A question for evolutionist

[Foster Zygote]

[Gilda Radner]Take good care of your uvula![/Gilda radner]

 

[articulett]

What, everything he's said about Behe between your two posts (68 and 77)?

Because if that's what you mean, then so do I.

Me too.

They always make such claims and never bring anything to the table for us to examine.

 

[Paulhoff]

Paul

 

[mijopaalmc]

I'd like to point out that there are many modern languages that contain uvular consonants, so the removal of one's uvula would preclude one from speaking that language and make it impossible for one to survive in a culture that relied on uvular consonants such as Tlingit. This is assuming of course that the next closest approximation of the uvular consonant wasn't allophonic to it.

This of course says nothing about the phonemic content of the earliest proto-languages and whether uvular consonants coevolved with the advent of language, but it certainly does not mean that the uvula is completely useless in modern. However, this last vestige of usefulness maybe quick disappearing as the languages with uvular consonant are displaced by those without.

 

[Paulhoff]

I'd like to point out that there are many modern languages that contain uvular consonants, so the removal of one's uvula would preclude one from speaking that language and make it impossible for one to survive in a culture that relied on uvular consonants such as Tlingit.

Then they should get a gun, everyone understands you when you wave a gun around.

Paul

 

[Beleth]

What I find most funny about this thread is that the thought that the uvula, which is attached to the roof of your mouth, would aid in preventing food from going down your throat, is really quite absurd and laughable when given even the smallest modicum of thought.

 

[Complexity]

What I find most funny about this thread is that the thought that the uvula, which is attached to the roof of your mouth, would aid in preventing food from going down your throat, is really quite absurd and laughable when given even the smallest modicum of thought.

You obviously spend little time up-side down.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Has anyone mentioned the epiglottis yet?

In general, only mammals (animals like humans, dogs, cats, mice and cows) have an epiglottis. Some reptiles have an extra flap of skin that does pretty much the same thing as the epiglottis, but it does not have cartilage in it. This is an example of what scientists call an analogous structure (same job, but made in a different way) instead of a homologous structure (made in the same way – although sometimes it has a different job). Looking for analogous and homologous structures is one of the most important ways scientists workout evolutionary relationships.

"Evolution" lowered the human larynx which increased the size of the pharynx and improved the strength and variety of sounds humans make. This larynx position forces humans to take breaths at drinking fountains. It also increases our chances of choking while eating. In exchange for these disadvantages we can talk to each other and listen to the rich voice of Barry White. And while the tones of White's freakishly low larynx and the bass heavy cranial resonance it affords lulls infants to sleep, a baby eventually wakes up wanting not music or conversation, but milk. Lots and lots of warm milk. And since evolution knew a lower larynx would be an unacceptable choking risk for breast feeding infants, It made sure the larynx began high and descended as the baby matured.

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=LARYNX

 

[Eos of the Eons]

My hubby has two uvulas (or maybe it is a split uvula in an upside down Y shape), and never chokes on anything. It doesn't hang down that far.

 

[Jeff Corey]

What I find funny about this thread is that someone claims that they were an atheist and rapidly turned into a bleever. Not in my experience. I smell a rattus somewhat similar to the one on the "R Lancaster slandered Sylvia Browne" by the slippery SylviaRox.

 

[mijopaalmc]

What I find funny about this thread is that someone claims that they were an atheist and rapidly turned into a bleever. Not in my experience. I smell a rattus somewhat similar to the one on the "R Lancaster slandered Sylvia Browne" by the slippery SylviaRox.

[tangent] Would you believe someone who experinced either nearly instantaneous "conversion" to or reversion back to atheism after being a devout theist as much as the person in the situation you just meantioned?[/tangent]

 

[RandFan]

Ah, the good ol' irreducible complexity argument.

Here is a pretty good refutation of this concept in general.
Here is an abstract that cites the uvula as evidence of evolution.
And that was only 5 minutes of research on the internet. I'm sure someone can do better.

However, if you are willfully ignorant about the theory of evolution (which I am not saying you are, I haven't read many of your posts though I suspect this is the case) and you want to pile up a few strawmen for a nice bonfire, there's nothing I can give you.

Game, set, match.

Love your avatar BTW, noble.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

What I find funny about this thread is that someone claims that they were an atheist and rapidly turned into a bleever. Not in my experience. I smell a rattus somewhat similar to the one on the "R Lancaster slandered Sylvia Browne" by the slippery SylviaRox.

You mean Dustin? Yeah, Behe is a b00b, but here we have a fan all of a sudden.

they have emerged from the steady progress of scientific work on the genes and proteins associated with the flagellum and other cellular structures. Such studies have now established that the entire premise by which this molecular machine has been advanced as an argument against evolution is wrong – the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex. As we will see, the flagellum – the supreme example of the power of this new "science of design" – has failed its most basic scientific test. Remember the claim that "any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional?" As the evidence has shown, nature is filled with examples of "precursors" to the flagellum that are indeed "missing a part," and yet are fully-functional. Functional enough, in some cases, to pose a serious threat to human life.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

And what is the story on the Sylviarox thing exactly? I've been out of the loop too long. I found that thread, and don't have time to read it all to figure it out.

 

[D'rok]

[tangent] Would you believe someone who experinced either nearly instantaneous "conversion" to or reversion back to atheism after being a devout theist as much as the person in the situation you just meantioned?[/tangent]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you sound like you're about to defend the legitimacy of Dustin's conversion "experience". You should keep in mind that this is a person who claims to have been converted overnight to disbelief in evolution by reading half of Behe's book.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2692024#post2692024

Something smells fishy here.

 

[Jeff Corey]

[tangent] Would you believe someone who experinced either nearly instantaneous "conversion" to or reversion back to atheism after being a devout theist as much as the person in the situation you just meantioned?[/tangent]

No. In my experience, it has never worked that way. I know one guy who is 84, started going back to church. I asked him if he had started playing Pascal's wager. He said, "It couldn't hurt."
I think this guy is playing us.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

What I find funny about this thread is that someone claims that they were an atheist and rapidly turned into a bleever. Not in my experience. I smell a rattus somewhat similar to the one on the "R Lancaster slandered Sylvia Browne" by the slippery SylviaRox.

Not that I have a particularly highly developed Skeptisense (Yahweh suckered me for months), but I've smelled a troll from Dustin for quite a while now. I realize there is some value in responding to some of his posts for the lurkers, but at some point don't we just call BS for what it is and not bother?

Hell, we've actually had some trolls leave due to boredom rather than banning... though I'm having a hard time remembering who or when. It would be a nice change of pace though.

 

[Jeff Corey]

You mean Dustin? Yeah, Behe is a b00b, but here we have a fan all of a sudden.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

And what is the story on the Sylviarox thing exactly? I've been out of the loop too long. I found that thread, and don't have time to read it all to figure it out.

Short story. Attacks Lancaster for slandering Browne, gets feedback, says he was wrong, tells people he was hoaxing from the git go.
This doofus is pulling the same merde with a twistaroo.

 

[athon]

I don't know that I'd call Dustin out as a troll. Personal opinion: he's a social misfit who likes to feel intellectual, but doesn't have the experience to do more than loosely tie together some snippets of things he'd read. He'll get a basic feel for something then claim to have expertise in it, and go to great lengths to feign significance. If he can be disliked, all the better, as often important people are disliked (and thus the connection is made).

I liken him to a kid who read his daddy's dictionary and now uses big words, thinking he's now smart but not quite realising that everybody is sniggering behind their hands. Therefore it's the appearance of intelligence he's seeking; actually being intelligent, or even thought of as intelligent, is not something he cares for one way or another. I don't understand how somebody can go to such lengths to perpetuate an illusion that only they can see.

While his claims are often silly and absurd, and have all the depth of a puddle, I feel it's important to continue to demonstrate that an argument requires support from good evidence. Not so much in refutation of his statement, but rather just to make it known that if you stand by silly beliefs, you will be hassled to back it up.

Athon

 

[my_wan]

Short story. Attacks Lancaster for slandering Browne, gets feedback, says he was wrong, tells people he was hoaxing from the git go.
This doofus is pulling the same merde with a twistaroo.

Actually I'm going to bet that Dustin is for real. It's born of a particular deficit in logic. Namely he lacks the capacity to make distinctions between the implied content of a message and the facts contained in that message. That's been a constant since he joined this board. I don't suspect he'll stay a Christian too terribly long but he will struggle with it his whole life. Engross him completely enough in a line of reasoning and he's putty.

I would add to the uvula but it has all been said unless jf has more questions.

 

[Jeff Corey]

So he is a doofus and we should try to educate him?