# the knee    :)



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 1, 2011)

Which two ligaments do you think were the last two that evolution added to our knee?


----------



## pnome (Aug 1, 2011)

Well, obviously it's the medial collateral and the posterior cruciate.  

Everyone knows that!


----------



## bullethead (Aug 1, 2011)

Good question, Not sure, but maybe it was why the Neanderthals could not out run the early Humans. ??


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 1, 2011)

Neanderthals?   lol     Now there's a good thread subject right there!    I think many scientists now consider "Neanderthals" no different than modern humans.    Many modern humans have the same characteristics.   

did homo sapiens supposedly eat neanderthals?   just wondering what your theory is.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 1, 2011)

I am confused as to whether or not Adam and Eve were Neanderthals or Humans?  Theory?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 1, 2011)

pnome said:


> Well, obviously it's the medial collateral and the posterior cruciate.
> 
> Everyone knows that!




I've tore the ACL in both knees numerous times.   (catching in baseball stretched the ligaments out)   I can tell you firsthand that a knee does not function AT ALL when you are missing even one ligament.   

I believe there are like 16 must-have aspects of the knee.   Throw one of these off and you get a knee that doesn't work.


----------



## pnome (Aug 1, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> did homo sapiens supposedly eat neanderthals?   just wondering what your theory is.



Nope.  Think Moses and the Midianites.


----------



## pnome (Aug 1, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I've tore the ACL in both knees numerous times.   (catching in baseball stretched the ligaments out)   I can tell you firsthand that a knee does not function AT ALL when you are missing even one ligament.
> 
> I believe there are like 16 must-have aspects of the knee.   Throw one of these off and you get a knee that doesn't work.



I'm sure you're right.

Is this thread an attempt to argue that the human knee joint is "irreducibly complex" and thus must be the product of design?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 1, 2011)

pnome said:


> I'm sure you're right.
> 
> Is this thread an attempt to argue that the human knee joint is "irreducibly complex" and thus must be the product of design?



food for thought, P.   I would never fish.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 1, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I've tore the ACL in both knees numerous times.   (catching in baseball stretched the ligaments out)   I can tell you firsthand that a knee does not function AT ALL when you are missing even one ligament.
> 
> I believe there are like 16 must-have aspects of the knee.   Throw one of these off and you get a knee that doesn't work.



HA!
I have lived with a torn MCL since 1986(football injury). I run, jump, hike, squat, kick, swim and everything else associated with the knee. I'm minus one and still going. I can move my knee a few inches to the inside farther than my other knee or most healthy knees according to my doctor. Since 1986 I have been told that if it does not bother you, don't worry about it.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 1, 2011)

bullethead said:


> HA!
> I have lived with a torn MCL since 1986(football injury). I run, jump, hike, squat, kick, swim and everything else associated with the knee. I'm minus one and still going. I can move my knee a few inches to the inside farther than my other knee or most healthy knees according to my doctor. Since 1986 I have been told that if it does not bother you, don't worry about it.



LOL   Well, I have to say I admire that!   I, too, can move my knee inward and outward, and have about a 1/2" of slack in both knees when I pull the tibia forward.   I can run, but only straight.   If I try to turn, I'll get that tearing sound and pain that I'm sure you're familiar with!


----------



## bullethead (Aug 1, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> LOL   Well, I have to say I admire that!   I, too, can move my knee inward and outward, and have about a 1/2" of slack in both knees when I pull the tibia forward.   I can run, but only straight.   If I try to turn, I'll get that tearing sound and pain that I'm sure you're familiar with!



Honestly, and knock on wood, since it initially happened I have had no pain.

I got up from a play and one of my own lineman tripped over a downed player and fell right into the side of my knee. OH there was PAIN then! Doc said I tore my MCL. I used crutches for two days then walked on it gingerly for another two weeks. Years after, while in for a different problem( line drive off same knee while pitching for kids little league practice 10yrs ago), the Orthopedic Doc told me my MCL is detached and has been for a long time. He asked me how and how am I walking around. He put me through all kinds of range of motion exercises and just shook his head. He did say WHEN it bothers me to give him a call....so far so good.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 1, 2011)

I tore mine for the first time a few years after high school.   When I went to the doctor about it, he told me that when I was in HS and running/squatting all day that the muscles in my leg overcame the slack in the ligaments....but when I quick the daily running/squatting that the muscles got weak, and then I started paying the price being a weekend softball warrior.    I suspect that your quadriceps are helping carry the load.    

Having felt that pain many times, I cringed when I read about the guy falling into the side of your knee.   hard to see how linemen make it out of high school with good knees.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 1, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I tore mine for the first time a few years after high school.   When I went to the doctor about it, he told me that when I was in HS and running/squatting all day that the muscles in my leg overcame the slack in the ligaments....but when I quick the daily running/squatting that the muscles got weak, and then I started paying the price being a weekend softball warrior.    I suspect that your quadriceps are helping carry the load.
> 
> Having felt that pain many times, I cringed when I read about the guy falling into the side of your knee.   hard to see how linemen make it out of high school with good knees.



Yep, even a "healthy" career takes it's toll. But getting back on track, how does my knee defy irreducible complexity by having one of it's ligaments out of the equation?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 1, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Yep, even a "healthy" career takes it's toll. But getting back on track, how does my knee defy irreducible complexity by having one of it's ligaments out of the equation?



The original post asked which 'two' ligaments were last?   

Still, really hard to imagine that your knee functions at anywhere near 100% with a torn MCL.   

Although I never mentioned Irreducible complexity, I wanted members to consider the possibility of a knee with only two ligaments....or four.     What was a knee like without a knee cap?      just saying...


----------



## bullethead (Aug 1, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> The original post asked which 'two' ligaments were last?
> 
> Still, really hard to imagine that your knee functions at anywhere near 100% with a torn MCL.
> 
> Although I never mentioned Irreducible complexity, I wanted members to consider the possibility of a knee with only two ligaments....or four.     What was a knee like without a knee cap?      just saying...



Well a knee is THE prime example of I.C. 

From Michael Behe: "a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

To walk a straight line a knee might only need 2 ligaments or 4? I am a prime example of the removal of one of these parts without ceasing to function. Am I 100%, doubt it...but have I been able to do everything I wanted or needed to do since.......without question.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 1, 2011)

bullethead said:


> From Michael Behe: "a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."



Michael Behe?   Never heard of him.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 1, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> The original post asked which 'two' ligaments were last?
> 
> Still, really hard to imagine that your knee functions at anywhere near 100% with a torn MCL.
> 
> Although I never mentioned Irreducible complexity, I wanted members to consider the possibility of a knee with only two ligaments....or four.     What was a knee like without a knee cap?      just saying...



Perhaps you should look at primates that are partially bipedal or some that are rarely bipedal and see how they get along.



bullethead said:


> Well a knee is THE prime example of I.C.
> 
> From Michael Behe: "a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."
> 
> To walk a straight line a knee might only need 2 ligaments or 4? I am a prime example of the removal of one of these parts without ceasing to function. Am I 100%, doubt it...but have I been able to do everything I wanted or needed to do since.......without question.



Actually, the most famous example of I.R. is the bacterial flagellum.  It is no longer used as an example of IR because the argument for it fell apart in the famous Kitzmiller vs. Dover Are School District case.  Would you like a link to a very interesting synopsis of the case?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 1, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Perhaps you should look at primates that are partially bipedal or some that are rarely bipedal and see how they get along.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the most famous example of I.R. is the bacterial flagellum.  It is no longer used as an example of IR because the argument for it fell apart in the famous Kitzmiller vs. Dover Are School District case.  Would you like a link to a very interesting synopsis of the case?



Yeah the flagellum theory was blown out of the water. It was once thought the eye was so I.C. that it could not have evolved either.

The Evolution side takes simple examples and tries to make them complex where the Irreducible Complexity side takes complex examples and tries to make them simple.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 1, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Actually, the most famous example of I.R. is the bacterial flagellum.  It is no longer used as an example of IR because the argument for it fell apart in the famous Kitzmiller vs. Dover Are School District case.  Would you like a link to a very interesting synopsis of the case?



Yes.    thank you.   

The knee is still a great example of IC.   You can only take away so much of it before you're left with a malfunctioning knee that would not have aided 'survival of the fittest".


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 1, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Yeah the flagellum theory was blown out of the water. It was once thought the eye was so I.C. that it could not have evolved either.
> 
> The Evolution side takes simple examples and tries to make them complex where the Irreducible Complexity side takes complex examples and tries to make them simple.



I think the evolution side looks at complex structures and tries to see if there are similar, yet less complex structures that could have been built upon.  The IR side sees a complex structure and says "Look how complex it is.  It baffles me.  It must have come from magic."  Like cavemen cowering at the lightning.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 1, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> I think the evolution side looks at complex structures and tries to see if there are similar, yet less complex structures that could have been built upon.  The IR side sees a complex structure and says "Look how complex it is.  It baffles me.  It must have come from magic."  Like cavemen cowering at the lightning.



I would change this to say "The IR side sees something that has to have all the parts all together at once to work as something that is a statistical impossibility, so, if it wasn't designed, it must be magic"


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 1, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I would change this to say "The IR side sees something that has to have all the parts all together at once to work as something that is a statistical impossibility, so, if it wasn't designed, it must be magic"




The IR side often assumes that every "like of it's kind" was poofed into being whole and distinct with all factory parts original and not interchangeable, where as evolution points out that more often parts are used form earlier models, modified, put under a new chassis and re-branded.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 1, 2011)

So, you believe that a knee existed at some time with only two ligaments?


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 1, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> So, you believe that a knee existed at some time with only two ligaments?


 
I know that our primate relatives have different but similar structures than we do.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 1, 2011)

primate relatives.     

different but similar.....but more than 2  lol


----------



## bullethead (Aug 1, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Yes.    thank you.
> 
> The knee is still a great example of IC.   You can only take away so much of it before you're left with a malfunctioning knee that would not have aided 'survival of the fittest".



Now wait a second, HOW MUCH can you take away? I remember someone saying there were 16 aspects of the knee and if just ONE was "thrown off" you get a knee that does not work.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 1, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> primate relatives.
> 
> different but similar.....but more than 2  lol



How far do you want to go back?  Wait, I forgot, your tree doesn't branch.  Never mind.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 1, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Now wait a second, HOW MUCH can you take away? I remember someone saying there were 16 aspects of the knee and if just ONE was "thrown off" you get a knee that does not work.



A structure like you describe may still work in a salamander.   You have to accept (based on insurmountable evidence) that all organisms developed from the same platform in order to understand that concept.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 1, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Which two ligaments do you think were the last two that evolution added to our knee?



I mean, really.  We need a geneticist, biologist,  paleontologist, zoologist and maybe a surgeon in order to talk about this in an informed way.  Or we can have a cut and paste battle.

My guess would be that some of the ligaments split in order to accommodate out new found bipedal stance.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 1, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> How far do you want to go back?  Wait, I forgot, your tree doesn't branch.  Never mind.



my tree doesn't branch because I'm a redneck!   lol




> You have to accept (based on insurmountable evidence) that all organisms developed from the same platform in order to understand that concept.



'a priori' =  since evolution HAS to be true, then (like Darwin said) all organs and biological systems HAD to have come together one step at a time.   Whatever the evidence, we have to make it fit into the theory!

I have no idea what  a salamander knee is like, but I guarantee you it has more than two ligaments.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 1, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> I mean, really.  We need a geneticist, biologist,  paleontologist, zoologist and maybe a surgeon in order to talk about this in an informed way.



I don't.    common sense tells me that it didn't evolve one ligament at a time.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 1, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I don't.    common sense tells me that it didn't evolve one ligament at a time.



I take it that the fossil record and genetic coding don't fit into your "common sense"?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 1, 2011)

the fossil record shows soft-tissue ligaments?


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 1, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> my tree doesn't branch because I'm a redneck!   lol
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I've seen the evidence for myself, even dug up some fossils in college.  I see the signs of evolution having occurred.  I think anyone, if presented with all the information available should come to the same conclusion.  It's as plain as the foot bones on a whale.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 1, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I don't.    common sense tells me that it didn't evolve one ligament at a time.



Just to be clear, when you say that you don't need to hear from those people does that mean that you would disregard anything they had to say about the subject?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 1, 2011)

foot bones?   please explain?   Are you talking about the 'flippers' that whales use for copulation?

That begs another question...

Do scientists agree on the fossil record for the whale line?


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 1, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> the fossil record shows soft-tissue ligaments?



It shows where they connected to bone, so yes.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 1, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Just to be clear, when you say that you don't need to hear from those people does that mean that you would disregard anything they had to say about the subject?




No...what I meant was that I don't need them to explain the obvious.   You talked like we couldn't understand that a knee needs more than two ligaments without a scientist explaining it.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 1, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> It shows where they connected to bone, so yes.



so, we can see how a knee has evolved from only two or three ligaments to more than 6?


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 1, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> foot bones?   please explain?   Are you talking about the 'flippers' that whales use for copulation?
> 
> That begs another question...
> 
> Do scientists agree on the fossil record for the whale line?



It's easily Googled.  I'll let you look at the info for yourself as opposed to having me provide you with a link to a scientific paper that is full of "evil-ution" blasphemy.  

No, they don't always agree.  But they keep asking questions and looking for explanations and that impresses me.  

I saw a thing about how some paleontologists are trying to figure out how much hunting did T-rex do. Fascinating work.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 1, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> I saw a thing about how some paleontologists are trying to figure out how much hunting did T-rex do. Fascinating work.



If any.   I've heard he was probably more of a scavenger, and wasn't a great runner.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 1, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> If any.   I've heard he was probably more of a scavenger, and wasn't a great runner.



The portion of his cranium that is devoted to the sense of smell is very large, much like buzzards.  

The show i saw showed that the legs of juveniles were similar to ostriches, which can run 40MPH.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 1, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> No...what I meant was that I don't need them to explain the obvious.   You talked like we couldn't understand that a knee needs more than two ligaments without a scientist explaining it.



For a human knee to function it has to look like what we have.  I don't know if there is an animal with only two ligaments in its "knee".  If there is, it probably doesn't do the same thing as our knee.  



BANDERSNATCH said:


> so, we can see how a knee has evolved from only two or three ligaments to more than 6?



Good question.  Thus the necessity for the panel of experts I suggested we assemble.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 1, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> For a human knee to function it has to look like what we have. * I don't know if there is an animal with only two ligaments in its "knee".  *If there is, it probably doesn't do the same thing as our knee.
> 
> 
> 
> Good question.  Thus the necessity for the panel of experts I suggested we assemble.



A snake?


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 1, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> A snake?




http://www.esrf.eu/news/general/Snake-with-leg/

God put them there to test our faith.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 1, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> http://www.esrf.eu/news/general/Snake-with-leg/
> 
> God put them there to test our faith.



You asked for an animal and I delivered with a one of a kind snake fossil with a knee!

Your very welcome











 Sorry, I'm slightly bored at work today.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 1, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> You asked for an animal and I delivered with a one of a kind snake fossil with a knee!
> 
> Your very welcome
> Sorry, I'm slightly bored at work today.




Modern snakes have vestigial limbs too. They just aren't as pronounced as in the specimen that i linked you to.    You can look it up or stay uninformed.  Your choice.


----------



## bzb (Aug 2, 2011)

I would argue that the opposite is why it proves that it's not "designed".

If it were designed by a perfect designer, it wouldn't have multiple fatal flaws.  A replacement knee is far less complex.

The parts evolved to support each other because of those failures.


And another thing, what's complex to one, isn't necessarily to others.  I know a lot of people who are completely boggled by computers and their programming.  It's pretty simple to me.  Hence, I have a job.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 2, 2011)

bzb said:


> i would argue that the opposite is why it proves that it's not "designed".
> 
> If it were designed by a perfect designer, it wouldn't have multiple fatal flaws.  A replacement knee is far less complex.
> 
> ...



x l nt


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 2, 2011)

bzb said:


> I would argue that the opposite is why it proves that it's not "designed".
> 
> If it were designed by a perfect designer, it wouldn't have multiple fatal flaws.  A replacement knee is far less complex.
> 
> ...



What are the fatal flaws of the human knee?   Knees work perfectly in most everyone until they damage them.   Does a replacement knee last as long as the original?   

Also, complexity isn't defined by one's ability to comprehend it.    

complexity [kəmˈplɛksɪtɪ]
n pl -ties
1. the state or quality of being intricate or complex
2. something intricate or complex; complication

I understand computers very well, and I'm proud to say they are complex.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 2, 2011)

bzb said:


> A replacement knee is far less complex.



...and this is why they only last a little while....with issues!

http://www.ehow.com/about_5449458_problem-artificial-knees.html

from the article...

"Limited Use

    One of the big gripes with artificial knees is that they are not as versatile as the originals. "

DUH!   ya think?


----------



## The Original Rooster (Aug 2, 2011)

pnome said:


> Nope.  Think Moses and the Midianites.



No. Think David and Bathsheba.


----------



## bzb (Aug 12, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> What are the fatal flaws of the human knee?   Knees work perfectly in most everyone until they damage them.   Does a replacement knee last as long as the original?



ACL/MCL. Arthritis.  Degenerative tissues. Multiple connections.  Complex support structures such as the ligaments, muscles that control the joint, tendons.  All of these work in harmony, some can be compensated for, some injuries completely eliminate movement.

If it were the work of a designer, there wouldn't be a thing such as arthritis.  A designer wouldn't put in the ability of some parts to degenerate with zero possibility of regeneration, yet other support structures that ability.



> Also, complexity isn't defined by one's ability to comprehend it.
> 
> complexity [kəmˈplɛksɪtɪ]
> n pl -ties
> ...



Not the definition, rather the usage of the word.  Getting into semantics doesn't really get to the crux of the argument.

Simply put, what's complex to one person (the state or quality of being intricate) is elementary to others.  To put it in perspective with this forum, I have no idea what I'm looking at when I read my fish finder.  It's complex to me right now, because I don't know enough about it, and I have zero experience with it.  Then there are guys here who could look at my screen and tell me what species of fish were under my boat based on those lines.

Yes, computers, as a whole, are complex.  I couldn't explain how the hardware portion works or how they're built at the factory.  I'm a software engineer.  Computer programming is easy for me, I've been doing it since I was a kid in the 80s on my C64.  

At the root, it's on or off, true or false, 1 or 0.  Computers, when you break it down, only do what you tell them to, and they're pretty stupid.

In that, if I tell them to loop infinitely, they will.  The old shampoo algorithm:

1. Apply shampoo
2. Lather
3. Rinse
4. Repeat

People know to repeat once and your hair is clean.  We weren't designed.  We are complex because we evolved to be complex.  You don't necessarily have to be explicit to a person down to the elementary root of meaning for them to understand you with language.

Computers *were* designed.  They're stupid (by every meaning of the word) machines.  They will do exactly what you told them to do with predictable results, barring any dumb moves by those hardware engineer dorks (like the original Pentium calculation problem). 

Of course, development of AI changes the game... but that's not what we're talking about


----------

