patterned, with different types of teeth positioned in different regions of the jaws. BMP4 is an early oral epithelial protein signal that directs odontogenic gene expression in mesenchyme cells of the developing mandibular arch. BMP4 was shown to inhibit expression of the homeobox gene Barx-1 and to restrict expression to the proximal, presumptive molar mesenchyme of mouse embryos at embryonic day 10. The inhibition of BMP signaling early in mandible development by the action of exogenous Noggin protein resulted in ectopic Barx-1 expression in the distal, presumptive incisor mesenchyme and a transformation of tooth identity from incisor to molar.
In other words, inhibition of a signalling protein that itself is coded for by a specific gene results in transformation of tooth type. Now either you didn’t READ any of this from the original Koussoulakou paper, Steve, or you simply dismissed it summarily as “fantasy” because it didn’t fit your preconceptions. Which is the correct answer? [ME: This doesn’t even answer how teeth were invented from no teeth, and how they evolved. It shows that messing with genes can change results, like messing with blueprints can change houses. Again, which question that I posed does all of this answer? Not one. Sorry. The blue butterfly proves again and again that he can’t read questions. How the heck did he pass any tests. Funny to think about.]
stevebee92653 wrote:What I read in those papers that supposedly showed the MO of tooth evo seemed to show that the writer had absolutely no idea.
(HAS NOTHING TO DO W/ QST.):Poppycock. The author specifically stated that FGF8 and BMP4 were master control genes for tooth development, and that consequently, changes in these genes would result in changes in tooth development. “No idea” my fucking arse. When scientists list the specific genes that are responsible for the development of a particular feature, they know rather more than “no idea”. [ME: It’s so obvious with ALL of these “answers”. They don’t answer ANY of the queations posed by me. The blue butterfly lists the genes that we know are responsible for forming teeth today. Nothing is mentioned about how teeth formed from no teeth, aka were invented. Or how the genes forming the maxillary teeth knew what the mandibular teeth were forming, so they could follow suit, and match perfectly, and……never mind.]
(HAS NOTHING TO DO W/ QST.): And, since the development of teeth is now KNOWN to be controlled by a brace of well-defined genes, genes which incidentally have been sequenced in numerous whole genome sequencing projects, so that the differences between different organisms can be compared, once again, the idea that scientists have “no idea” is fatuous poppycock.
stevebee92653 wrote:And they couldn’t have possibly had any idea as to the histology and embryology of tooth formation, or they ignored it.
(READ PPRS): You really didn’t read those papers at all did you Steve? The section headings alonetell us that the author covers relevant processes IN DETAIL:
[ME: This is simply astounding. Cali lists the steps in the embryology of teeth, as it would happen in life today, which has NOTHING to do with the evolution of teeth from nothing millions of years ago. I really think he’s trying to fool the audience at RD.net into thinking he has the answers rather than answering me. Lots of pressure on the blue butterfly, and if he doesn’t come up with SOMETHING, he will look stupid, and lose his followers. So, he has a lot of pressure on him. Sorry, blue butterfly, but this doesn’t cut it. This is really sad. But don’t worry, your followers are all well indoctrinated, and they will fall for the trick. Every last one of them.]
(HAS NOTHING TO DO W/ QST.):3.1 Dental Epithelium Interacts With Cranial Neural Crest Cells To Form Teeth
3.2 FGF8 And BMP4 Are Master Molecules Of Odontogenesis
3.3 The Initiation Stage Of Tooth Development Is Characterised By The Formation Of The Dental Lamina
3.4 The Dental Epithelium Proliferates, Invaginates Into The Ectomesenchyme And Forms The Tooth Bud
3.5 The Tooth Bud Transforms Into A Cap By Differential Proliferation And Infolding Of The Epithelium
3.6 Bell Formation
3.7 Teeth Acquire Their Final Form And Shape Early In Development
3.8 Numerous Genes And Mutations Affect Teeth And Dentition Phenotypes
3.9 Teeth Pathology And Clinical Treatment
In each section, in depth discussion of the genes involved in each stage of the process can be found. (READ PPRS): Now once again, did you READ any of this, or did you just decide summarily to dismiss this entire paper without reading it because you considered it to be “evolutionist propaganda”?
stevebee92653 wrote:So they defer to “this evolved into that”. It seems that they think by merely saying it, it’s so.
(READ PPRS):(HAS NOTHING TO DO W/ QST.): So you didn’t read the detailed discussion of the interaction of the relevant named genes in that paper? Suddenly, Steve, this is starting to look like either mental indolence or rampant dishonesty on your part. [ME: Me dishonest? He fakes, and I’m dishonest?]
stevebee92653 wrote:As far as I have read here, and on other papers, there is no realistic notion of how teeth formed by an evolutionary scenario.
(READ PPRS): In other words, you haven’t read the paper. Or simply chose to dismiss its contents because they failed to genuflect before your preconceptions.
stevebee92653 wrote:So if you would just shift a few of the “how it happened’s” that I couldn’t find, I’d sure appreciate it.
(ADHOM): Oh, so you want us to do your homework for you again? Tell me, did you actually LEARN anything about tooth development and morphogenesis before becoming a dentist? Because that paper contains detailed descriptions thereof. If you were a proper dentist, you should be able to alight upon this with ease.
stevebee92653 wrote:Maybe you could really help me to understand where you are coming from. Thanks!
(HAS NOTHING TO DO W/ QST.): Oh, by the way, the Tucker et al paper on transforming mouse incisors into molars by inhibiting BMP4 expression can be found in full here. Anyone having difficulties obtaining a copy, I’ll arrange a mail drop by the usual route. It includes some nice photos.
(ADHOM): I’m coming from a position of accepting reality instead of unsupported assertions. I suggest you try it sometime.