ProfessorTertius wrote:I'm impressed by the speed, skill, and thoroughness of the rebuttals of Dr. Janis' posts from Frank & Co. since she posted on May 30.
And Cowardly Cowboy Bob's mastery of science in a wide variety of fields is being displayed on his Facebook pages and blogs on a daily basis. (I don't think scientists have yet catalogued the ever growing number of C.C. Bob websites. In the quality versus quantity category, I think it is safe to say that C.C. Bob has clearly made his choice of prefered strategies.)
No doubt in both the case of Frank and C.C. Bob, their well-known modesty has led them to hold back and ration their impressive displays of scientific knowledge and insightful thinking in order to avoid alienating the average reader who is gasping just to keep up with them.
This kind of "modesty" among science-denialists, especially the Young Earth Creationists like C.C. Bob, has been necessary because of the steady stream of professional and academic honors bestowed upon "creation science" advocates over the past half century. And even the relatively new Intelligent Design movement has the countless scientific discoveries of the aptly named "Discovery Institute" to reflect upon with pride. It is easy to see why they and their supporters have had to restrain their gloating whenever the achievements of their "scientists" are lauded in the press.
Yes, when the CVs and streams of scientific papers are so impressive, it is easy to see why they must make extra effort to appear humble. And how often has C. C. Bob demanded that readers become aware of the academic credentials of his opponents rather than his own? (One never sees any mention of Bob's academic and publishing accomplishments. Truly, if everyone followed Bob's example as a scientific pioneer and educator, the scientific world would be a very different place!) And who has not read C. C. Bob's websites while considering how well they model the meaning of truly Christ-like behavior and overwhelming love for even his enemies? I can honestly say that I've never read C. C. Bob's descriptions of me without feeling truly blessed and thankful. It often brings to mind the old saying, "There, but by the grace of God, go I." Yes, reading his carefully chosen words always leaves me feeling just a little better about my life's work. Thank you, C. C. Bob.
I also thank Frank for giving readers such clearly defined choices. I think it is safe to say that---thanks to Frank---the choices couldn't be any more clear.
"This clearly has nothing to do with science despite the unenforced rules of the forum."
This clearly has nothing to do with science despite the unenforced rules of the forum.
So why don't you post some science, Mr. Gordons? Tell you what: contacting my department chair, as you did recently in an email in an attempt to make trouble for me, would be appropriate here, as he might be able to teach you some science. Well, he might try, at any rate.
Attacking people instead of ideas is contrary to science but are common on this forum.
I quoted some of what was not related to science and did not belong in this thread. You made additional statements that are not science. Attacking people instead of ideas is contrary to science but are common on this forum.
Christine Janis wrote:Frank wrote:Whenever I describe the details of the functioning of the CV system, it shows how irrational evolution is and you cannot answer."
I guess my response to you here "whenever I describe how the CV system could have evolved, you switch the topic to the renal system, or the mammalian diaphragm" or something else because you have no response to science.
Christine Janis wrote:If only your buddy Bob was correct, and I were indeed a "pretend professor". Then I'd have oodles of time to pen a detailed response to you statements, which basically consist of describing the human CV system as if it was unique among organisms (which, of course, it is not). I will respond...
Christine Janis wrote:Frank wrote:1 If evolution were true, we’d expect that organisms would share some similar anatomical structures. (if p then q)
2 Organisms do share some similarity in their anatomical structures. (q)
3 Therefore, evolution is true. (therefore p)
No, Frank, that is not my argument, it's your parody of it.
Christine Janis wrote:Meanwhile, here is one example of the debates that I have had with you.
Frank. Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible because it would be impossible to have an animal that had a double circulatory system with a lung without a divided heart.
Me: Here is are examples of animals living today that have exactly that system. Basal ray-finned fish such as Polypterus (reed fish), Amia (bowfin), Lepisosteus (garpike), and many basal teleosts.
Frank: That's irrelevant because you can't explain how the lung evolved.
Christine Janis wrote:Frank wrote:It was pointed out that autonomic innervation involves receptors, neural processing, a preganglionic neuron, a ganglion, a postganglionic neuron, and signal transmission at chemical synapses via neurotransmitter molecules. Janis has failed to provide an evolutionary explanation for autonomic innervation of the CV system
It was pointed out to you that hagfish lack any kind of autonomic innervation of the heart, and that fish (over half the vertebrate species alive today) lack sympathetic innervation of the heart. Yet you persist in claiming that a heart cannot function without the type of innervation seen in humans. You are wrong.
Christine Janis wrote:Frank wrote:3. Fails to provide an evolutionary explanation for heart chambers, heart valves, endocardium, myocardium, epicardium, pericardium or cardiac conduction.
4. Fails to explain how the single circulation CV system supposedly evolved into the dual circulation CV system.
What I've done here is to provide anatomical descriptions of living vertebrates that possess the anatomical systems that you deem impossible.
Christine Janis wrote:I could indeed provide an evolutionary explanation for these structures. What would be the point, as you would then claim that I'm just '`waving my evolutionary wand"? Hence, I have been sticking to the anatomy, something that you, strangely, accuse me of avoiding.
Christine Janis wrote:But, in any case, it's clear to me that you lack the knowledge in comparative anatomy to understand any evolutionary description here that I could give.
Christine Janis wrote:...You're simply not equipped for a debate about this topic, as all you know about (or, at least, can copy and paste about) is the human condition.
Christine Janis wrote:Before making any other reply to Frank’s revised set of posts claiming victory before I even replied to him (see at least an initial one below), I need to right a claim that he makes repeatedly about something that I said, which he uses as his main evidence that I don’t understand the CV system.
In his first post (p. 1) he lists:1. Doesn’t even understand how the CV system functions. Claims that the heart evolved in this sequence: myocardium, valves, cardiac conduction. The heart won’t function without cardiac conduction, so the vertebrate would be dead.
This response from me was the result of his demanding that I tell him what order features of the heart evolved in (p.2)What was the order in which the following parts of the vertebrate cardiovascular system supposedly evolved in: myocardium, coronary arteries and veins, heart valves, cardiac conduction, erythrocytes, plasma proteins and a closed system of blood vessels?
To which I replied (also on p. 2).I believe it's clear from my writings here. Myocardium, valves, cardiac conduction and (likely, I'd need to look this up) plasma proteins are present in amphioxus, a non-vertebrate chordate. Erythrocytes are added in all vertebrates, and a completely closed system in all vertebrates above the level of the hagfish. Coronary vessels are acquired independently in teleost fish, mammals, and archosaurs.
Frank then later, claims several times (but I’m noting one in particular on p. 5) that I reveal that I know nothing about the CV system because I claim that myocardium and heart valves evolved before a cardiac conduction system.This is what you wrote previously about the sequence in the supposed evolution of the heart: “I believe it's clear from my writings here. Myocardium, valves, cardiac conduction...”, so you did state that you believed that heart valves evolved before cardiac conduction, which is complete nonsense.
Now, I don’t know whether this is Frank practicing the age-old creationist gambit of quote mining (as it is clear from my original writing, from the words after the ones he cites, that there is no order implied within those three words, and that the only contained order is in their order in the sentence), or whether he is simply incapable of understanding anything that I write. Neither option reflects well on him.
Christine Janis wrote:But the real problem here is that Frank simply doesn’t understand how science works, or what science can tell us, as also revealed by his frequent reference to “origins” science and “operations” [sic] science...<snip>
Christine Janis wrote:...And, in actuality, evidence from the CV system could indeed pose a problem for evolution: if, for example, the hearts of mammals were completely different from, and non-homologous with (at the anatomical, developmental, and genetic levels) those of other vertebrates, then this could constitute falsification of evolution. <snip>
Christine Janis wrote:Frank wrote:Phylogenetics only shows nested hierarchies of biological characteristics. It depicts a simplistic view of the internal structure of living organisms and it fails to demonstrate evolution. An ancestor-descendant relationship could be imagined between a two-wheeled motorbike, a three-wheeled motorbike and a four-wheeled automobile, but it fails to demonstrate how one machine supposedly transformed itself into another.
Of course, a phylogeny doesn’t depict anything about any nature of an organism, any more than the periodic table shows the nature of chemical reactions. <snip>
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest