"Adam Warlock" <go@away.com> wrote in message

"Mike Goodrich" <goodrich_ms@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kn6qc.32255$Lm3.2551@lakeread04...

"Adam Warlock" <go@away.com> wrote in message
news:Zk4qc.32130$5a.19126@okepread03...

"Mike Goodrich" <goodrich_ms@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Oe4qc.32225$Lm3.31826@lakeread04...

"Cheezits" <cheezits@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94EC6B6C41C7Bcheezitsnetzeronet@129.250.170.86...

"Mike Goodrich" <goodrich_ms@yahoo.com> wrote:

"Chris Thompson" <cthompson@TAKEOUTbmcc.cuny.edu> wrote in

"Mike Goodrich" <goodrich_ms@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:rb3qc.32210$Lm3.19203@lakeread04:

"Steven J." <sjt1957NOSPAM@nts.link.net.INVALID> wrote in

message

news:10agnf6jhea4c2a@corp.supernews.com...

How would Sarfati, in light of his claim that the

of

embryos are necessary for their similarities later in

explain

the hind limb buds and teeth of baleen whales, which,

birth,

have neither hind

limbs

nor teeth?

Perhaps the logical place to start is to investigate the

veracity
of

the various claims which have been loaded into the question

above
by

carefull examination of the work which was performed that

ostensibly

suports them ...

Why would you think that hasn't been done?

Why would I need to consider whether I think it may or may not

have
been

done?

Why would you think he thinks you need to consider whether you

it
may

or may not have been done?

I wouldn't ...

You woudn't...what? Look at the question. It starts with "why do

think

he thinks you need to consider..." You reply, "I wouldn't,"

with

ellipses. If you wouldn't think such a thing, and if, as you seem

imply,

you don't really care, then why did you ask ask "why would I need to
consider..." of the other person? I realize that you like to

your

little games as thought-provoking, but they are, in fact, intended

infuriate and anger, aren't they? That certainly seems to be your

intent

and I would be curious about that. Why do you think it is an

strategy for conveying thought and prompting meaningful discussion?

You seem to be in a hurry to look for or provoke a fight where you

needn't.

I am? Why would you think such a thing, Mike? I am merely asking you

questions that you seem very reluctant to answer. Is it truly me

for a fight? Or is it you?

My point is simply - and in concert with my consistent line here -

it

is irrelevant what my ultimate or provisional opinion about some

work in some area - or indeed whether I have actually bothered to form

at all - as far as having the prerogative to not be bound said

work

at all, but investigate it anew and in a fresh light if as I see fit.

But that doesn't answer my question--it avoids it. I ask why you follow

line that you do.

Your claims of avoidance are fully gratuitous.

I owe you nothing particularly, and I have explained to you
forthrightly what I see as my prerogative in view of the situation.

I have also explained that I follow this line due to a basic
unwillinness to simply accept someones word as stated and a basic
desire to prove these things out for myself independently to whatever
depth I see fit.

If you can't follow or comprehend a forthright statement, then that is
your personal problem and not mine.

On Mon, 17 May 2004 13:47:50 +0000 (UTC),
Chris Thompson <cthompson@TAKEOUTbmcc.cuny.edu> wrote:

"Mike Goodrich" <goodrich_ms@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:rb3qc.32210$Lm3.19203@lakeread04:

"Steven J." <sjt1957NOSPAM@nts.link.net.INVALID> wrote in message
news:10agnf6jhea4c2a@corp.supernews.com...

"+Church of The Painful Truth+" <Atheistsare@fools.com> wrote in
message news:3kVpc.49$de6.127008@news.uswest.net...

This book has been organized around the most powerful arguments
that evolutionists can muster (quoting the salient points of PBS
and

Scientific

American) against the best arguments of creationists. Too often,
both

sides

get sidetracked on bad arguments. We believe that all
Bible-believers

should

have solid answers about the real issues of the debate (e.g., two

worldviews

are in conflict; we disagree about interpretation, not the facts
themselves).
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/RE2/appendix1.asp

How would Sarfati, in light of his claim that the similarities of
embryos are necessary for their similarities later in life, explain
the hind limb buds and teeth of baleen whales, which, after birth,
have neither hind

limbs

nor teeth?

Perhaps the logical place to start is to investigate the veracity of
the various claims which have been loaded into the question above by
carefull examination of the work which was performed that ostensibly
suports them ...


cheers

Why would you think that hasn't been done?

Because the answer has never matched Pope Goodrich's preconceptions.

"Mike Goodrich" <goodrich_ms@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rb3qc.32210$Lm3.19203@lakeread04...

"Steven J." <sjt1957NOSPAM@nts.link.net.INVALID> wrote in message
news:10agnf6jhea4c2a@corp.supernews.com...

-- [snip]

How would Sarfati, in light of his claim that the similarities of

embryos

are necessary for their similarities later in life, explain the hind

limb

buds and teeth of baleen whales, which, after birth, have neither hind
limbs nor teeth?

Perhaps the logical place to start is to investigate the veracity of the
various claims which have been loaded into the question above by

examination of the work which was performed that ostensibly suports them

...

As far as I can see, the claims which have been loaded into my question

as follows:

[a] Sarfati, in the article cited by Painful, admits that there *are*

similarities in embryo development.
[b] Sarfati claims these similarities are logical and necessary from a
design (separate creation) standpoint.
[c] From this argument, similar embryological stages should coincide with
similar designs after birth/hatching.
[d] Embryonic baleen whales have hind limb buds.
[e] Embryonic baleen whales have teeth.
[f] Normally, baleen whales have neither teeth nor hind limbs after birth.
[g] There is no design reason to grow parts in the womb that are simply
resorbed or lost.

As far as I can tell, claims [a] through [c] follow from Sarfati's

(see the article linked from Painful's post for details), in which embryos
start out unformed like clay on a potter's wheel, and add details all
through development. Do you have some rival interpretation of the

As far as I can tell, claims [d] through [f] are entirely uncontroversial;
even knowledgeable YECs do not dispute them. On the other hand, perhaps

do.

So the claim loaded into the question, which you find dubious, must be

I implicitly assume that, even if the vestigial hips of whales are
functional in some way, since they obviously don't have functional (in

they don't have any) legs after birth, growing exact homologs of the hind
limb buds of terrestrial quadrupeds can't be necessary for developing an
creature without hind limbs. By the same token, growing teeth (what would
it chew in the womb?), for an embryo which won't have teeth by the time it
actually needs to eat, is assumed to be pointless.

I know that YECs have explicitly challenged the latter argument. Perhaps
teeth are needed to guide the proper growth of the jaw. Perhaps, by
extension, hind limbs are needed, somehow, to properly guide the growth of
the functional vestigial hip bones. There seem to me two problems with

proposal. The first, of course, is that it is an argument from ignorance.
Creationists dismiss the identification of these teeth and hind limbs as
vestiges of common descent with land mammals, because we can't be certain
that they don't serve some unknown design function. This is exactly on a
par with "maybe the Creator altered radiometric decay rates (and hid the
evidence) for some unknown reason."

The second is that it seems to imply random limitations in the Creator's
competence. He can't think of a mechanism to guide jaw development of a
toothless beast, without growing teeth in its embryo (note that, e.g.

don't grow teeth in embryo, so it isn't a necessary step to vertebrate jaw
development)? The Creator can't even come up with something that's less
obviously homologous to teeth, to do the guiding? And likewise, the hind
limb buds certainly *look* for all the world like the buds that, in land
animals, develop into hind limbs. They nicely support the inferences

from extinct (but no living) cetaceans that still retained hind limbs

_Basilosaurus_, _Dorudon_, etc.). The creator can't achieve the functions
of those whale hip bones, without duplicating the embryological stages

in other species, give rise to hind limbs -- and then reversing most of
them?

Anyway, the point, in short, is that the creation "model" implies a

hamstrung by odd limitations, and on pointing out the bare possibility of
functions to seemingly functionless structures. The evolutionary theory
explains why, whatever their function or lack of it, the embryonic teeth
look like *teeth* (although whatever their function, it isn't the primary
function of teeth), and why likewise the embryonic limb buds look like

buds (and why, for that matter, the whale embryos don't grow and then lose
parts that aren't found in other mammals).

cheers

-- Steven J.

"Mike Goodrich" <goodrich_ms@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rb3qc.32210$Lm3.19203@lakeread04...

"Steven J." <sjt1957NOSPAM@nts.link.net.INVALID> wrote in message
news:10agnf6jhea4c2a@corp.supernews.com...

-- [snip]

How would Sarfati, in light of his claim that the similarities of

embryos

are necessary for their similarities later in life, explain the hind

limb

buds and teeth of baleen whales, which, after birth, have neither hind
limbs nor teeth?

Perhaps the logical place to start is to investigate the veracity of the
various claims which have been loaded into the question above by

examination of the work which was performed that ostensibly suports them

...

As far as I can see, the claims which have been loaded into my question

as follows:

[a] Sarfati, in the article cited by Painful, admits that there *are*

similarities in embryo development.
[b] Sarfati claims these similarities are logical and necessary from a
design (separate creation) standpoint.
[c] From this argument, similar embryological stages should coincide with
similar designs after birth/hatching.
[d] Embryonic baleen whales have hind limb buds.
[e] Embryonic baleen whales have teeth.
[f] Normally, baleen whales have neither teeth nor hind limbs after birth.
[g] There is no design reason to grow parts in the womb that are simply
resorbed or lost.

As far as I can tell, claims [a] through [c] follow from Sarfati's

(see the article linked from Painful's post for details), in which embryos
start out unformed like clay on a potter's wheel, and add details all
through development. Do you have some rival interpretation of the

As far as I can tell, claims [d] through [f] are entirely uncontroversial;
even knowledgeable YECs do not dispute them. On the other hand, perhaps

do.

So the claim loaded into the question, which you find dubious, must be

I implicitly assume that, even if the vestigial hips of whales are
functional in some way, since they obviously don't have functional (in

they don't have any) legs after birth, growing exact homologs of the hind
limb buds of terrestrial quadrupeds can't be necessary for developing an
creature without hind limbs. By the same token, growing teeth (what would
it chew in the womb?), for an embryo which won't have teeth by the time it
actually needs to eat, is assumed to be pointless.

I know that YECs have explicitly challenged the latter argument. Perhaps
teeth are needed to guide the proper growth of the jaw. Perhaps, by
extension, hind limbs are needed, somehow, to properly guide the growth of
the functional vestigial hip bones. There seem to me two problems with

proposal. The first, of course, is that it is an argument from ignorance.
Creationists dismiss the identification of these teeth and hind limbs as
vestiges of common descent with land mammals, because we can't be certain
that they don't serve some unknown design function. This is exactly on a
par with "maybe the Creator altered radiometric decay rates (and hid the
evidence) for some unknown reason."

The second is that it seems to imply random limitations in the Creator's
competence. He can't think of a mechanism to guide jaw development of a
toothless beast, without growing teeth in its embryo (note that, e.g.

don't grow teeth in embryo, so it isn't a necessary step to vertebrate jaw
development)? The Creator can't even come up with something that's less
obviously homologous to teeth, to do the guiding? And likewise, the hind
limb buds certainly *look* for all the world like the buds that, in land
animals, develop into hind limbs. They nicely support the inferences

from extinct (but no living) cetaceans that still retained hind limbs

_Basilosaurus_, _Dorudon_, etc.). The creator can't achieve the functions
of those whale hip bones, without duplicating the embryological stages

in other species, give rise to hind limbs -- and then reversing most of
them?

Anyway, the point, in short, is that the creation "model" implies a

hamstrung by odd limitations, and on pointing out the bare possibility of
functions to seemingly functionless structures. The evolutionary theory
explains why, whatever their function or lack of it, the embryonic teeth
look like *teeth* (although whatever their function, it isn't the primary
function of teeth), and why likewise the embryonic limb buds look like

buds (and why, for that matter, the whale embryos don't grow and then lose
parts that aren't found in other mammals).

cheers

-- Steven J.