1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Science cannot solve the final mystery

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by atanu, Jun 17, 2019.

  1. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    2,544
    Ratings:
    +2,072
    My "opinion" about how to spell "Broca's area"? Yes, I did read it, you probably could not understand it.

    But I eagerly look forward to reading your meandering missive trying to find vindication in defeat, as you always try to do.
    Yes, since those words do not appear on the link I provided.
    Those words come from a totally different site (a paper on interpreting MRIs).
    Confabulating again? Your Korschakoff's acting up?

    I did, however, notice the first few sentences on the link I provided:

    Although the anatomical definitions of Broca's area are not completely consistent,it is generally considered to make up some part of a region called the inferior frontal gyrus, which is found in the frontal lobe. Some researchers ascribe Broca's area to the entire inferior frontal gyrus, while others consider it to only make up a portion of the inferior frontal gyrus. Still others consider the boundary of Broca's area to expand slightly outside of the inferior frontal gyrus.​

    Oh my goodness!!! That must totally mean that Broca's area is ALL OVER THE PLACE!! Well, all over a region of the inferior frontal gyrus.

    Do you know what the inferior frontal gyrus is? Of course not.

    DID YOU even read the link I posted for you, or did you search for another site on which you found what you really really hoped would rescue your previous assertion made in ignorance?

    Beyond that - I'm sure you thought that was a gotcha, but that is because you are self-taught.
    Why are you like this? I was hoping that at the very least you would learn how to spell a word you've been spelling incorrectly for probably years,despite pretending to know all about it.

    LOL!

    OK - so since people are different heights, I guess that means.... you tell me, Johnny Biologist.

    No, that is not logical at all - you only see what you want.
    You've discovered nothing.

    If you did, we would be hearing about this in the appropriate forum, not some internet creationist site.

    In all seriousness, get the help you need.
     
  2. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,117
    Ratings:
    +152
    Religion:
    not applicable
    do you understand the mechanism that I claim is the cause of change in species and why this change is sudden?
     
  3. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    2,544
    Ratings:
    +2,072
    You should have stopped on the first sentence.
     
  4. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    12,124
    Ratings:
    +11,786
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    Yes, we understand what you said. We also understand that it doesn't correspond to reality.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    2,544
    Ratings:
    +2,072
    You claim a lot of things that have no corroboration and no evidence in their support.

    You have had explanations re: types of speciation presented to you before, I think by Tag. You ignored it all in favor of your fantasy-based assertions.

    Your "mechanism" is not a mechanism, it is, at best, a proposal, an hypothesis. And it is pretty similar to the concept known as the founder effect (so you are not even original). There IS evidence for the founder effect. But that is not instant or sudden. And the behavior of individuals typically has very little to do with it.

    Are you familiar with population genetics? No, of course you are not. You still think 'survival of the fittest' drove Christian creationist anti-Darwninst Hitler...
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Thief

    Thief Rogue Theologian

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    41,539
    Ratings:
    +3,351
    title for a fresh op

    and maybe the nay sayers will relax

    reality checks can be severe
     
  7. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    2,544
    Ratings:
    +2,072
    Yes, we all know this.Your posts are generally intellectually empty.
    When do you plan to start?
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. Thief

    Thief Rogue Theologian

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    41,539
    Ratings:
    +3,351
    as soon as you get wrote up for trolling
     
  9. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    2,544
    Ratings:
    +2,072
    I think you'd be first.
     
  10. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,117
    Ratings:
    +152
    Religion:
    not applicable
    I'm sure you're aware that when a brain suffers damage the activities of that damaged area can be taken up by other areas. Different parts of the brain are more adept at some functions than others. Blind people usually use their visual cortex to read braille. The brain is a very elastic organ and anything can come to be seen as normal by humans. There is a structure in the mid-brain that can "see" but the individual is not consciously aware of vision. Normal people use specific parts of their brains for specific functions.

    We have a perfectly good partially bifurcated speech center back in the mid-brain. So why do you think we need a second one floating about in the frontal gyrus? What evidence do you have that I am wrong? What logic drives your understanding of a second unfixed speech center as being perfectly normal?

    If it were shown tall people can do boolean geometry with their little toes would this seem only natural to you?

    Do you dispute that we can only see what we believe?

    Since you refuse to address my actual arguments or demonstrate you understand them it is impossible for me to even debate you. I'll avoid trying going forward.
     
    • Creative Creative x 1
  11. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    15,907
    Ratings:
    +3,953
    Religion:
    Pi π
    What a load of... *beep* :eek:

    Oops! Did I say that out loud? :oops:
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  12. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    2,544
    Ratings:
    +2,072
    Again, what was totally ignored/omitted will be in RED.
    It depends. Relevance?
    Only partly true. The brain loses plasticity (not elasticity - that means to stretch) with age. This is why younger people with brain trauma can adapt more readily than older folks.
    Please tell me what part you think this structure is and I can tell you whether or not you've made another blunder. The superior colliculi of the midbrain tectum do play a role in visual reflexes, but that is not really "seeing".
    No, we don't. Let me remind you - I have taken graduate level neuroscience and have taught neuroanatomy, so your mere say so on these matters will not work on me. The term midbrain has a very specific meaning in neuroanatomy, I suspect that you do not know this. Like you did not know where Broca's area is, or how to spell it.
    Why do you think your uninformed assertions, dreamed up out of nowhere, have merit?
    The area is called Broca's area because, as you should know, Broca found multiple cases in which people with trauma to the inferior frontal gyrus lost their ability to speak. That was indicated in the link I provided for you which you did not read yet pretended to have.
    My evidence that you are wrong is:

    1. You have presented no evidence you are right. Merely asserting these counterfactual notions about floating secondary speech centers does not indicate they are real, much less demonstrate this.
    2, You seem to have rather naive understanding of brain anatomy. I recognize nothing you have claimed so far as having merit, and in double-checking your claims I found that I was correct - there is nothing in the midbrain that allows one to "see", and there is no unfixed second speech center. Like most of your unsupported assertions, you appear to have just made this up because it fits your fantasy life.

    The logic is that merely making a counterfactual claim does not mean it is correct. Quite the opposite, especially when you never present any supporting documentation.

    Here is a diagram of a section through the human midbrain:
    [​IMG]

    None of the indicated structures have anything to do with speech.

    Please tell us all, using actual midbrain anatomy, where this mysterious second speech area is, and provide corroborating documentation that it does what you assert it does.

    Irrelevant.

    Show me a second motor speech area, and show me the evidence that Broca's area (and please spell it correctly for once) can be scattered all over the place, and not just somewhere on the inferior frontal gyrus.
    Yes. Well, in terms of sensible people. I do know that people like you only see what you believe.

    Sensible people believe what they see, or what there is evidence for.

    You may only see what you already believe - that would explain some things - but the things you believe are not in evident in reality.
    Cool cop out - it is not that I do not understand your arguments - I DO understand them, I just know that they are wrong. You refuse to consider that , for some odd reason.

    Show me this second motor speech area.

    Show me the experimental evidence that behavior alone causes speciation, which is "sudden."

    Show me that there is a genetic difference between natural and man-made bottlenecks.

    Show me that Paul Broca really spelled his name "brocca."

    Show me that you actually know what is meant by "survival of the fittest."

    Define "peer" as in 'peer review".

    Do these things, do not just re-assert the same tired verbiage with no support at all.

    Your rambling diatribes are not evidence, regardless of how much it has convinced you.


    My "opinion" about how to spell "Broca's area"? Yes, I did read it, you probably could not understand it.

    But I eagerly look forward to reading your meandering missive trying to find vindication in defeat, as you always try to do.
    Yes, since those words do not appear on the link I provided.
    Those words come from a totally different site (a paper on interpreting MRIs).
    Confabulating again? Your Korschakoff's acting up?

    I did, however, notice the first few sentences on the link I provided:

    Although the anatomical definitions of Broca's area are not completely consistent,it is generally considered to make up some part of a region called the inferior frontal gyrus, which is found in the frontal lobe. Some researchers ascribe Broca's area to the entire inferior frontal gyrus, while others consider it to only make up a portion of the inferior frontal gyrus. Still others consider the boundary of Broca's area to expand slightly outside of the inferior frontal gyrus.
    Oh my goodness!!! That must totally mean that Broca's area is ALL OVER THE PLACE!! Well, all over a region of the inferior frontal gyrus.

    Do you know what the inferior frontal gyrus is? Of course not.

    DID YOU even read the link I posted for you, or did you search for another site on which you found what you really really hoped would rescue your previous assertion made in ignorance?

    Beyond that - I'm sure you thought that was a gotcha, but that is because you are self-taught.
    Why are you like this? I was hoping that at the very least you would learn how to spell a word you've been spelling incorrectly for probably years,despite pretending to know all about it.

    LOL!

    OK - so since people are different heights, I guess that means.... you tell me, Johnny Biologist.

    No, that is not logical at all - you only see what you want.
    You've discovered nothing.

    If you did, we would be hearing about this in the appropriate forum, not some internet creationist site.

    In all seriousness, get the help you need.
     
    #732 tas8831, Aug 23, 2019
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2019
    • Winner Winner x 1
  13. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    13,470
    Ratings:
    +6,490
    Religion:
    None
    We need Rod Serling, or Art Bell here. Where are they
    when we need them the most???
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  14. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    13,470
    Ratings:
    +6,490
    Religion:
    None
    Fickst it for you.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  15. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    15,907
    Ratings:
    +3,953
    Religion:
    Pi π
    No. The transliteration ”heca” or “heka”, means “magic”, not “metaphysics”.

    This word heka was later transformed into personification of magic - Heka, the god of magic.
     
  16. Thief

    Thief Rogue Theologian

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    41,539
    Ratings:
    +3,351
    and science cannot solve the mystery.....

    Someone had to be......First
     
  17. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,117
    Ratings:
    +152
    Religion:
    not applicable
    So why hasn't anyone ever shown an experiment which preferentially supports Darwin's to my theory? I'm sure there are some out there but all anyone links can be taken either way.

    There are many experiments that preferentially support my theory but people just blow them off. My theory shows how ancient man invented pets and agriculture. One of these "pets" has been guarding property acquired through ancient science for millennia.
     
  18. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    8,264
    Ratings:
    +3,984
    Religion:
    atheist
    Perhaps that is because no one has ever created "an experiment which preferentially supports Darwin's to [your] theory". On the flip side, have you created "an experiment which preferentially supports" your theory to Darwin's?

    Why not?

    Goodness. Why do you just lay back and accept that?
    The folks who proposed Plate Tectonics didn't just lay back and accept getting blown off.
    The folks who proposed an expanding universe didn't just lay back and accept getting blown off.
    The folks who proposed Heliocentricity didn't just lay back and accept getting blown off.

    Why do you?


    Do you honestly believe taking the time to post on a rather obscure forum is the best way to achieve your objectives?
     
  19. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,117
    Ratings:
    +152
    Religion:
    not applicable
    I never doubted for a moment that you know more anatomy and far more brain anatomy than I.

    But this doesn't change the fact that near the CENTER OF THE HUMAN BRAIN is a location through which passes the optic nerves. Indeed, I recently learned that there is a huge decrease in the number of nerves that reaches the visual cortex and, logically, it occurs here

    This is the ONLY speech center that Homo Sapiens needed or possessed;

    Wernicke's area - Wikipedia

    :)

    This is why you can see so few anomalies. You already understand everything you see. Everything is explicable in terms of anatomy and this is how you know I have a screw loose. A mathematician knows nothing I say adds up and a philosopher sees mere chaos but everyone sees everything in terms of their beliefs.

    I share the same affliction as everyone else but I think differently such that I can see anomalies.



    I know nothing. I share all of the premises of ancient science plus one: I believe all people always makes sense in terms of their premises.



    Then why am I the one who discovered there were no words for "belief" or "thought" in Ancient Language?

     
  20. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,117
    Ratings:
    +152
    Religion:
    not applicable
    Yes. As a matter of fact I have.

    I have created a species of house fly that lands on the bottom of furniture through bottlenecks imposed with a flyswatter.

    I have created this species a few times so now the genetic diversity that I CREATED will allow the housefly to survive an event that eradicates all flies not on the undersides of things. I might be the father of a new species someday and all I got for it were a few fly-free summers.

    My theory and everything I believe is composed of insights I steal from others. I never know when or where I will find something usable. A forum that does such a good job of discussing religion and science as this one of course gives rise to insights.
     
Loading...