Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vanderzyden · 11-01-2002, 05:18 PM

Rick,

Instead of being so anxious to continue to insult me, you should take a moment to read the material I provide you, or search the web yourself.

Quote:

Originally posted by rbochnermd:

J: It seems as though you are merely repeating the Darwinist mantras. It is my understanding that the liver does not process fetal blood.

R: You must be aware that the liver extracts oxygen from the blood just as every organ does, and that amount is not insignificant; what do you hope to accomplish by mistating the obvious?

J: ...that is accomplished by the placenta. The oxygen depletion is relatively small since only enough is necessary to sustain the organ itself.

R: More ignorant gibberish.

The liver is the primary site of blood formation in the fetus beginning at six weeks gestation and is disproportionly enlarged and constitutes 10% of the fetal weight because of this. By the fourth month, it is producing bile.

I was careful to indicate fetal blood. Here ya' go:

Quote:

What is the ductus venosus and what is its function?

Minimum complete answer:
Conduit between the umbilical vein and the inferior vena cava that shunts oxygenated blood past the liver.

Elaborate answer:
The ductus venosus is a fetal anatomic adaptation that allows roughly half the oxygenated blood coming from the umbilical vein to bypass the liver microcirculation and continue straight to the heart via the IVC. The ductus venosus degenerates after birth.

Again, from here: <a href="http://mcb.berkeley.edu/courses/mcb135e/mt1sample.html" target="_blank">http://mcb.berkeley.edu/courses/mcb135e/mt1sample.html</a>

Quote:

Originally posted by rbochnermd:

Then why are you losing this argument so badly? Why are you posting such utter nonsense? No one here is going to become a creationist just because you are persistent in making a fool of yourself.

Yes, it is clear that this is your aim from the beginning. You have no interest in the truth, but you do want to "win this battle". Just a simple question: Does this characterize your personal and professional relationships, as well?

Quote:

Originally posted by rbochnermd:

...you get shown you are wrong, athen spew something else for a couple of posts before going back to your original false assertions. Nothing that you say can be taken seriously, nor have you raised one single relevant point.

I would have expected more precision in terminology from a man who claims to know fluid dynamics. To understand fluid dynamics, you need to know the difference between volume and flow;

You have shown nothing to support your "design critique". It would, however, seem that you are "spewing" plenty of vitriol.

There is nothing in error in what I have said concerning fluid and pressure management. You and Rick did not have enough command of the salient topics to recognize that I had the flow pattern wrong in your hypothetical design improvment. If you were keen on that, or were more clear in what you stated in the first place, we would have got along much better, I should think.

Also, I wonder why should I employ difficult terminology when I can be equally clear with simpler language. I think it was Einstein who said, if you really understand something you can teach it to a child. Unlike you, I am not trying to impress people with fancy terminology and credentials.

As I reach the end of your tersely-barbed posting, I find, yet again, that you substitute insults and rants for substantial rationale or argumentation. I don't think there is anything more to say to you, nor to MrDarwin.

John

Dr Rick · 11-01-2002, 05:27 PM

[edited because it's just not worth it]

[ November 01, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]

Nat · 11-01-2002, 06:17 PM

Don't worry about it Rick - it took me a while to learn that too.

Cheers

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ · 11-01-2002, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:
Rick,

Instead of being so anxious to continue to insult me, you should take a moment to read the material I provide you, or search the web yourself.

Whose anxious to insult who?

Quote:

You have shown nothing to support your "design critique". It would, however, seem that you are "spewing" plenty of vitriol.

Quote:

You and Rick did not have enough command of the salient topics to recognize that I had the flow pattern wrong in your hypothetical design improvment.

Quote:

Unlike you, I am not trying to impress people with fancy terminology and credentials.

Quote:

As I reach the end of your tersely-barbed posting, I find, yet again, that you substitute insults and rants for substantial rationale or argumentation.

Hey, that's, what? 80% of your own material, not cut and paste? Looks like the Vander Ration is 80%.

scigirl · 11-02-2002, 08:34 AM

Vanderzyden,

forget about the cause of the aortic arches for a minute and just look at the big picture.

Animals more primitive than us had two arches in this particular area - one going to the right, and one going to the left. Animals like us have one going to the left, but occasionally one occurs which goes to the right.

Once again you are hung up on semantics. Go back and look at that aortic arch picture I showed you earlier.

Now - why would the genes for an intelligently designed human, which according to you puts the circulatory system in the exact spots it needs to be, occasionally give us an arch which goes to the right? I ask once again, how does the ID theory reconcile this phenomenon (and all the other phenomenon that look like evolutionary leftovers, like aortic arches in the fetus, human tails, etc etc etc)??

The evolutionary explanation is not nebulous - it is obvious. We evolved from animals that had aortic arches on both sides, therefore we do retain those 'instructions' in our evolved genes.

scigirl

Coragyps · 11-02-2002, 09:26 AM

Quote:

natural selection = accidental choice

This late in the game, too.
DO NOT FEED THE FRIGGING TROLL ANY MORE!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

I don't think there is anything more to say to you, nor to MrDarwin.

John, is there anything at all that the rest of this community can do to induce you to extend this same courtesy to us?

[ November 02, 2002: Message edited by: Coragyps ]

mfaber · 11-02-2002, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by scigirl:
Vanderzyden,
[....]Once again you are hung up on semantics. Go back and look at that aortic arch picture I showed you earlier.

Now - why would the genes for an intelligently designed human, which according to you puts the circulatory system in the exact spots it needs to be, occasionally give us an arch which goes to the right? I ask once again, how does the ID theory reconcile this phenomenon (and all the other phenomenon that look like evolutionary leftovers, like aortic arches in the fetus, human tails, etc etc etc)??

Notice what Vander did.......

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:
Scigirl,

As is typical with such Darwinist literature, the development of the argument has little or no precision, and is generally vague and nebulous.

"At some point during vertebrate evolution..."

"mammals that mutated to the left-sided aortic arch ..." (entire mammal mutation? what is doing the "mutating"? I thought that genes "mutated". Hmmm...)

"Due to natural selection..." (natural selection = accidental choice; how is this possible?)

"In congenital cardiac malformations where a large arterial duct is not mandatory in fetal life..." (and those "malformations" would be which ones, precisely? Remember, we must distinguish between flaws and defects.)

What, in particular, merits a response in this excerpt?

He quote-mined your article in such a way as trivialize the evidence WITHOUT actually considering evidence that gainsays his creationist/IDist dogma. This is a favorite evasion trick of his. However, I don't think it is a waste of YOUR time, because every time Vander engages in this sort of dishonesty, it is glaring and obvious. This is valuable for any lurkers who read this most-informative thread. Most of them, if they have 2 brain-cells to rub together and the most miniscule vestige of critical thinking will see how poverty-stricken Vander's position is.

I also want to give my encouragement and appreciation to Dr. Rick, in spite of his frustration, as evidenced here:

Quote:

Originally posted by rbochnermd:
[edited because it's just not worth it]

[ November 01, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]

But it is worth to the rest of us who don't know anything about fetal circulation and to the lurkers who just read this thread, that you have bothered .... THANK YOU!!!

And thank you to ALL of you that have had the patience to put up with Vander's tactics, and "evidence" which are the best arguments for evolution that there are!

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

[ November 02, 2002: Message edited by: mfaber ]

Albion · 11-02-2002, 07:11 PM

That quote-mining reminds me of this extract from that excellent article on the TalkDesigns forum:

"It is useless to try to explain science to someone who isn't interested in what the facts have to say. And it's useless to try to learn anything from such people. If they are clever, as Johnson is, they can find a way to claim that almost any fact supports their position. If evolutionists agree on something, it's a dogmatic orthodoxy; if they disagree, they're squabbling about every detail of evolutionary theory. If a piece of evidence seems to count against evolution, evolution has been disproven; if it seems to count for evolution, that merely shows that evolution is unfalsifiable. If scientists state that they are personally atheistic, they are clearly exposing the rotten metaphysical heart of evolution; if they state that they are religious, they are clearly trying to cover the rotten heart up. If we learn anything new, it's evidence that our current theory is completely false; if what we learn is exactly what we expected, it's only because we were precommitted to finding it in the first place. If we point out where creationists are wrong, we are persecuting the underdog; if we ignore them, we are refusing to face the fact that they're right. If a piece of evidence supports one part of evolutionary theory, it doesn't support that other part. If we find a strong piece of evidence for evolution, there ought to be more just like it. If an evolutionist speaks out in favor of Darwinism, it's because they were strong-armed into it; if they say anything which can be taken out of context to suggest any skepticism about evolution, it's resounding proof that nobody in science believes the theory."

<a href="http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/johnson.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/johnson.html</a>

If the author had made very precise claims about timing or procedure, Vanderzyden would be berating him for overstating his case; if he makes general statements, Vanderzyden berates him for being vague. If there's a spelling mistake in an article, it shows that all the results must be wrong. You lose or you lose or you lose. Nothing you ever say will make the slightest bit of difference, because this isn't about science. Vanderzyden can make the usual claim that IDists make about loving science but being opposed to naturalism (and then equate science with naturalism - go figure).

ID creationism is just old-Earth creationism dressed up to look sophisticated, and Vanderzyden is just another creationist who doesn't give a damn about science. That's been obvious for a long time.

monkenstick · 11-02-2002, 10:45 PM

Quote:

I also want to give my encouragement and appreciation to Dr. Rick, in spite of his frustration, as evidenced here:

quote:

Originally posted by rbochnermd:
[edited because it's just not worth it]

[ November 01, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]

But it is worth to the rest of us who don't know anything about fetal circulation and to the lurkers who just read this thread, that you have bothered .... THANK YOU!!!

oh its most definitely worth it
take a look at the topics for a 1000 word essay I have to write for a third year developmental biology subject;

"The biggest problem still outstanding for the therapeutic use of stem cells is understanding how to get naive cells to differentiate in a culture dish". Discuss.
OR
A magic spell issues forth, and you suddenly find yourself quasi-omnipotent. Re-design an organ in the human body along rational, as opposed to evolutionary, principles. Explain how you would improve on Nature.
OR
"Tissue engineering will never be useful until the chemistry of artificial scaffolds improves." Discuss.

I think i'll do.......the second one.

I'll have to concentrate on the developmental process a bit more than this thread does, which will be horrible, but by taking advantage of the combined expertise on display in this thread I'm sure I can come up with a pretty good assigment

RufusAtticus · 11-02-2002, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:
As is typical with such Darwinist literature, the development of the argument has little or no precision, and is generally vague and nebulous.

How much "Darwinist" literature have you read Vander? From your level of knowledge on this thread and others, it appears to me that you have read very little biology. Your above statement has as much substance as a Whitehouse Qu'ran study.

Quote:

"At some point during vertebrate evolution..."

What exactly is the problem of saying "some point" when they don't know wheather it happened 60 million or 80 million years ago? Did it ever occur to you that the paper wasn't about the timing of the event?

Quote:

(entire mammal mutation? what is doing the "mutating"? I thought that genes "mutated". Hmmm...)

When you actually learn genetics maybe you won't make such silly mistakes. Mutant genes cause mutant mammals.

Quote:

(natural selection = accidental choice; how is this possible?)

When you actually learn evolutionary biology maybe you won't many such silly mistakes. Natural selection is the non-random process that filters the variation produced by random mutation.

Quote:

(and those "malformations" would be which ones, precisely? )

Did your reading ability suddenly fail in the middle of that sentance, considering that the authors have already answered your question: "as in Fallot's tetralogy or common arterial trunk, a right-sided aortic arch continues to occur, perhaps as an atavistic reversion to the anatomy seen in ancestral vertebrates."

Do a <a href="http://www.google.com" target="_blank">google</a> search if you have anymore questions about these disorders.

11-01-2002, 05:27 PM	#212
Dr Rick Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: USA Posts: 5,393	[edited because it's just not worth it] [ November 01, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-01-2002, 06:17 PM	#213
Nat Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: USA Posts: 100	Don't worry about it Rick - it took me a while to learn that too. Cheers

11-02-2002, 08:34 AM	#215
scigirl Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Seattle Posts: 4,261	Vanderzyden, forget about the cause of the aortic arches for a minute and just look at the big picture. Animals more primitive than us had two arches in this particular area - one going to the right, and one going to the left. Animals like us have one going to the left, but occasionally one occurs which goes to the right. Once again you are hung up on semantics. Go back and look at that aortic arch picture I showed you earlier. Now - why would the genes for an intelligently designed human, which according to you puts the circulatory system in the exact spots it needs to be, occasionally give us an arch which goes to the right? I ask once again, how does the ID theory reconcile this phenomenon (and all the other phenomenon that look like evolutionary leftovers, like aortic arches in the fetus, human tails, etc etc etc)?? The evolutionary explanation is not nebulous - it is obvious. We evolved from animals that had aortic arches on both sides, therefore we do retain those 'instructions' in our evolved genes. scigirl

11-02-2002, 07:11 PM	#218
Albion Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com Posts: 2,829	That quote-mining reminds me of this extract from that excellent article on the TalkDesigns forum: "It is useless to try to explain science to someone who isn't interested in what the facts have to say. And it's useless to try to learn anything from such people. If they are clever, as Johnson is, they can find a way to claim that almost any fact supports their position. If evolutionists agree on something, it's a dogmatic orthodoxy; if they disagree, they're squabbling about every detail of evolutionary theory. If a piece of evidence seems to count against evolution, evolution has been disproven; if it seems to count for evolution, that merely shows that evolution is unfalsifiable. If scientists state that they are personally atheistic, they are clearly exposing the rotten metaphysical heart of evolution; if they state that they are religious, they are clearly trying to cover the rotten heart up. If we learn anything new, it's evidence that our current theory is completely false; if what we learn is exactly what we expected, it's only because we were precommitted to finding it in the first place. If we point out where creationists are wrong, we are persecuting the underdog; if we ignore them, we are refusing to face the fact that they're right. If a piece of evidence supports one part of evolutionary theory, it doesn't support that other part. If we find a strong piece of evidence for evolution, there ought to be more just like it. If an evolutionist speaks out in favor of Darwinism, it's because they were strong-armed into it; if they say anything which can be taken out of context to suggest any skepticism about evolution, it's resounding proof that nobody in science believes the theory." <a href="http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/johnson.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/johnson.html</a> If the author had made very precise claims about timing or procedure, Vanderzyden would be berating him for overstating his case; if he makes general statements, Vanderzyden berates him for being vague. If there's a spelling mistake in an article, it shows that all the results must be wrong. You lose or you lose or you lose. Nothing you ever say will make the slightest bit of difference, because this isn't about science. Vanderzyden can make the usual claim that IDists make about loving science but being opposed to naturalism (and then equate science with naturalism - go figure). ID creationism is just old-Earth creationism dressed up to look sophisticated, and Vanderzyden is just another creationist who doesn't give a damn about science. That's been obvious for a long time.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.