Mary's Monday Metazoan: They're ouchless!

Vince goes off the deep end......

Could vince be simply parodying the idiotic statements of creationists? I note the lack of random capitalization and rogue punctuation as evidence.
Of course he has the dishonesty and denial of facts demonstrated by the creationist down pat, so it's a tough call.

Yup - vg is simply a troll.

As usual our buddy Vince gets it all wrong.

Less time with your nose in bronze age mythology and more time studying history and science would help.

Throwing sticks are well documented as being used to hunt birds and small mammals over ten thousand years. There are hundreds of versions of throwing sticks designed for slightly different characteristics. The particular variation that could be made to return was seldom used for hunting simply because the same dynamic instability that allows it to return makes accurate throwing more difficult and any impact in flight tends to cause it to not return.

Our buddy Vince, wrong on the history, wrong on the science, and wrong on religion. A trifecta of wrong.

When someone so consistently wrong tells me atheism is wrong I know that it is right and when you tell me Christianity is right I know it is wrong. Our sweet buddy Vince, a perfect reverse barometer.

Being consistently wrong your insults are clearly compliments and a sign of jealousy. Sweet, sweet Vince, a child secretly wanting to live up to the standard of his intellectual and moral superiors, but held back by a bronze age doorstop, and an unwillingness to do the hard work of education and self-examination needed to grow up. All he can manage is a single poorly researched post before resorting to insults that reek of his desire to emulate the intellectual freedom of this site.

That and his barely suppressed sexual desire. Your love letter to Dean is quite telling. Dean certainly has no control over who develops a crush on the image Vince creates in his own mind. You refer to him as a "queen" and focus on his eyes and mouth. You project your own drooling and call him "pretty".

Nothing wrong with a little bromance disguised as hostility. I would think you might explore your latencies in a more private forum but puppy love of idolized projections is so cute.

Vince: I specifically asked you to tell us how Life violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I also asked you to account for features such as vestigial pelvises in whales. You have not replied, instead posting screeds of religious hogwash.

If God made Man in his image, what about the Neanderthals? Were they made in His image as well?

Vince: Do cetaceans have vestigial pelvic girdles and femurs or not? Did Neanderthals exist? ANSWER THE QUESTION, VINCE!

You state, "Among scientists there is no debate on the reality of either" (Creation and its mechanisms). You are so right, for once....

Vince, Vince, Vince...maybe I wasn't clear last time. You can't just call someone a dunce— or a Neanderthal, or a twit, or an arsehat, what have you —and expect to get a laugh. Name-calling never netted a comedian a career. To get the laughs, you've got to impale them on their own arrows. For example, you've already suggested many times that proponents of evolutionary theory are lemmings or sheep or something of than nature. But simply calling them these things isn't funny. Now, read this:

"People are declaring that we descended from apes. Now, I know that's not true. The argument that we descended from sheep is still an open question. But the ape idea is completely out of line."

See? Funny! That line, by the way, comes from Rep. Steve Pearce, R-New Mexico, who also is a proponent of creationism. But notice his comedic approach: he proposes an alternate theory of evolution, but one that implicitly suggests that its proponents are brainless lemmings.

The key here is being implicit. Pearce's punchline comes from allowing his audience to mentally leap that gap and make that connection for themselves rather than explicitly spelling it out for them.

This is tricky to do when you're just starting out and I understand you're still finding your style. Just don't forget your audience. Best luck!

Vince: So all those cetacean pelvic bones were faked by Norwegian whalers? Why would they do that?

Vince: You claimed initially that cetaceans lacked pelvises and rear limbs, despite all the evidence to the contrary. You now admit that these bones exist, but state that they are functional. We are making progress! What are the functions of these structures in whales? If you take a look at the link on cetacean pelvises I provided you will see that the orca (killer whale) has lost its femurs completely, whereas other whales such as the Bowhead still have femurs and even tibias, albeit much reduced. Since orcas seem to manage perfectly well without femurs or tibias, these bones CANNOT be functional.

You still haven't admitted you messed up big time with your drivel about the Second Law of Thermodynamics, though you unintentionally provided my physicist friends with a good laugh.

Vince: Here's the link again: http://bergenmuseum.uib.no/fagsider/osteologi/hvaler/e_utstillingen_bek…

Vince: What are these vital functions, then? As David M of Berlin will attest, these bones are absolutely homologous with rear limbs and pelvises in land mammals. Explain why orcas manage without femurs, while bowhead whales have them.

Quelle drôle de discussion !

Art, my Pathetic-Moron meter went off the scale with the sheer amount of retardtivity in this latest lead-lined insanium post of yours. If utterly vacuous stupidity could be used as energy, I would sell you for a pittance and STILL be the richest man in the world. Andouille.

Too bad that comment 8 is right on boomerangs, then. Tant pis...

Nick K, all these bones have specific functions and are not vestigials.

Evidence?

Science doesn’t rule out God at all! Our knowledge of the eye’s working demands the conclusion that we are the creation of a wise and powerful God!

This is just ridiculous. :-) Your little sermon doesn't even try to explain why our eyes work the way they do; they don't even try to figure out how they got that way. No, they make a leap of faith: "Eyes are sensitive! Therefore Jesus!"

And you call yourself a scientist? Have you no shame at all?

For the millionth time, those bones aren’t rear limbs and pelves, Nick K, you incredible idiot, as they have vital functions instead of being vestigials as you claim they are.

Repeating it doesn't make it so, connard.

Merely because you don’t know what the bones are for

What are they for?

I’m not in the business of spoonfeeding people

You are in the business of spoonfeeding us with sermons. You've posted two in this short thread already.

Get into the business of answering questions, "scientist".

"This is just ridiculous. Your little sermon doesn’t eventry to explain why our eyes work the way they do; they don’t even try to figure out how they got that way. No, they make a leap of faith: Eyes are sensitive! Therefore Jesus!"

Many don't have a clue how their iPhones or Macs work (guilty), but gratefully acknowledge Steve Jobs and company for their creation.

Sent from my iPhone

Vince,

You STILL haven't explained what the functions of vestigial pelvic girdles and femurs are! We're all waiting. All you do is assert things without once offering evidence.

The evolution of land mammals into whales is now amply evidenced in the fossil record, with a wealth of transitional stages (Ambulocetus and Pakicetids) which show progressive shrinkage of the rear limbs and pelvic girdles.

You still haven't apologised for your ignorance of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

They fail even at apprehending that the only answer to the mystery of the eye is God

You haven't even tried to explain how assuming a creator explains anything here.

You haven't even tried to explain why you think there's a mystery here in the first place! It only takes one photon to flip retinal over from trans to cis, and that's enough to change the shape of a protein so that, in the end, an ion channel opens and a nerve signal is generated.

So why do you waste so much space on insults? You have work to do – work in explaining. :-)

science is, through the study of His material designs, capable of ESTABLISHING that God did it

Then go ahead and establish it. I'm waiting!

but the Spiritual mechanisms by which He wrought these fruits of creation remain impenetrable mysteries to man.

That's a pity, because the evolution of eyes is quite well understood today. Start at the wikipedia article on this topic.

(Ambulocetus and Pakicetids) which show progressive shrinkage of the rear limbs and pelvic girdles

Also Rodhocetus, basilosaurids, and others.

You still haven’t apologised for your ignorance of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Oh, that's not what he needs to apologise for. What he needs to apologise for is his belief that he understands it better than everyone else.

#30 David: Vince merely asserts things, never presenting any evidence at all, probably because there isn't any, and never has been.

Why did God make such terrible blunders, like putting the nerve endings in the vertebrate eye on the FRONT of the retina, causing a huge blind spot? Utterly illogical and unnecessary, especially as octopus and squid retinas have their nerves on the opposite side.

Vince: I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions. Second Law of Thermodynamics, whale pelvises, remember.....

Vince, what's wrong? Are David M and I getting under your skin?

Look, I'll try and make this simple: WHAT IS THE FUNCTION OF VESTIGIAL PELVIC GIRDLES AND FEMURS IN CETACEANS?

The human retina has a huge blind spot where the optic nerve begins. Ask any doctor or indeed any sentient adult.

Vince, old thing, you're a hoot!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_spot_(vision)

Vince, did you even look at the Wiki article on the blind spot? There's even an online demo of the thing. I dare you to try it and then get back to me. Still think human vision is perfect?

Octopus eyes have the nerves on the "right" side of the retina, unlike vertebrate eyes, and thus have no blind spot. Kindly explain how this is evidence of an omniscient designer.

Vince, did you try the blind spot demo on the Wiki article?

I'm so sorry I keep spouting off insults at you guys. I don't think I have this wikipedia program on my computer. I'm going to call the tech support team to see if they can help.

Vince: So you admit that you DO have a blind spot in your vision? Yes, it DOES impede your vision - that's why it's called a blind spot.

Vince, what is it then? There are no rod or cone cells at that point on your retina, so light falling on that spot produces no signal. You couldn't see the letters L or R on the Wiki demo when you tried it, could you?

You still haven't informed us of the function of pelvic girdles in whales, or your astonishing disproof of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

You're quite right on one thing however - I am indeed ignorant of Theology.

Vince; Please, take some elementary biology lessons. I'm sure PZ will help you.

Have you heard of the fovea? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fovea

Note that there are no rods or cones at the blind spot. Of course, Wikipedia could be wrong and you may be about to rewrite Human Biology.

Vince, Vince, keep your shirt on! Where did I say that the blind spot PREVENTS the eye from functioning? It merely renders a small patch of the retina non-functional.

Did you try the blind spot demo on the Wiki article? Could you see both the L and the R at the same time? Please try it for yourself.

Do you read all the words of a piece of text at one go, Vince?

Vince, me old buddy: do you now accept the existence of the blind spot?

There is nothing WRONG with the human eye. It does its job perfectly adequately. However, it cannot by any stretch of the imagination (even yours) be described as a precision optical instrument.

Vince, do you accept that there is an area on the human retina where the nerves pass through, and which is devoid of rod and cone cells? Yes or no?

Answer the question, Vince! You claim that the blind spot is a misnomer. You're wrong.

Funny thing... you know how I like to put "HAR HAR HAR HAR" in my nastygram posts? That's not even what I sound like when I really laugh. It's more of a "HEE HEE HEEEEE" sound. If it's really really funny, after the "HEE HEE HEEEE" I snort a little (can't help it) and then the laugh sounds like "HOO HOO HOOOOO". My mother used to call me her "little owl" after I'd laugh like that. Isn't that a "hoot"?

Vince, have you actually tried the Wiki online demo of the blind spot? You've been utterly wrong about every other topic (Second Law of Thermodynamics, amino acid and protein synthesis, DNA, cetacean vestigial bones) but this time you can even prove it to yourself. Try it, I dare you!

Vince, me old china,

Show me where you answered my question about the blind spot. Here is is again: do you accept that there is an area on the human retina where there are no rod or cone cells because the optic nerve passes through to the back of the retina?

I answered your question, but you can't see it because of your blind spot!

Vince, here's that question once again. Just answer it with a yes or no: do you accept there is an area on the human retina where there are no rod or cone cells because the optic nerve passes through to the back of the retina?

Answer the question, Vince....