I just saw this ridiculous commercial for the 2nd time:

[Subduction Zone]

Why do you always, and I mean always resort to personal attacks?

I made no personal attack. You told a falsehood about our past debates and I explained why you lost. If you can be honest and keep on topic there will be no need to resort to what you call "person attacks". I could easily claim that your false statement about our previous debates was a "personal attack".

See if you can keep on topic, okay?

Getting back to the topic at hand do you not understand how I linked an article that gave an example of an organ transplant done with no rejection?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Uhm no that link does not support that "any" cheetah can receive blood or organs from "any other" cheetah. You didn't even understand what you read.

Wrong:

"Back in the 1980s, Drs. O'Brien, Laurie Marker, Melody Roelke and David Wildt, co-authors of the most recent release, reported cheetahs to be unusual in that they fail to immunologically reject skin grafts in surgical transplants from unrelated individuals—they all seemed like identical twins."

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2015-12-genetics-african-cheetah.html#jCp

If you do not understand you should ask questions instead of making statements that are easily shown to be false.

 

[AManCalledHorse]

Wrong:

"Back in the 1980s, Drs. O'Brien, Laurie Marker, Melody Roelke and David Wildt, co-authors of the most recent release, reported cheetahs to be unusual in that they fail to immunologically reject skin grafts in surgical transplants from unrelated individuals—they all seemed like identical twins."

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2015-12-genetics-african-cheetah.html#jCp

If you do not understand you should ask questions instead of making statements that are easily shown to be false.

I suggest you do some reading on allograft.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I suggest you do some reading on allograft.

.
That does not help you. Rejection is still common with allograft. The difference is that it does not tend to be fatal. One still needs to match tissues. You may be confused because at time bone is the organ that is transplanted via allograft. In that case the bone is essentially dead, in fact transplants from cadavers are common. I am betting that any living material has to be killed for that to happen.

Try again.

Skin is a living organ. It is the largest organ in the human body. There was no rejection which was unusual, it was as if the cheetahs were identical twins.

Instead of digging your hole deeper you should be asking questions politely and properly. Using a transplant that you do not understand only makes you look worse:


Autograft vs. Allograft

"An allograft is a bone or tissue that is transplanted from one person to another. They typically come from a donor, or cadaver bone."

Just for fun I did a bit more research on bones used in allografts:


"While allograft bone only provides a calcium scaffolding, does not have any bone-growing cells or bone-growing proteins required to stimulate new bone growth, and thus has a lower chance of fusion as compared to using the patient's bone, it has proven comparable in certain studies to autograft in terms of producing successful fusions."

Allograft: Cadaver Bone from a Tissue Bank

Are you picking up your ideas from lying creationist sites? Those are usually very easy to refute. I suggest trying to honestly learn for once.

 

[Subduction Zone]

While I wait for a response I guess some more info would help. All organ transplants between two people are allografts:

https://www.medicinenet.com/stem_cells/article.htm

"Allograft: The transplant of an organ or tissue from one individual to another of the same species with a different genotype. For example, a transplant from one person to another, but not an identical twin, is an allograft. Allografts account for many human transplants, including those from cadaveric, living related, and living unrelated donors. Also known as an allogeneic graft or a homograft"

Oops, except if those two people are identical twins. I think he was confused by bone transplants which can be done with cadavers, but all living material is removed from those bones eliminated the chance of rejection.

 

[AManCalledHorse]

.
That does not help you. Rejection is still common with allograft. The difference is that it does not tend to be fatal. One still needs to match tissues. You may be confused because at time bone is the organ that is transplanted via allograft. In that case the bone is essentially dead, in fact transplants from cadavers are common. I am betting that any living material has to be killed for that to happen.

Try again.

Skin is a living organ. It is the largest organ in the human body. There was no rejection which was unusual, it was as if the cheetahs were identical twins.

Instead of digging your hole deeper you should be asking questions politely and properly. Using a transplant that you do not understand only makes you look worse:


Autograft vs. Allograft

"An allograft is a bone or tissue that is transplanted from one person to another. They typically come from a donor, or cadaver bone."

Just for fun I did a bit more research on bones used in allografts:


"While allograft bone only provides a calcium scaffolding, does not have any bone-growing cells or bone-growing proteins required to stimulate new bone growth, and thus has a lower chance of fusion as compared to using the patient's bone, it has proven comparable in certain studies to autograft in terms of producing successful fusions."

Allograft: Cadaver Bone from a Tissue Bank

Are you picking up your ideas from lying creationist sites? Those are usually very easy to refute. I suggest trying to honestly learn for once.

Please try to understand what you read. "Bone or tissue" tissue also refers to skin grafts. I'm glad you at least are doing some reading but do more reading. Have a good night .

Allograft: The transplant of an organ or tissue from one individual to another of the same species with a different genotype. ... Allografts account for many human transplants, including those from cadaveric, living related, and living unrelated donors. Also known as an allogeneic graft or a homograft.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please try to understand what you read. "Bone or tissue" tissue also refers to skin grafts. I'm glad you at least are doing some reading but do more reading. Have a good night .

Allograft: The transplant of an organ or tissue from one individual to another of the same species with a different genotype. ... Allografts account for many human transplants, including those from cadaveric, living related, and living unrelated donors. Also known as an allogeneic graft or a homograft.

Please don't accuse others of your sins. Skin is a living organ. It has the same chances of rejection as other organs. Please read the part of the article that I quoted. Skin transplants will not kill the subject if it is rejected. And allografts are organ transplants. One has to be typed for them very thoroughly unless they are using bone which has been prepared by removing the living material. You struck out again.

 

[AManCalledHorse]

While I wait for a response I guess some more info would help. All organ transplants between two people are allografts:

https://www.medicinenet.com/stem_cells/article.htm

"Allograft: The transplant of an organ or tissue from one individual to another of the same species with a different genotype. For example, a transplant from one person to another, but not an identical twin, is an allograft. Allografts account for many human transplants, including those from cadaveric, living related, and living unrelated donors. Also known as an allogeneic graft or a homograft"

Oops, except if those two people are identical twins. I think he was confused by bone transplants which can be done with cadavers, but all living material is removed from those bones eliminated the chance of rejection.

Allograft: The transplant of an organ or tissue from one individual to another of the same species with a different genotype. ... Allografts account for many human transplants, including those from cadaveric, living related, and living unrelated donors. Also known as an allogeneic graft or a homograft.

Apply that to cheetahs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Allograft: The transplant of an organ or tissue from one individual to another of the same species with a different genotype. ... Allografts account for many human transplants, including those from cadaveric, living related, and living unrelated donors. Also known as an allogeneic graft or a homograft.

Apply that to cheetahs.

You do not seem to understand. Bone is the main organ transplanted form cadavers, and that is after they make sure that there are no living tissues. Read up on how it is prepared. Organ transplants of the kidney, heart, anything living, are also allografts and matching is required. At least among humans. Do you not understand this?

Once again, organ transplants involving living organs requires tissue matching. The skin grafts done with cheetahs involve living tissue. For humans tissue matching would be required. Why do you think that they were so surprised at the lack of rejection?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh well, another night. I swear that creationists must grab their arguments from creationist sites where the writers do not even appear to have a high school level of science literacy. They find an example such as bone transplants from cadavers, use the medical term for that, which is also the proper term for almost any tissue transplant, and think that they have made a point. Exceptions exist and one must understand why exceptions exist. For living tissue, kidneys, hearts, lungs, skin, tissue matching needs to be done for humans. That is not the case for Cheetahs since they did go through a massive population bottleneck about ten thousand years ago. If you research it you will find that at one point it is thought that there were below ten breeding individuals. That means the population would have been larger, individuals that were too young or too old to breed would have also existed at that time. As a result all cheetahs are incredibly related. Any two cheetahs that are about to mate are more closely related to each other than brother is to sister among humans. This gives them all sorts of troubles.

So one last time, skin was used for the experiment since it is easy to transplant. It is living tissue that would need to be typed for humans. If it is rejected it does not kill the individual. It is an experiment with very few negative effects if it fails. It did not fail. That experiment would not be needed today since they can analyze genomes, something that could not be done in the day that they first found out how closely cheetahs were related to each other. But it still makes the point obvious that they are extremely closely related.

Good night until tomorrow.

 

[Audie]

Honestly...does it appear 'young' to you? Geologically speaking, that is?

The whole range does. So do the Alps, and many other ranges.

The features they have, are sharp and clearly defined. If they were "millions of years" old, the extreme elements they endure would have ensured they'd be rounded stumps by now!

So it is your contention that "sharp,
clearly defined" features are not
and cannot be formed by "extreme
elements"?

Not sure what your terms mean.

Is this the same?

"Weathering and erosion produce
rounded features, not sharp peaks
amd ridges"

Have you btw hiked in the rockies,
and noted how you will hear little
rockfalls and rockslides?

 

[Audie]

We all know large ships made of wooden planks can't stay afloat. But wait, what were the ships in the days of the Vikings, Christopher Columbus, and Pirates made from? Surely not wooden planks.

So that explains why the world's longest bridges and tallest
buildings are (not) made of wood? A structural engineer I
aint but I like to think I have common sense.

 

[Audie]

Thank you for calling me uneducated. I have never said that I possess any amazing intellectual abilities, but it is always nice to be reminded to keep me humble.

I would think the flood myth would not rely on it as much as evolution would. Not that I am making a case for evolution, but I would think evolution would rely on such an event. Wouldn't that explain the lack transitional species? Or how about the fact that Cheetahs are said to have had a population bottleneck around 10,000 years ago that reduced their numbers to 7.

If you are interested, I can explain / answer the
extinction event questions. There have been several
mass extinction events,countless smaller ones, and
far more incidents of single species.

You can say if you are interested, I wont bother
otherwise.

 

[ecco]

You can't change a mind set in concrete.

Religious indoctrination of the young is the primary means of filling the mind with concrete.

All the "Amen's" and "Hallelujah's" and "Praise Jesus'" heard from birth onward solidify. They become a part of the brain just like a regional accent.

If people want to hate God, I think we should let them.

Who hates God? I don't. What's to hate? Do you hate psychic snowflakes?

 

[ecco]

Steel, iron, metal in general. When you get some that agree and are fact, post it.
Powerless boats adrift at see are unheard of. But wait, that happens all the time with even wooden sail ships.

Yes, and many of them sunk. Why do you think they sunk?

 

[ecco]

Slow moving is your evidence? You do realise islands have formed over night from earthquakes and or volcanic eruptions right?

Actually they don't. Perhaps you don't understand the long process that created things like the Hawaiian Islands.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

You are merely speculating..

No. I am not-- I am going by your silly bible's dimensional figures.

We KNOW what a cubit used to be-- so it's a simple matter to calculate these things.

The ark? AS WRITTEN? Simply does not work if made of wood. .[/QUOTE]

You have a picture in your mind that is simply imagination - not the Bible, which never described long wooden planks..

LMAO! How ELSE are you going to build it? You can run the planks lengthwise, or you can run them vertical. Either way? THEY FLEX AND LEAK. This is PHYSICS.

If you run them vertical? That's actually MUCH WORSE-- there is a reason why nobody built ships like that-- ever.

Does anyone ever build anything with long wooden planks? .

Um.... actual ship builders? This is old technology, has been around for a couple of thousand years and counting. Even the ancient ROMANS knew this one.

And Egyptians too. We have old carvings and paintings of Egyptian barges/rafts-- made of... wait for it... long wooden planks... !

LOL! You are not very good at this, are you?

What... and how many men did it take to hold the plank? Help me see what you are imagining, because right now it sounds weird..

And just like that? You bring up ANOTHER ARK FAIL: Noah did not have enough HELP to build a giant wooden thing!

Especially as the bible says he was 600 years old... and ONLY had sex 4 times...! (4 sons, no contraceptives, ergo, sex 4 times only) ((Noah's wife must have been.... hideous))

Where did you read that, other than from your head?
.

Your bible, silly. Bible-god commands Noah to build an ark out of WOOD. Duuuuhhhh. As a wood-worker? There are only a few ways to make a floating thing, out of WOOD, that will work.

"Everything else" is against the arguments of you guys.
We are discussing the flood aren't we?
Then deal with it..

Irony duly noted. You cannot successfully argue your point, so you attempt to change the subject. Again.

I have one more for you guys.

Nope. Not gonna watch a creationist pack'o'lies video. YouTube isn't evidence for anything.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

We all know large ships made of wooden planks can't stay afloat. But wait, what were the ships in the days of the Vikings, Christopher Columbus, and Pirates made from? Surely not wooden planks.

They are not the size of the ARK. Duuuuuhhhhhh!

This was explained way-way-way up there in the part you ignored.

There is a maximum size for WOOD boats: The size at which a reasonable human crew could BAIL OUT THE LEAKING WATER.

Because they ALL LEAK-- especially when there were no modern, non-hardening glues to be had.

The largest wooden boat ever built? Used a STEAM ENGINE to pump out the incoming water-- but even then? IT SUNK ANYWAY. True story! look it up!

And poor old Noah? Had FIVE people to man the pumps?

That Ark would have sunk within the hour-- sooner if it was loaded with TWO OF EVERY SPECIES. In fact, it would never have floated in the first place, if that was the case.

Of course-- if it WAS loaded to that capacity? It would have been packed *exactly* like a can of sardines-- and none of the animals could either move....

.... or breathe. Maybe God magicked them up so they didn't need to breathe or eat?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Hey guys, @Deeje @Hockeycowboy @URAVIP2ME @Vee, you gotta check this out!
Like Wow. This girl is on FIRE!

Be sure to check out the channel. Even though we don't believe in one or two of their beliefs, these videos are informative.
Check out...
Genesis Apologetics Tour of the Natural History Museum (DC) - Lucy
Human Chimp DNA Similarity

Oh look! Another propaganda video desperately ignoring reality, and trying to brainwash children and child-like adults.

Sad.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Thank you for calling me uneducated. I have never said that I possess any amazing intellectual abilities, but it is always nice to be reminded to keep me humble.

I would think the flood myth would not rely on it as much as evolution would. Not that I am making a case for evolution, but I would think evolution would rely on such an event. Wouldn't that explain the lack transitional species? Or how about the fact that Cheetahs are said to have had a population bottleneck around 10,000 years ago that reduced their numbers to 7.

*sigh*

1) there isn't actually any lack of transitional species: because ALL species, bar none, are transitional.

2) Fossil creation is a very rare event. If we had SMOOTH continuous representation of ALL species in the fossil record?

That? Would actually be proof of a creator! Because it would require continuous miracles all through time, to preserve that many creatures. And only a magic-using deity could have done such a feat.