Real Science Friday- Caterpillar Kills Atheism

[Jefferson]

Real Science Friday- Caterpillar Kills Atheism (http://kgov.com/bel_56kbps/20080328)

This is the show from Friday March 28th, 2008.

SUMMARY:

* Challenge to Atheists: RSF co-hosts Fred Williams, with Creation Research Society, and Bob Enyart, challenge atheists to give a rough description of how evolution could possibly explain (it cannot) a caterpillar liquefying itself and re-creating itself into a butterfly. Evolution uses random mutations, small incremental changes, and natural selection. The chrysalis stage is an impassible gulf that small random changes cannot cross. A caterpillar species needs to begin digesting itself, turning itself into a "bag of rich fluid," and then forming all new tissue and organs, including wings, legs, antennae, heart, muscles and nervous system, building a brand new organism, and then starting the process all over again. So, Bob and Fred invite any atheist to spend the next 25 years trying to come up with a rough algorithm of how Darwinism can cross the Chrysalis divide!

* Evolutionist Criticizes Bob: Go figure. The last time Bob described the caterpillar liquefying itself and then re-forming itself, a feat impossible for Darwinism to accomplish, an online evolutionist criticized him saying that caterpillars "do not liquefy themselves." However, the world's leading expert on Monarch Butterflies, Dr. Lincoln Brower, whose scientific papers published over 50 years take 15 pages just to list, writes (http://www.learner.org/jnorth/tm/monarch/ChrysalisDevelopmentLPB.html), "Enzymes are being released that digest all the caterpillar tissue, so that the caterpillar is being converted into a rich culture medium... that chrysalis, during the first 3-4 days is literally a bag of rich fluid media that these cells are growing on. ...it truly is a miraculous biological process of transformation"

* Carbon 14 Found in Deep Well Gas: Carbon 14 decays in only thousands of years, and therefore, cannot last for millions of years. Thus, young-earth creationists find evidence that the earth is not billions of years old as Christian and secular scientists find Carbon 14 EVERYWHERE it shouldn't be if the earth were old, including in diamonds, coal, oil, dinosaur fossils, amber! Creation Research Society Quarterly author John Doughty reports (http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/Abstracts44-2.htm) now on radiocarbon found in two-mile deep natural gas wells! Doughy concludes, "Once again, fossil gas is not carbon-14 dead. Thus, the age of the gases is on the order of thousands, not millions of years.

Post-show Note: Please join Bob, Tom & Madelyn in welcoming Judie Brown to Colorado (http://coloradorighttolife.org/) at evening $100-a-plate fundraisers on April 4 & 5, or help get signatures, or you can donate directly to the non-deductible Colorado RTL Issue Committee to help get Personhood on the ballot in November! Just call Donna at 303 753-9394! Our deadline for 76,000 signatures is May 13th! We're at 45,000 and going strong! We need your help! Please, help

Today's Resource: Bob Enyart Live will sign you up for a subscription to Creation Magazine as a thank you if you order the BEL Science Pack (http://www.kgovstore.com/servlet/Detail?no=113) or Donate (http://www.kgovstore.com/servlet/Categories?category=Donations) $100 or more to BEL! We're at $18,000 of our vital $25,000 goal. You can help also by subscribing to our Monthly Sermons (http://kgov.com/store/detail/subscriptions/sundaysermons.html) resource! Every month, you'll get Bob's sermons delivered to your door in the U.S. Mail. Also, you can consider subscribing to our BEL Televised Classics (http://kgov.com/store/detail/subscriptions/tvclassics.html) on DVD (to see the educational and often hilarious, and sometimes intense, episodes from Bob's nationally syndicated TV show). And you can subscribe to our monthly Bible Study Albums (http://kgov.com/store/detail/subscriptions/biblealbums.html), or our monthly topical Videos (http://kgov.com/store/detail/subscriptions/monthlyvideos.html)! These subscriptions will help you grow spiritually and intellectually! So many have reported that the biblical knowledge they gain from these resources is so practical that it has helped them improve: their marriages and other relationships, parenting and grand-parenting, work relationships, evangelizing, and so many general life skills! And of course, subscribing to one or more of these services will not only help you, at the same time you will be helping KGOV continue to reach more people with our biblically-based worldview!

[SUTG]

challenge atheists to give a rough description of how evolution could possibly explain (it cannot) a caterpillar liquefying itself and re-creating itself into a butterfly.

This challenge is answered by the next line in Jefferson's post:

Evolution uses random mutations, small incremental changes, and natural selection.

This type of ignorance has been refuted long ago. Enyart just didn't get the memo.

[Toast]

This challenge is answered by the next line in Jefferson's post:

This type of ignorance has been refuted long ago. Enyart just didn't get the memo.

I really don't think liquifying oneself is generally a great way to perpuate the species. =)

Natural selection is going to choose the path of least resistance, where this liquification process would seem to be rather hard to recover from by chance..

[Servo]

This challenge is answered by the next line in Jefferson's post:



This type of ignorance has been refuted long ago. Enyart just didn't get the memo.

What about:

The chrysalis stage is an impassible gulf that small random changes cannot cross...

[SUTG]

I really don't think liquifying oneself is generally a great way to perpuate the species. =)

It isn't. Caterpillars don't liquidate themselves in order to perpetuate the species.

Natural selection is going to choose the path of least resistance, where this liquification process would seem to be rather hard to recover from by chance..

Huh? What do you mean by "recover from by chance"?

[SUTG]

What about: The chrysalis stage is an impassible gulf that small random changes cannot cross...


What about it? It needs to be shown, not asserted.

[The Berean]

Well I bet this Caterpillar (http://www.cat.com/cda/layout?m=111775&x=7&f=151782) could take out a whole bunch of atheists at once! :reals:

[Turbo]

What about it? It needs to be shown, not asserted.
Go for it. Show, rather than assert.


"Give a rough description of how evolution could possibly explain (it cannot) a caterpillar liquefying itself and re-creating itself into a butterfly."

(Hint: Merely throwing out evolutionist buzzwords like "random mutations, small incremental changes, and natural selection" does not suffice as even a rough description.)

[nicholsmom]

It isn't. Caterpillars don't liquidate themselves in order to perpetuate the species.


Caterpillars cannot reproduce/perpetuate the species at all until they've liquidated themselves in order to become butterflies. So Caterpillars do liquidate themselves in order to perpetuate the species - why else?

Huh? What do you mean by "recover from by chance"?
This type of leap would require caterpillars to have first been able to reproduce without metamorphosis. Then suddenly a massive number of caterpillars made an identical "random mutation" or a "small incremental change" (yowza - not really a small change there) so that no possibility of "natural selection" could ensue until mass liquidation of the population would produce a swarm of reproducing butterflies. What random mutation would alter a caterpillar to make it incapable of reproducing until it had liquidated itself & transformed into a butterfly? Sounds like utter failure to me. What small incremental change could accomplish this task in sufficient quantity to produce enough butterflies to reproduce at all? What natural selection would even be possible to create such a reproductive cycle?

[Jukia]

Standard Pastor Bob argument from personal incredulity. In addition he still has not seemed to learn that evolutionary theory is not a synonym for atheism.

But it certainly seems like a fertile area for creation "scientists" to do some--oh you know--research. However, my guess is that the whole issue of metamorphosis, both complete and incomplete, is complicated. It is sooooo much easier to say "How could this be? I don't understand it. So God must have done it this way."

[Granite]

Standard Pastor Bob argument from personal incredulity.

But it certainly seems like a fertile area for creation "scientists" to do some--oh you know--research. But that is another "don't hold your breath" issue.

Perfectly put. The dazzling spectacle of nature is fascinating and worthy of study.

An argument from incredulity is revealing in this case because setting aside the evolution of a lowly caterpillar, it's astonishing to ponder what Enyart and others actually believe without any incredulity whatsoever.

[DoogieTalons]

Wow purely and simply retarded, held back, stopped dead in your intellectualy tracts. Dumb creationists once said "it truly is a miraculous biological process" of the bombadier beetle, that was quickly refuted and blown out of the water, and some of thes eunderevolved monkeys ares still grinding that one through the mill.

The creationsits motto seems to be "Always refuted never Retracted" Just get your ideas out there and hope the peons and the great unwashed take it as truth and ask no more questions.

And as it happens there are explanations for the evolution of the butterfly with the catapillar being a form of zygote/embryonic version. An advanced and more beautiful "Fly" which starts life as a maggot chyrsalises and is reborn a fly.

Much the same way dolphins grow limbs ebyonically then reduce. The creationists say a baby is a baby from conception so a Cattapillar is a Butterfly. It's just not grown yet but does it have any less rights.... sorry I'm going off down the insane lane lucky I have fundy company though eh...

It makes sense that you can be born early and in great multitude, then eat the the plants instead of needing the energy stored in an egg, then transform into your mating form afterwards.

But the point of the my post is this.

How is mankind ever going progress when all it takes is a few thoughtless unintelligent sheep to simply cry "God did it?" and sit back resting on your genesis.

If you don't know how it came about and you really want to find out try studying it instead of relying on your non existant guy in the sky. To keep you happy knowing nothing.

You are decended from people who thought the earth flat because of your old book of jewish stories, good job you evolved from that one eh? or you'd have no credibility instead of the very very little credibility you currently enjoy.

[Servo]

Go for it. Show, rather than assert.


"Give a rough description of how evolution could possibly explain (it cannot) a caterpillar liquefying itself and re-creating itself into a butterfly."

(Hint: Merely throwing out evolutionist buzzwords like "random mutations, small incremental changes, and natural selection" does not suffice as even a rough description.)

Give a rough description? Exactly Turbo, all we are going to see hear is more evolutionist rhetoric and creationist bashing.

[Servo]

And as it happens there are explanations for the evolution of the butterfly with the catapillar being a form of zygote/embryonic version.

So what are these explanations?



An advanced and more beautiful "Fly" which starts life as a maggot chyrsalises and is reborn a fly.



Uhh...I think we know that part....

[chatmaggot]

Wow purely and simply retarded, held back, stopped dead in your intellectualy tracts. Dumb creationists once said "it truly is a miraculous biological process" of the bombadier beetle, that was quickly refuted and blown out of the water, and some of thes eunderevolved monkeys ares still grinding that one through the mill.

The creationsits motto seems to be "Always refuted never Retracted" Just get your ideas out there and hope the peons and the great unwashed take it as truth and ask no more questions.

And as it happens there are explanations for the evolution of the butterfly with the catapillar being a form of zygote/embryonic version. An advanced and more beautiful "Fly" which starts life as a maggot chyrsalises and is reborn a fly.

Much the same way dolphins grow limbs ebyonically then reduce. The creationists say a baby is a baby from conception so a Cattapillar is a Butterfly. It's just not grown yet but does it have any less rights.... sorry I'm going off down the insane lane lucky I have fundy company though eh...

It makes sense that you can be born early and in great multitude, then eat the the plants instead of needing the energy stored in an egg, then transform into your mating form afterwards.

But the point of the my post is this.

How is mankind ever going progress when all it takes is a few thoughtless unintelligent sheep to simply cry "God did it?" and sit back resting on your genesis.

If you don't know how it came about and you really want to find out try studying it instead of relying on your non existant guy in the sky. To keep you happy knowing nothing.

You are decended from people who thought the earth flat because of your old book of jewish stories, good job you evolved from that one eh? or you'd have no credibility instead of the very very little credibility you currently enjoy.

This is silly. No one has ever explained how incremental random mutations developed in a beetle that never had the ability to then have the ability of a bombadier beetle.

[DoogieTalons]

The explanations are out there do something no creationist does and actually look for them yourself instead of compounding someone else personal incredulity by simply agreeing with it, don't you see that this whole thing shows the fundamental difference between creation "Scientists" and real Scientists, you know the sort that designed the PC you're sat at.

When the average creationist sees a complex and seemingly impossible to explain natural phenomenon they just cry "GodDidIt", saying it's impossible to find a natural explanation... FOR THEM limited in intelligence as they usually are.

When a scientist sees the same thing they throw thier hands in the air and give up. It's merely a problem and if it's in thier field of endeavour they set about working on it.

The solution could take many years, but just consider the evolution of a metamorphosis process is not really even close to as impossible as you might think.

The process would not have to randomly, accidentally jump together immediately the way YEC nutters misstate the problem. It would develop by a step-by-step process. It is possible to theorise a possible scenario of incremental development, to test against the data that is found, you know that word ? test rather than look up in Genesis. You'd be surprised how much information is NOT in Genesis.. like 99.999999999999999999999% of the information we use on a day to day basis to live our lives.

You see some insects like cockroaches (ancient insects by fossil standards) hatch as a small version of their adult selves and just grow larger.

Other insects that appear later in the fossil record go through a life metamorphosis , consisting of egg, nymph , adult.

At some point in the record some insect eggs began hatching before they were fully formed. This could evolutioniary be usefull... what do I mean could !! WAS you see ther oaches stayed on in their way, having no pressures to change, but for other insects a nymph stage aided their survival and it was added to their life cycle, or they wouldn't be here.

So at some point over incremental steps, from simply wrapping a leaf around itself to actually creating the whole cocoon a nymph developed the behaviour to form these cocoons around themselves before maturation to the adult. This enabled it to survive say a winter and emerge full grown. So, by a long step by step process, the Complete Metamorphosis cycle did arise.

The problem of how the Metamorphosis cycle of a Butterfly is not solved. But is it impossible? don't think so. Its just a problem that scientists, using the scientific method and not leaping to proclaim"GodDidIt", are probably working on solving.

And this ridiculous argument will go down in history like the tale of the bombadier beetle as just another dumb idea those creationists had... that didn't quite pan out.

[DoogieTalons]

This is silly. No one has ever explained how incremental random mutations developed in a beetle that never had the ability to then have the ability of a bombadier beetle.The incremental steps of evolution that explain how a beetle like the bombadier could exist have been explained, go back to school and stay off those AiG sites, even they are backing away from that one.

Starting with the fact that the chemicals it produces aren't even close to the explosive power the creationists thought. My word you don't have to be dumb to be a creationist but it sure does help you swallow it.

Remember the creationist mantra

"Often refuted, never retracted" and perhaps you'll look for your own answers.

[DoogieTalons]

And this complete liquification nonsense, monarch catapillars have the beginnings of the wings actually forming underneath the caterpillar's skin before its last molt.

[Toast]

Our argument is not one from incredulity.

I have a couple of questions to the evolutionists in this thread, doogie or whomever..

Could evolution be theoretically disproven? If so, how?

Just interested in seeing how much your bias prevents you from seeing the truth.

[Granite]

Our argument is not one from incredulity.

I have a couple of questions to the evolutionists in this thread, doogie or whomever..

Could evolution be theoretically disproven? If so, how?

Just interested in seeing how much your bias prevents you from seeing the truth.

How kind of you. With an attitude like yours, why bother asking questions?

And yes, this is an argument drawn from an inability to imagine something being possible. It's an old intellectual fallacy, and it happens all the time.

[DoogieTalons]

Our argument is not one from incredulity.

I have a couple of questions to the evolutionists in this thread, doogie or whomever..

Could evolution be theoretically disproven? If so, how?

Just interested in seeing how much your bias prevents you from seeing the truth.It could be theoretically disproven, anything can I could theoretically disprove the earth revolves around the sun. It wouldn't actually disprove it.

[Servo]

And this complete liquification nonsense, monarch catapillars have the beginnings of the wings actually forming underneath the caterpillar's skin before its last molt.

So what is stated in the following quote is wrong?

* Evolutionist Criticizes Bob: Go figure. The last time Bob described the caterpillar liquefying itself and then re-forming itself, a feat impossible for Darwinism to accomplish, an online evolutionist criticized him saying that caterpillars "do not liquefy themselves." However, the world's leading expert on Monarch Butterflies, Dr. Lincoln Brower, whose scientific papers published over 50 years take 15 pages just to list, writes, "Enzymes are being released that digest all the caterpillar tissue, so that the caterpillar is being converted into a rich culture medium... that chrysalis, during the first 3-4 days is literally a bag of rich fluid media that these cells are growing on. ...it truly is a miraculous biological process of transformation"

[Granite]

Does anyone else notice the irony in Enyart appealing to an evolutionist like Brower?

[Jukia]

Our argument is not one from incredulity.

I have a couple of questions to the evolutionists in this thread, doogie or whomever..

Could evolution be theoretically disproven? If so, how?

Just interested in seeing how much your bias prevents you from seeing the truth.

While not quite a disproof of evolution---find me a mammal fossil in the Cambrian. Not only would that put a big crimp in evolutionary theory it would for the most part blow much of current scientific theory out of the water.
Would seem to be another fertile area for creation scientists (sorry just too lazy to put it in quotes) to do research and be a home run if they found one.

[DoogieTalons]

So what is stated in the following quote is wrong?
Dr Bowers has also been quoted as saying the chrysalis is "just almost a bag of fluid" so go figure, the facts and research bear out that the catapillar has the beginning of wings forming under it's skin.

Rich Fluid Media does not mean "Liquid" it means a rich fluid media otherwise being a scientist he would have said... liquid.

It would be accurate to say a human is moslty liquid as we are 70% water.

[DoogieTalons]

Does anyone else notice the irony in Enyart appealing to an evolutionist like Brower?Creationists often datamine real scientists as it's where real work is done. They have no shame regarding who they will temporarily side with, like a dirty little asteroid basking in the reflected glory of the sun it orbits, hoping somehow it's magnificence will rub off on them if only for long enough to make them glow to the observer.

[Jukia]

Does anyone else notice the irony in Enyart appealing to an evolutionist like Brower?

Creationists are just so used to quote mining they cannot help themselves!!!

Would it not be more intellectually honest for Pastor Bob to contact Dr. Brower and bring his questions up with him, at least get Brower's take. God forbid we should try to confuse people with the facts. So much easier to be incredulous and then say "Goddidit".

[SUTG]

Go for it. Show, rather than assert.


"Give a rough description of how evolution could possibly explain (it cannot) a caterpillar liquefying itself and re-creating itself into a butterfly."

(Hint: Merely throwing out evolutionist buzzwords like "random mutations, small incremental changes, and natural selection" does not suffice as even a rough description.)

The "rough" description is the theory of evolution itself. It isn't my fault you don't understand it.

[SUTG]

This type of leap would require caterpillars to have first been able to reproduce without metamorphosis. Then suddenly a massive number of caterpillars made an identical "random mutation" or a "small incremental change" (yowza - not really a small change there) so that no possibility of "natural selection" could ensue until mass liquidation of the population would produce a swarm of reproducing butterflies. What random mutation would alter a caterpillar to make it incapable of reproducing until it had liquidated itself & transformed into a butterfly? Sounds like utter failure to me. What small incremental change could accomplish this task in sufficient quantity to produce enough butterflies to reproduce at all? What natural selection would even be possible to create such a reproductive cycle?

Let me guess; you've never taken a Biology class, right? :chuckle:

[SUTG]

Could evolution be theoretically disproven?

Yes, but not by any of the Christians in this thread.

If so, how?

That is your homework for tomorrow. (HINT: See a basic Biology text)


Just interested in seeing how much your bias prevents you from seeing the truth.

LOL, it's good to see you have such a stronghold on the truth.

[chatmaggot]

The incremental steps of evolution that explain how a beetle like the bombadier could exist have been explained, go back to school and stay off those AiG sites, even they are backing away from that one.

Starting with the fact that the chemicals it produces aren't even close to the explosive power the creationists thought. My word you don't have to be dumb to be a creationist but it sure does help you swallow it.

Remember the creationist mantra

"Often refuted, never retracted" and perhaps you'll look for your own answers.

Perhaps you can enlighten us with exactly how a beetle without the ability nor the genetic capacity to do what the Bombadier beetle does evolved the ability to do so.

[chatmaggot]

The "rough" description is the theory of evolution itself. It isn't my fault you don't understand it.

That is the most pathetic explanation ever put forth. Evolution in a general sense refers to a change in population. How does a change in a population (i.e. beak sizes in finches) explain the process of metamorphasis?

Just saying the word "evolution" doesn't make it so.

[Evoken]

Does anyone else notice the irony in Enyart appealing to an evolutionist like Brower?

Hmm...not really. That Enyart believes Brower is wrong about evolution does not mean that he thinks he is wrong about everything he says.


Evo

[SUTG]

Perhaps you can enlighten us with exactly how a beetle without the ability nor the genetic capacity to do what the Bombadier beetle does evolved the ability to do so.

Boy, you don't ask for much, do you? How detailled of an explanation do you want? Is down to the atomic level enough, or should we include the trajectories of all of the elemetary particles as well?

Really, though, this is just another example of the irreducible complexity argument, which is obsolete. Why this argument is obsolete is left as an exercise for the reader.:execute:

[Toast]

Yes, but not by any of the Christians in this thread.

That is your homework for tomorrow. (HINT: See a basic Biology text)

LOL, it's good to see you have such a stronghold on the truth.

Okay, well, I'm glad some of you can admit that it is disproveable. My only reason for getting in this thread is that Doogie claimed that we argued from incredulity. But in fact, we argue from science, stating that such theories as evolution seem to go against the basic laws of science, such as laws of thermo and entropy. Our main argument is not that, we don't understand it, so God did it, as portrayed by many evolutionists who don't wish to even consider our point of view, but that there are several limits to matter and energy, which have been observed and proved by science, which prevent evolution from happening. Information and building blocks do not organize themselves. Ask any scientist or engineer(which I am currently training to be btw) if complex things build themselves from raw unorganized elements..

So seriously guys, enough of that silliness. Whether you agree with our argument or not, at least be respectful and don't misrepresent our position. Thanks..

[DoogieTalons]

Perhaps you can enlighten us with exactly how a beetle without the ability nor the genetic capacity to do what the Bombadier beetle does evolved the ability to do so.
One answer [talkorigins]

Insects produce quinones for tanning their cuticle. Quinones make them distasteful, so the insects evolve to produce more of them and to produce other defensive chemicals, including hydroquinones.
The insects evolve depressions for storing quinones and muscles for ejecting them onto their surface when threatened with being eaten. The depression becomes a reservoir with secretory glands supplying hydroquinones into it. This configuration exists in many beetles, including close relatives of bombardier beetles (Forsyth 1970).
Hydrogen peroxide becomes mixed with the hydroquinones. Catalases and peroxidases appear along the output passage of the reservoir, ensuring that more quinones appear in the exuded product.
More catalases and peroxidases are produced, generating oxygen and producing a foamy discharge, as in the bombardier beetle Metrius contractus (Eisner et al. 2000).
As the output passage becomes a hardened reaction chamber, still more catalases and peroxidases are produced, gradually becoming today's bombardier beetles.


So if it was God's design, and God didn't have death in his creation, then why design a self defence mechanism such as this... or did god Re-Create after the fall ?

[SUTG]

But in fact, we argue from science, stating that such theories as evolution seem to go against the basic laws of science, such as laws of thermo and entropy.

The only people who ever bring this up anymore are creationists who do not understand evolution or entropy. The argument is just plain silly. Go research it online or read up on entropy. If you still think there is an argument left, come back and tell us about it.

Our main argument is not that, we don't understand it, so God did it, as portrayed by many evolutionists who don't wish to even consider our point of view...

It has been considered and rejected long ago. Just like astronomers won't be bothered with astrology or the idea that the sky is a big dome covering the Earth, biologists don't really bother with creationism much anymore.


but that there are several limits to matter and energy, which have been observed and proved by science, which prevent evolution from happening.

:nono: :nono: :nono:

Information and building blocks do not organize themselves. Ask any scientist or engineer(which I am currently training to be btw) if complex things build themselves from raw unorganized elements..

Yes they do. Most scientist and engineers are aware of this. Would you like some examples?

Whether you agree with our argument or not, at least be respectful and don't misrepresent our position. Thanks..

OK. Since I am presumably one of the main culprits, I'll do my best. :chuckle: :cheers:

It is just that there are so many YECs here, and elsewhere, that pretend to have genuine scientific concerns with the theory of evolution, who turn out to be frauds. Their real objection is on religious grounds. They have no scientific background or understanding of basic biology, but they pretend to have arised at their position by sincere scientific inquiry.

[Ktoyou]

One answer [talkorigins]

Insects produce quinones for tanning their cuticle. Quinones make them distasteful, so the insects evolve to produce more of them and to produce other defensive chemicals, including hydroquinones.
The insects evolve depressions for storing quinones and muscles for ejecting them onto their surface when threatened with being eaten. The depression becomes a reservoir with secretory glands supplying hydroquinones into it. This configuration exists in many beetles, including close relatives of bombardier beetles (Forsyth 1970).
Hydrogen peroxide becomes mixed with the hydroquinones. Catalases and peroxidases appear along the output passage of the reservoir, ensuring that more quinones appear in the exuded product.
More catalases and peroxidases are produced, generating oxygen and producing a foamy discharge, as in the bombardier beetle Metrius contractus (Eisner et al. 2000).
As the output passage becomes a hardened reaction chamber, still more catalases and peroxidases are produced, gradually becoming today's bombardier beetles.


So if it was God's design, and God didn't have death in his creation, then why design a self defence mechanism such as this... or did god Re-Create after the fall ?

This is interesting, not being an entomologist, I cannot say more than grasshoppers or locusts are good to eat. A little trail mix and a few dozen of these makes for a good days out meal. It helps keep you out all day without carrying a pack.

[DoogieTalons]

Okay, well, I'm glad some of you can admit that it is disproveable. My only reason for getting in this thread is that Doogie claimed that we argued from incredulity. But in fact, we argue from science, stating that such theories as evolution seem to go against the basic laws of science, such as laws of thermo and entropy. Our main argument is not that, we don't understand it, so God did it, as portrayed by many evolutionists who don't wish to even consider our point of view, but that there are several limits to matter and energy, which have been observed and proved by science, which prevent evolution from happening. Information and building blocks do not organize themselves. Ask any scientist or engineer(which I am currently training to be btw) if complex things build themselves from raw unorganized elements..

So seriously guys, enough of that silliness. Whether you agree with our argument or not, at least be respectful and don't misrepresent our position. Thanks..Look all your arguments are shallow and here's why.

The earth is not a closed system, thermodynamics rule number 2 need not apply.

also the longest strand with the most information of DNA is in the Ameoba. Hey go figure. Perhaps new info hasn't been added, just changed and shrunk.

Thats right a single Human DNA strand has less information than that of the oldest known life the single celled organism. We are less complex at the celular level than an ameoba thats entropy for you. We are more organised, but hey a JPG has less information than a BMP... it's just more organised.

So burn your straw men now stop trying to defend the already long refuted and learn something about your world.

You can use a computer, you can type, you can't be completely retarded by religion.

[Jukia]

But in fact, we argue from science, stating that such theories as evolution seem to go against the basic laws of science, such as laws of thermo and entropy.

Don't even bother. That issue has been beaten to death. Go learn some chemistry and biology.

[SUTG]

This is interesting, not being an entomologist, I cannot say more than grasshoppers or locusts are good to eat. A little trail mix and a few dozen of these makes for a good days out meal. It helps keep you out all day without carrying a pack.


I'll take your word for it. ;)

[chatmaggot]

One answer [talkorigins]

Insects produce quinones for tanning their cuticle. Quinones make them distasteful, so the insects evolve to produce more of them and to produce other defensive chemicals, including hydroquinones.
The insects evolve depressions for storing quinones and muscles for ejecting them onto their surface when threatened with being eaten. The depression becomes a reservoir with secretory glands supplying hydroquinones into it. This configuration exists in many beetles, including close relatives of bombardier beetles (Forsyth 1970).
Hydrogen peroxide becomes mixed with the hydroquinones. Catalases and peroxidases appear along the output passage of the reservoir, ensuring that more quinones appear in the exuded product.
More catalases and peroxidases are produced, generating oxygen and producing a foamy discharge, as in the bombardier beetle Metrius contractus (Eisner et al. 2000).
As the output passage becomes a hardened reaction chamber, still more catalases and peroxidases are produced, gradually becoming today's bombardier beetles.


So if it was God's design, and God didn't have death in his creation, then why design a self defence mechanism such as this... or did god Re-Create after the fall ?

You can SUTG keep tossing this word "evolve" and "evolution" around as if that explains something. You two are explaining nothing!

You really do believe this stuff don't you?

[Servo]

Don't even bother. That issue has been beaten to death. Go learn some chemistry and biology.

The standard answer, YET AGAIN. Alas...

[SUTG]

You can SUTG keep tossing this word "evolve" and "evolution" around as if that explains something. You two are explaining nothing!

You really do believe this stuff don't you?

Doogie and I believe all sort of crazy stuff. The Earth is round, matter is composed of particles, light is composed of electromagnetic waves, etc. I guess we're just funny that way.

You believe alot of it too! If you had a terrible disease, what would you do? Go to a hospital where you could receive the best care using the results of the latest in medical science (based on evolutionary theory), or go to a church where a pastor could pray for your recovery? I think I know the answer.

[SUTG]

The standard answer, YET AGAIN. Alas...

Hmmm...I wonder why people keep telling you to learn some science. :think:

Could it be that....come on Shmei, think about it....

[Servo]

Doogie and I believe all sort of crazy stuff. The Earth is round, matter is composed of particles, light is composed of electromagnetic waves, etc. I guess we're just funny that way.

You believe alot of it too! If you had a terrible disease, what would you do? Go to a hospital where you could receive the best care using the results of the latest in medical science (based on evolutionary theory), or go to a church where a pastor could pray for your recovery? I think I know the answer.

This post is yet more proof that you have NO idea how YECs think.

People in Biblical times knew the Earth was round BTW...

[Toast]

Yes they do. Most scientist and engineers are aware of this. Would you like some examples?


Yes please, I'd be interested in whatever examples you have in mind.

[Servo]

Does anyone else notice the irony in Enyart appealing to an evolutionist like Brower?


No. Real science is real science. Brower's conclusion about origins may be wrong, but that does not mean he is wrong about the process and details of metamorphosis. What is ironic is how evolutionists are so "absolute" about everything yet they don't generally believe in God.

IE: YEC's can acknowledge when a evolutionary scientist is correct about real science, but an evolutionary scientist will not even consider the YECs arguments for a Creator.

[Granite]

Perhaps because those "arguments" lack scientific basis and are a matter of faith.

Brower actually knows what he's talking about. But it's intellectually dishonest to cherrypick the man's considerable body of work to make a point at total odds with what he believes. Creationists, lacking bona fide scientific qualifications of their own, have no choice but to appropriate actual science.

[Ktoyou]

I'll take your word for it. ;)

Now that you take my word here, see if you will take it further. We do not live on food alone, but the bread of life. Have faith in Jesus, it has no pain, it is not a darkness that makes life less free, it is the beauty of thought and makes the vision of a pastoral day profound. Have faith and do not fear, as faith in Jesus Christ will bring the gift of Grace. It is the Grace from God that makes possible a true work in the name of God. You do not have to work for it, as that is a vanity, all you need to do is have faith in Jesus, the rest follows.

[Toast]

Perhaps because those "arguments" lack scientific basis and are a matter of faith.

Brower actually knows what he's talking about. But it's intellectually dishonest to cherrypick the man's considerable body of work to make a point at total odds with what he believes. Creationists, lacking bona fide scientific qualifications of their own, have no choice but to appropriate actual science.

That's absurd, why is it dishonest? Truth is truth; it doesn't really matter where it came from.

[Granite]

That's absurd, why is it dishonest? Truth is truth; it doesn't really matter where it came from.

Enyart wants to use evolutionists to make a point then turn around and continue to denounce evolution. That's convenient but also downright schizophrenic.

[Servo]

Perhaps because those "arguments" lack scientific basis and are a matter of faith.

Brower actually knows what he's talking about. But it's intellectually dishonest to cherrypick the man's considerable body of work to make a point at total odds with what he believes. Creationists, lacking bona fide scientific qualifications of their own, have no choice but to appropriate actual science.


Why do you suggest that YEC's creationists don't have scientific qualifications? They just don't line up perfectly with what evolutionists believe is the origin of our existence. There are so many holes in your theory, it is hilarious!

Anyway, it seems all these threads turn into this argument instead of answering the original questions in the OP. Us YECs have our answer, this complex creation was created by an extremely intelligent Creator and as we progress in real science, the more we understand the creation.

Hey, that reminds when you said this: (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1703602&postcount=21)

The idea that complexity requires a creator is downright puerile.:yawn:

[chatmaggot]

Doogie and I believe all sort of crazy stuff. The Earth is round, matter is composed of particles, light is composed of electromagnetic waves, etc. I guess we're just funny that way.

You believe alot of it too! If you had a terrible disease, what would you do? Go to a hospital where you could receive the best care using the results of the latest in medical science (based on evolutionary theory), or go to a church where a pastor could pray for your recovery? I think I know the answer.

Just when I thought you couldn't say anything more stupid than you already have you state the above.

You use the word evolution to not just describe but to explain the process of metapmorphasis. Now the same process explains how illnesses are treated? Wow, your theory of evolution does explain everything doesn't it.

[Servo]

Enyart wants to use evolutionists to make a point then turn around and continue to denounce evolution. That's convenient but also downright schizophrenic.


Enyart used the truth that was stated by an evolutionary scientist. Get over it already.

Hey Granite, is it possible for a YEC to state something that is true?

[SUTG]

Yes please, I'd be interested in whatever examples you have in mind.

Since you are asking for examples of complex things build themselves from raw unorganized elements, here are a couple of examples:

-Snowflakes and other crystals
-Chemistry in general
-Sand on a beach being ordered by size due to the action of the waves.

Evolutionary algorithms are also used quite a bit in engineering today, so most engineers will be familiar with these concepts.

There are more examples to be had, but any of these are an example of complexity arising from simple processes.

[chatmaggot]

Perhaps because those "arguments" lack scientific basis and are a matter of faith.

Brower actually knows what he's talking about. But it's intellectually dishonest to cherrypick the man's considerable body of work to make a point at total odds with what he believes. Creationists, lacking bona fide scientific qualifications of their own, have no choice but to appropriate actual science.

Do you really believe that there are no creationist with your so called "bona fide scientific qualifications"?

There are people that believe in creation that do not have scientific qualifications just as there are people who believe in evolution that do not have scientific qualifications. So what? Does that mean that those that don't can't read and use the results of those that do?

[Granite]

Why do you suggest that YEC's creationists don't have scientific qualifications? They just don't line up perfectly with what evolutionists believe is the origin of our existence. There are so many holes in your theory, it is hilarious!

Anyway, it seems all these threads turn into this argument instead of answering the original questions in the OP. Us YECs have our answer, this complex creation was created by an extremely intelligent Creator and as we progress in real science, the more we understand the creation.

Hey, that reminds when you said this: (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1703602&postcount=21)

I don't consider tax dodgers who get their degrees from diploma mills or other mediocrities with degrees from a silo college to be qualified scientists. Hardly the best brains on campus, as it were. Creationists are hardly qualified to practice phrenology, let alone offer "insight" on paleontology, archeology, physics, or anthropology.

[SUTG]

Just when I thought you couldn't say anything more stupid than you already have you state the above.

You use the word evolution to not just describe but to explain the process of metapmorphasis. Now the same process explains how illnesses are treated? Wow, your theory of evolution does explain everything doesn't it.

I notice you didn't answer the question. :wazzup:

[SUTG]

Why do you suggest that YEC's creationists don't have scientific qualifications?


Just a hunch, but probably because YEC's creationists don't have scientific qualifications.

[chatmaggot]

Since you are asking for examples of complex things build themselves from raw unorganized elements, here are a couple of examples:

-Snowflakes and other crystals
-Chemistry in general
-Sand on a beach being ordered by size due to the action of the waves.

Evolutionary algorithms are also used quite a bit in engineering today, so most engineers will be familiar with these concepts.

There are more examples to be had, but any of these are an example of complexity arising from simple processes.

What does that even mean? "Chemistry in general", "Evolution", and now you equate evolution with engineering? Are you saying that one cannot even build a bridge without understanding evolution?

[SUTG]

Now that you take my word here, see if you will take it further. We do not live on food alone, but the bread of life. Have faith in Jesus, it has no pain, it is not a darkness that makes life less free, it is the beauty of thought and makes the vision of a pastoral day profound. Have faith and do not fear, as faith in Jesus Christ will bring the gift of Grace. It is the Grace from God that makes possible a true work in the name of God. You do not have to work for it, as that is a vanity, all you need to do is have faith in Jesus, the rest follows.

No, sorry, I'll pass for now.

But you are free to believe that, and I appreciate your concern. :thumb:

[chatmaggot]

I notice you didn't answer the question. :wazzup:

Of course I am going to the doctor. Going to the doctor has nothing to do with evolution. Unless of course I am going to an engineering doctor right?

[SUTG]

Cue the Discovery Institute document...

[SUTG]

Of course I am going to the doctor. Going to the doctor has nothing to do with evolution. Unless of course I am going to an engineering doctor right?


As bob b would say, "I appreciate your candor." :chuckle:

Sure, going to the doctor has nothing to do with evolution, but what about the medical field that created all of those vaccinations, medications, and procedures?

Why do people get a different flu shot every year? :think:

[chatmaggot]

As bob b would say, "I appreciate your candor." :chuckle:

Sure, going to the doctor has nothing to do with evolution, but what about the medical field that created all of those vaccinations, medications, and procedures?

Why do people get a different flu shot every year? :think:

Are you implying that if not for evolution (whatever you define it to be...but to honest from this thread I woudn't trust your definition anyway) people cannot create vaccines or invent neosporin?

[SUTG]

What does that even mean? "Chemistry in general", "Evolution", and now you equate evolution with engineering? Are you saying that one cannot even build a bridge without understanding evolution?

Is English your first language?

[nicholsmom]

The process would not have to randomly, accidentally jump together immediately the way YEC nutters misstate the problem. It would develop by a step-by-step process. It is possible to theorise a possible scenario of incremental development, to test against the data that is found, you know that word ?
How would this "test" you speak of progress? How shall we test the "theory" (of course I'd just call this sort of thing "guessing" or "pulling out of thin air") - you know, scientifically?

You see some insects like cockroaches (ancient insects by fossil standards) hatch as a small version of their adult selves and just grow larger.

Other insects that appear later in the fossil record go through a life metamorphosis , consisting of egg, nymph , adult.
What? No fossil record of an intermediate stage?

At some point in the record some insect eggs began hatching before they were fully formed. This could evolutioniary be usefull... what do I mean could !! WAS you see ther oaches stayed on in their way, having no pressures to change, but for other insects a nymph stage aided their survival and it was added to their life cycle, or they wouldn't be here.
This would be lovely except for the fact that the nymph stage or caterpillar stage is the most vulnerable one. How could adding a more vulnerable stage be useful - er, evolutionarily? The butterfly can fly from danger, can reproduce more widely (thanks to those lovely wings), can find new food sources. The caterpillar is stuck where it hatched, cannot reproduce at all, and is pretty much a sitting duck for any predator; they even get gobbled up by herbivores who share their food "choice."


So at some point over incremental steps, from simply wrapping a leaf around itself to actually creating the whole cocoon a nymph developed the behaviour to form these cocoons around themselves before maturation to the adult. This enabled it to survive say a winter and emerge full grown. So, by a long step by step process, the Complete Metamorphosis cycle did arise.


Ah, more blue air, whole cloth, fantasy, flights - not of butterflies, but of imagination. Totally untestable; without foundation; and without a single supportive bit of evidence. Is that what you call "science?"

The problem of how the Metamorphosis cycle of a Butterfly is not solved. But is it impossible? don't think so. Its just a problem that scientists, using the scientific method and not leaping to proclaim"GodDidIt", are probably working on solving.
That is a vast & purposefully deceptive oversimplification of creation science.

And this ridiculous argument will go down in history like the tale of the bombadier beetle as just another dumb idea those creationists had... that didn't quite pan out.
I wouldn't hold my breath.

[nicholsmom]

As bob b would say, "I appreciate your candor." :chuckle:

Sure, going to the doctor has nothing to do with evolution, but what about the medical field that created all of those vaccinations, medications, and procedures?

Why do people get a different flu shot every year? :think:

The term "macro evolution" is misleading in that it implies a connection between evolution ("micro evolution") and simple adaptation to environment. This adaptation, in fact, can & does often happen with the help of what is now being termed "epigenetic" changes that result in improved survivability. Not at all like one species turning into a new species.

[Toast]

Since you are asking for examples of complex things build themselves from raw unorganized elements, here are a couple of examples:

-Snowflakes and other crystals
-Chemistry in general
-Sand on a beach being ordered by size due to the action of the waves.

Evolutionary algorithms are also used quite a bit in engineering today, so most engineers will be familiar with these concepts.

There are more examples to be had, but any of these are an example of complexity arising from simple processes.

Thanks for the reply SUTG, but I was hoping for something a bit more substantive... It would be even cooler if we actually found evolution building things from the raw elements of nature that are alive and can reproduce and perpuate itself. O wait, thats never been observed has it? :doh:

O btw, did you know that scientists now believe that snow flake formation is partly a result of bacteria in the atmosphere? I wonder what other kinds of effects bacteria might have on the weather. Guess we will find out eventually.

[SUTG]

Thanks for the reply SUTG, but I was hoping for something a bit more substantive...

Sorry. I only gave you exactly what you asked for. :idunno:


It would be even cooler if we actually found evolution building things from the raw elements of nature that are alive and can reproduce and perpuate itself.

Evolution wouldn't do that, since it is only a theory about populations of living organisms. Raw elements of nature are not living organisms.

O wait, thats never been observed has it? :doh:

No, it hasn't. Actually things that are alive and can reproduce themselves have only been observed coming from other things that are alive and can reproduce themselves. But why is this important?

[Clete]

The "rough" description is the theory of evolution itself. It isn't my fault you don't understand it.

So the rough description of how it evolved is basically to say, "It evolved."

Nice!

You know, if you have such a big problem with Creationists being intellectually dishonest, why are you so comfortable with being so yourself?

Why not just answer the question or admit that you have no answer?


Leaving the butterfly argument aside for the moment, there is more than one way to skin a cat. Finding of C-14 in fossil gases would disprove evolution as clearly as anything could because an extremely ancient Earth is a necessary condition for evolution to take place. If the Earth is not 100's of millions of years old, both Evolutionary Theory and Uniformitarianism are both falsified, are they not?

Resting in Him,
Clete

[SUTG]

So the rough description of how it evolved is basically to say, "It evolved."

LOL, well you have to admit he asked for a rough description. But, at the roughest level, evolution just says that all life shares common ancestry.

You know, if you have such a big problem with Creationists being intellectually dishonest, why are you so comfortable with being so yourself?

Where have I been intellectually dishonest?

If the Earth is not 100's of millions of years old, both Evolutionary Theory and Uniformitarianism are both falsified, are they not?


Well, of course, life could have evolved elsewhere, yadda, yadda. But I think it would be pretty fair to say that if someone could show that the Earth was, say less than a million years old, it would be a very serious problem for evolutionary theory sine that would not have been enough time for modern life to have evolved.

There are quite a few ways to falsify evolution. Showing a young Earth is but one of many.

[Clete]

While not quite a disproof of evolution---find me a mammal fossil in the Cambrian. Not only would that put a big crimp in evolutionary theory it would for the most part blow much of current scientific theory out of the water.

Human Artifacts in the Geological Column (http://www.nwcreation.net/humansingeocolumn.html)

[Clete]

LOL, well you have to admit he asked for a rough description. But, at the roughest level, evolution just says that all life shares common ancestry.
It says a hell of a lot more than that and you know it. And who cares anyway? How does this even begin to answer the question?

Where have I been intellectually dishonest?
See above!

Well, of course, life could have evolved elsewhere, yadda, yadda. But I think it would be pretty fair to say that if someone could show that the Earth was, say less than a million years old, it would be a very serious problem for evolutionary theory since that would not have been enough time for modern life to have evolved.

There are quite a few ways to falsify evolution. Showing a young Earth is but one of many.
Yes I know that. But you know that this isn't exactly what most creationists are getting at when they make the claim that Evolution is unfalsifiable, which it is. The theory itself is falsifiable is about a million different ways, but the point is that you won't let it be falsified by any of them and thus it becomes unfalsifiable in a practical sense if not in the rational sense of the term. But responding to the argument in that context would require you to be the intellectually honest person you want so badly for the Evolutionist to be and I suppose we all know how likely that is to happen, don't we?

Take for example how you just conceded that a young Earth would falsify Evolution but then you just don't seem to want to bother with responding to the fact that fossil gases and a thousand other things that should be too old to have any radio carbon are not radio carbon dead.

But then again, how could you respond? Oh! I know...

"The fact that we don't know how C14 came to be present in fossil gases and other extremely old places doesn't prove evolution false, it simply proves that we don't know how C14 came to be present in those places where it shouldn't be."

See what I mean? Unfalsifiable! Anything that seems to falsify your belief system is ignored or reinterpreted or in some other way pushed aside and not allowed to do that which you and your fellow true believers have repeatedly stated it would do, namely falsify Evolution.

Resting in Him,
Clete

[SUTG]

It says a hell of a lot more than that and you know it. And who cares anyway? How does this even begin to answer the question?

Clete, do you know what th word "roughly" means? It means approximately, or generally. The question has been answered.

Take for example how you just conceded that a young Earth would falsify Evolution but then you just don't seem to want to bother with responding to the fact that fossil gases and a thousand other things that should be too old to have any radio carbon are not radio carbon dead.

I have no idea what you are talking about, and I don't think you do either.

See what I mean? Unfalsifiable! Anything that seems to falsify your belief system is ignored or reinterpreted or in some other way pushed aside and not allowed to do that which you and your fellow true believers have repeatedly stated it would do, namely falsify Evolution.

It would be an easy matter to falsify evolution if only it were false. I think that is what is giving you and your pre-scientific brethren so many problems.

[nicholsmom]

Let me guess; you've never taken a Biology class, right? :chuckle:

You are entirely mistaken to think that I am ignorant of science. The trouble is that you seem to be incapable of making scientific arguments, so you cast aspersions on others. I am not a biologist, nor are you or you would make biological arguments, so you can expect that I may oversimplify biological processes. I do however, make proper argument rather than merely saying "whul, yur jus' stuupid" :nono:

[nicholsmom]

Since you are asking for examples of complex things build themselves from raw unorganized elements, here are a couple of examples:

-Snowflakes and other crystals
-Chemistry in general
-Sand on a beach being ordered by size due to the action of the waves.
Crystalline particles are not "raw unorganized elements" they have a molecular structure that requires that they stack up into crystals - check into a little chemistry, will ya? Chemistry relies on the predictability of elements based on their atomic structure, hence the periodic chart. The processes needed for chemical reactions are very organized & predictable if the variables are known.

As for sand on a beach, it is neither raw (sand particles have known characteristics & are therefore predictable - they will not get up, form into a marionette and do polka for us), nor is the "ordering" unorganized (the size and density of the particles is what sorts them like change in a change counter & wind is directed by pressure & temperature variations, obstructions to flow, and gravity, among other things - predictable & reproducible if all factors are known).

Any other examples? None of these examples end in a brand, spankin' new life form either do they?

Evolutionary algorithms are also used quite a bit in engineering today, so most engineers will be familiar with these concepts.
I guess old engineer that I am, I've not been exposed to these algorithms. Are you talking about artificial life forms - computer programs that "learn?" These would be examples of one species of programs "evolving" into a new species of program? Not really, just new ways of solving problems - kind of like brainstorming with a sleepless brain.

There are more examples to be had, but any of these are an example of complexity arising from simple processes.

You are going to have to come up with something better than these examples. Not one of them is viable.

[nicholsmom]

But I think it would be pretty fair to say that if someone could show that the Earth was, say less than a million years old, it would be a very serious problem for evolutionary theory sine that would not have been enough time for modern life to have evolved.


From what dark hole did you pull that number? A million years to evolve what? Have you done the statistical math yourself? Can I have a look at your paper, 'cause I really don't think that number can be anywhere near big enough.

[nicholsmom]

Here is a sneak peek at some statistical math from someone you will find reputable. Here, first is the source: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html#Intro
You may note that this paper is full of guesses that I would argue, but I'll grant them for this purpose.

Here is the "math" (all hypothetical):
So how does this shape up with the prebiotic Earth? On the early Earth it is likely that the ocean had a volume of 1 x 1024 litres. Given an amino acid concentration of 1 x 10-6 M (a moderately dilute soup, see Chyba and Sagan 1992 [23]), then there are roughly 1 x 1050 potential starting chains, so that a fair number of efficent peptide ligases (about 1 x 1031) could be produced in a under a year, let alone a million years. The synthesis of primitive self-replicators could happen relatively rapidly, even given a probability of 1 chance in 4.29 x 1040 (and remember, our replicator could be synthesized on the very first trial).

Assume that it takes a week to generate a sequence [14,16]. Then the Ghadiri ligase could be generated in one week, and any cytochrome C sequence could be generated in a bit over a million years (along with about half of all possible 101 peptide sequences, a large proportion of which will be functional proteins of some sort).

Although I have used the Ghadiri ligase as an example, as I mentioned above the same calculations can be performed for the SunY self replicator, or the Ekland RNA polymerase. I leave this as an exercise for the reader, but the general conclusion (you can make scads of the things in a short time) is the same for these oligonucleotides.

So you can see that even to an avid evolutionary scientist, a million years is barely enough to have produced a protein, maybe even simultaneous generation of gobs of proteins, but as yet no plants or animals, much less intelligent life.

[nicholsmom]

I don't consider tax dodgers who get their degrees from diploma mills or other mediocrities with degrees from a silo college to be qualified scientists. Hardly the best brains on campus, as it were. Creationists are hardly qualified to practice phrenology, let alone offer "insight" on paleontology, archeology, physics, or anthropology.

I don't know about YE creationists, but here's a Creationist who you may be able to respect - unless you thing MIT is a "diploma mill" or a "mediocrity" or a "silo college."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Schroeder
Here's an article by him that might make you spit: http://www.aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/Evolution_Rationality_vs._Randomness.asp

Or it might make you change your mind about generalizing all creationists as under-educated hicks.

BTW, I have no particular affinity for either a young earth or an old one. I honestly don't think it makes a scintilla's bit of difference.

[Frank Ernest]

Go for it. Show, rather than assert.


"Give a rough description of how evolution could possibly explain (it cannot) a caterpillar liquefying itself and re-creating itself into a butterfly."

(Hint: Merely throwing out evolutionist buzzwords like "random mutations, small incremental changes, and natural selection" does not suffice as even a rough description.)
"Random mutation" would suggest that not all catepillars become butterflies. Some would become horses or carnivorous wombats, by small incremental changes, of course.

(It also occurs to me that "random mutations" and "natural selection" are clashing concepts.)

[Clete]

Clete, do you know what th word "roughly" means? It means approximately, or generally. The question has been answered.
You're both a liar and a hypocrite. If a creationist pulled this you'd be all over it. The question has not even been addressed, much less answered and you know it.

I have no idea what you are talking about, and I don't think you do either.
Did you read the opening post? :duh:

It would be an easy matter to falsify evolution if only it were false. I think that is what is giving you and your pre-scientific brethren so many problems.
Saying it doesn't make it so.

Resting in Him,
Clete

[DoogieTalons]

How would this "test" you speak of progress? How shall we test the "theory" (of course I'd just call this sort of thing "guessing" or "pulling out of thin air") - you know, scientifically?
God did it ?

What? No fossil record of an intermediate stage? No why bother looking God did it !!

This would be lovely except for the fact that the nymph stage or caterpillar stage is the most vulnerable one. How could adding a more vulnerable stage be useful - er, evolutionarily? The butterfly can fly from danger, can reproduce more widely (thanks to those lovely wings), can find new food sources. The caterpillar is stuck where it hatched, cannot reproduce at all, and is pretty much a sitting duck for any predator; they even get gobbled up by herbivores who share their food "choice."Ok God did it.



Ah, more blue air, whole cloth, fantasy, flights - not of butterflies, but of imagination. Totally untestable; without foundation; and without a single supportive bit of evidence. Is that what you call "science?"
That is a vast & purposefully deceptive oversimplification of creation science.

God did it

I wouldn't hold my breath. I wouldn't, either God did it.

Wow no I really do sound like an unintelligent moron, how nice it would be to have on answer to every question. It'd be like I don't even have to think at all.

What do you prefer ? answers or questions ?

When you only have one answer the questions are pointless, isn't it great that most of the world don't think that way ? You'd still be pointing at the moon ad believeing it to be a "light".

I think creationists are stupid on purpose.

[Jukia]

That is a vast & purposefully deceptive oversimplification of creation science.



What is creation science? It seems to be, as set forth on TOL, that God created all the "kinds" of plants and animals we see (and all those that have become extinct) in a week about 6000 years ago. How much more complicated is it?

There is NO evidence for such a happening.

[Jukia]

Human Artifacts in the Geological Column (http://www.nwcreation.net/humansingeocolumn.html)

Please please please tell me that you posted this in jest.

[Clete]

"Random mutation" would suggest that not all catepillars become butterflies. Some would become horses or carnivorous wombats, by small incremental changes, of course.

(It also occurs to me that "random mutations" and "natural selection" are clashing concepts.)
"Random mutation" does not suggest this, Frank!

All it suggests is that there is no pattern to the mutations, that they are not being intelligently controlled or caused, that the mutations are accidental.

Resting in Him,
Clete

[Clete]

Please please please tell me that you posted this in jest.

Please, please, please tell me that you don't consider this comment as a refutation of the information contained on that web page.

[Frank Ernest]

"Random mutation" does not suggest this, Frank!

All it suggests is that there is no pattern to the mutations, that they are not being intelligently controlled or caused, that the mutations are accidental.

Resting in Him,
Clete
If there is no pattern to the mutations, then why not? It seems that caterpillars become butterflies rather consistently which suggests a pattern to me. If the results from scientific observation are supposed to be predictable, where does anything random come in?

[Evoken]

God did it ?
No why bother looking God did it !!
Ok God did it.

God did it
I wouldn't, either God did it.

Wow no I really do sound like an unintelligent moron, how nice it would be to have on answer to every question. It'd be like I don't even have to think at all.

You actually came across as desperate. Why the need for such mischaracterizations? Whether he is right or wrong, nicholsmom has been making so fairly good posts in this thread and is encouraging reasonable discussion. Why don't you try some for a change?


Evo

[nicholsmom]

God did it ?
No why bother looking God did it !!
Ok God did it.


God did it
I wouldn't, either God did it.

Wow no I really do sound like an unintelligent moron, how nice it would be to have on answer to every question. It'd be like I don't even have to think at all.

What do you prefer ? answers or questions ?

When you only have one answer the questions are pointless, isn't it great that most of the world don't think that way ? You'd still be pointing at the moon ad believeing it to be a "light".

I think creationists are stupid on purpose.

No. I really want those answers please. Do you have any? Point me in the direction of someone who does, or show your brilliance or :shut:

[nicholsmom]

What is creation science? It seems to be, as set forth on TOL, that God created all the "kinds" of plants and animals we see (and all those that have become extinct) in a week about 6000 years ago. How much more complicated is it?

There is NO evidence for such a happening.

If TOL is your only source for understanding creation science, I'd say you haven't bothered to do your homework. That's okay if you are really just not interested, but you ought not to cast stones unless you can really see your target, kwim?

[DoogieTalons]

I've posted some quite long and valid posts on this thread, as per usual they are skimmed over with a few glib statements, hence my retort. You seem to demand far more than you are prepared to provide.

The case for a young earth is non existant outside religion, you're just wrong. It's not even funny.

Young earth is as wrong as it get's it has no supported evidence at all. The scientists that support it have degrees and doctorates in totally different fields than they comment upon.

Here's the facts that the vast majority of the freethinking world of science agrees on.

The world is very old, if you think otherwise you are wrong. Educate yourself.

If you told me 2+2 was five because God said it was you would be equally wrong.

I mean seriously ANY who thinks the world is 10,000 years old or less is simply wrong and needs to learn more about the natural world.

I would be totally embarrased to present myself before any God, given the evidence and understanding we have and say.. hey some dude said you did it in six days and I faithfully believed it despite common sense and overwhelming mountains of evidence.

God will stick you back in grade school and give you a dunce cap.

Perhaps that's what the 1000 year reign will be it'll be where you're all schooled properly, yeah you have faith but boy were you dumb.

[nicholsmom]

You may have missed this one:

BTW, I have no particular affinity for either a young earth or an old one. I honestly don't think it makes a scintilla's bit of difference.

I've posted some quite long and valid posts on this thread, as per usual they are skimmed over with a few glib statements, hence my retort. You seem to demand far more than you are prepared to provide.
Do you mean me specifically? My "glib statements" seem to be asking for more information, if you provided adequate information, I haven't seen it. I will look back through the thread.

The case for a young earth is non existant outside religion, you're just wrong. It's not even funny.
See my above statement. I am not tied to either theory, but if I chose young earth, I agree that it would be based solely on my religious beliefs.

Young earth is as wrong as it get's it has no supported evidence at all. The scientists that support it have degrees and doctorates in totally different fields than they comment upon.

That is an opinion based on your POV. The evidence for any form of genesis is questionable at best, and certainly may be interpreted by anyone's guess. The evolutionists make their guesses (yes, guesses - and they vary widely) about what they think these things mean, and the creationists make their guesses which also vary pretty widely. To say that no evidence exists is absurd because we all use the same evidence.

Oh look, you give us your interpretation of the evidence at hand:
Here's the facts that the vast majority of the freethinking world of science agrees on.
The world is very old, if you think otherwise you are wrong. Educate yourself.

If you told me 2+2 was five because God said it was you would be equally wrong. Well, of course. You really should set aside this notion that just because someone disagrees with you that that person is not capable of sensible thought.

More of your interpretations (notice how subjective they are):
I mean seriously ANY who thinks the world is 10,000 years old or less is simply wrong and needs to learn more about the natural world.

I would be totally embarrased to present myself before any God, given the evidence and understanding we have and say.. hey some dude said you did it in six days and I faithfully believed it despite common sense and overwhelming mountains of evidence.

God will stick you back in grade school and give you a dunce cap.
Yes, indeed, we are all inestimably stupid in comparison to God. I'm pretty sure He doesn't hold it against us.

[Jukia]

Please, please, please tell me that you don't consider this comment as a refutation of the information contained on that web page.

Ah no, sorry. I meant to say that anyone who believes that web page is incredibly gullible and misinformed.
That better?

[DoogieTalons]

Oh look, you give us your interpretation of the evidence at hand: Well, of course. You really should set aside this notion that just because someone disagrees with you that that person is not capable of sensible thought.

No it's not just my interpretation of the evidence its the facts, it's dicovered researched and held as fact.

The earth is over 10,000 years old by any forms of measuring the earths age.

YECers can't even call the age of the earth and they supposedly have a book that tells them.

It's long been held that religous beliefs should be respected ect ect but no! not when you step out of your metaphysical realm of make believe and guy in the sky hocus pocus bronze age myth nonsense formed by people who thought the earth was flat and try to push an interpretation of your religions genesis as fact, they deserve no respect and should be given no quarter, and spanked liked naughty children.

It's not even worth arguing with young earth creationists, it's like trying to explain advanced physic to a 9 month old child it's just pointless.

Anyone teaching a child that the earth is under 10,000 years old spreading this religious nonsense as science should be publicaly mocked and banned from teaching, put in the stock and have eggs thrown at. Why? because it's stupid. I'm not asserting that the earth is old! because the earth is old by any standards I'm asserting my opinion that anyone who thinks it's young should at worst keep thier dumb ideas to themselves and at best relearn with an open mind and try catching up with the rest of the world.

Christians are long saying that they should be allowed not to "Tollerate" gays, so what's wrong with the free thinking world being allowed not to "Tollerate" this idiocy that's still trying to creep into our schools.

Anyone who argues for a young earth is a Fool. So say I.

ANY Yecers want to tell me exactly how old thier infalible bible tells us the earth is ?

[SUTG]

You are entirely mistaken to think that I am ignorant of science.

I never meant to say that you were ignorant of all science, just Biology, as shown in post #9 of this thread. (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1718768&postcount=9)

I am not a biologist, nor are you or you would make biological arguments,

You can save the keystorkes, as we've all figured out that you are not a Biologist. You are attacking a scientific theory while at the same time having absolutely no idea of what the theory even says. You're not only wrong on a few minor details, you're completely in the dark. Again, see post #9. So, your position is that you're not quite sure what the theory says, but you know it is wrong.

Why stop there? Why not branch out into other sciences, or mathematics? Start posting in mathematics forums about the inherent weaknesses in the Church/Tarski theorem. Don't bother with learning the math, just start posting!

[Clete]

If there is no pattern to the mutations, then why not? It seems that caterpillars become butterflies rather consistently which suggests a pattern to me. If the results from scientific observation are supposed to be predictable, where does anything random come in?

Are you intentionally being obtuse or what?

The function of the DNA is not random, the mutations of it are.

[PlastikBuddha]

Ah, yet more "irrefutable" proof that evolution is wrong that has already been refuted again and again. Isn't it marvelous what the indomitable ability of the human mind to simply not pay attention to the facts can do?
Anyone who has any genuine curiosity about evolutionay theory already has the answers at their beck and call. Talk.origins has a pretty spectacular collection of evidence for evolution and a list of common creationist claims arguments and their answers. Of course, since YEC'ers have about as much interest in "real science" (no matter day of the week it is) as a fish does in a bicycle and only bring up questions in the hopes that no one CAN answer them it's probably a moot point.
But seriously, caterpillars and bombadier beatles- at least try to get something fresh.

[Toast]

But seriously, caterpillars and bombadier beatles- at least try to get something fresh.

You also. It is because you can give no clear evidence of evolution actually happening in the world, that we find it unrealistic and unscientific.. Its never been observed in the history books of mankind.. Deal with it, your way of life is empty.. Repent and be saved.

[griffinsavard]

I've posted some quite long and valid posts on this thread, as per usual they are skimmed over with a few glib statements, hence my retort. You seem to demand far more than you are prepared to provide.

The case for a young earth is non existant outside religion, you're just wrong. It's not even funny.

Young earth is as wrong as it get's it has no supported evidence at all. The scientists that support it have degrees and doctorates in totally different fields than they comment upon.

Here's the facts that the vast majority of the freethinking world of science agrees on.

The world is very old, if you think otherwise you are wrong. Educate yourself.

If you told me 2+2 was five because God said it was you would be equally wrong.

I mean seriously ANY who thinks the world is 10,000 years old or less is simply wrong and needs to learn more about the natural world.

I would be totally embarrased to present myself before any God, given the evidence and understanding we have and say.. hey some dude said you did it in six days and I faithfully believed it despite common sense and overwhelming mountains of evidence.

God will stick you back in grade school and give you a dunce cap.

Perhaps that's what the 1000 year reign will be it'll be where you're all schooled properly, yeah you have faith but boy were you dumb.


:kookoo: The case for a young earth is non existant outside religion, you're just wrong. It's not even funny.

Absolutely unscientific, all emotion here

:kookoo: Young earth is as wrong as it get's it has no supported evidence at all. The scientists that support it have degrees and doctorates in totally different fields than they comment upon.

Absolutely self-contradictory statement. This statement doesnt even follow the rules of logic. Totally unscientific.

:kookoo: Here's the facts that the vast majority of the freethinking world of science agrees on.

The world is very old, if you think otherwise you are wrong. Educate yourself.

If you told me 2+2 was five because God said it was you would be equally wrong.

Totally absurd statement...search what the scientists of evolution have agreed upon concerning the age of the earth. 'Science' has changed the date of the earth numerous times

:kookoo:
I would be totally embarrased to present myself before any God, given the evidence and understanding we have and say.. hey some dude said you did it in six days and I faithfully believed it despite common sense and overwhelming mountains of evidence.
No, you will be the one embarrassed.

Overwhelming mountains of evidence???? You mean the transitional fossil record :dizzy: :dizzy: :dizzy:

Maybe you should be a little more open minded when it comes to these issues. I have studied both areas and I adhere to the most logical...

Me :cool: God designed plants, animals, people

You :kookoo: Dirt chanced plants, animals, people
God will stick you back in grade school and give you a dunce cap.

[PlastikBuddha]

You also. It is because you can give no clear evidence of evolution actually happening in the world, that we find it unrealistic and unscientific..

:rotfl:
Really? NO evidence? Or just no evidence you're willing to look at, consider, or accept?

Its never been observed in the history books of mankind..

Well, if you're looking in history books for evolution, that could be part of your problem! :D

Deal with it, your way of life is empty..

My way of life? You goofball. Evolution isn't a lifestyle, it's a scientific theory- one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories ever made. You are free to close your eyes, free to believe stories instead of examining facts, and free to live your life under the delusions you apparently cherish so much but the rest of us will keep moving forward.

Repent and be saved.
Repent of what, dullard? Believing the evidence in front of me rather than the tired protests of biblical literalists who don't even have the first glimmering of understanding of what it is they are actually disbelieving in or why?

[PlastikBuddha]

You :kookoo: Dirt chanced plants, animals, people

Wow- I don't think I've ever come across such an absurd misrepresentation of ToE. :kookoo:

[MaryContrary]

Okay, so maybe I'm missing something somewhere. Science really isn't my thing so that's totally possible. Still...did anyone answer the evolving caterpillar thing yet? I'm not seeing it anywhere. :idunno:

[SUTG]

Okay, so maybe I'm missing something somewhere. Science really isn't my thing so that's totally possible. Still...did anyone answer the evolving caterpillar thing yet?

Yes, Jefferson answered it in the OP when he referred to "random mutations, small incremental changes, and natural selection.'

[DoogieTalons]

:kookoo: The case for a young earth is non existant outside religion, you're just wrong. It's not even funny.

Absolutely unscientific, all emotion here No you're wrong, if you think the earth is young you are either incredibly dumb or you have access to only 1 % of the information, or you follow genesis blindly into a pit of ignorance.

:kookoo: Young earth is as wrong as it get's it has no supported evidence at all. The scientists that support it have degrees and doctorates in totally different fields than they comment upon.

Absolutely self-contradictory statement. This statement doesnt even follow the rules of logic. Totally unscientific.it follows the rules of a conversation though. Get a grip and read a book... no not that one !!

:kookoo: Here's the facts that the vast majority of the freethinking world of science agrees on.

The world is very old, if you think otherwise you are wrong. Educate yourself.

If you told me 2+2 was five because God said it was you would be equally wrong.

Totally absurd statement...search what the scientists of evolution have agreed upon concerning the age of the earth. 'Science' has changed the date of the earth numerous times
Science will continue to revise it findings, religion never will and here's the Rub... you don't even have anything to revise because no one has come up with an accurate date for the begining of the earth from the bible and when they speculate at 6 to 10 thousand years any fossil puts them out to factors of millions, YEC is a joke, it's not even funny that you believe it.


:kookoo:
I would be totally embarrased to present myself before any God, given the evidence and understanding we have and say.. hey some dude said you did it in six days and I faithfully believed it despite common sense and overwhelming mountains of evidence.
No, you will be the one embarrassed.

Overwhelming mountains of evidence???? You mean the transitional fossil record :dizzy: :dizzy: :dizzy: No you're an idiot, more than transitional fossils, radiometric dating, astonomy, biology, physics... aaah what the point seriously it's like talking with children, is this what Jesus meant by "be as little children" ???

Maybe you should be a little more open minded when it comes to these issues. I have studied both areas and I adhere to the most logical...No you don't you adhere to the most wrong, how's that.

Me :cool: God designed plants, animals, people Yeah badly. Nothing about the make up of plants animals or people shows any design. You may think it does but when you break it all down if you had all the power of god would you make a MAN totally dependant on the life and death of billions of bacteria in your Gut, I mean would that be a good design ?

Would you design a tiger to kill when you had no death in your first plan ?

You :kookoo: Dirt chanced plants, animals, people
God will stick you back in grade school and give you a dunce cap. Yeah pop that dunce cap on yourself if you don't understand the very basics of the theory of evolution then don't make yourself look so stupid by using words like chance you're about 10 years behind in you rebutal try at least getting upto date, just skip by the irreducable complexity whilst you work your way up though that's been rubbished too.

[MaryContrary]

Yes, Jefferson answered it in the OP when he referred to "random mutations, small incremental changes, and natural selection.'
Then you're going to have to spell it out for me. Seems impossible what you're suggesting. :squint:

[griffinsavard]

No you're wrong, if you think the earth is young you are either incredibly dumb or you have access to only 1 % of the information, or you follow genesis blindly into a pit of ignorance.
it follows the rules of a conversation though. Get a grip and read a book... no not that one !!

Science will continue to revise it findings, religion never will and here's the Rub... you don't even have anything to revise because no one has come up with an accurate date for the begining of the earth from the bible and when they speculate at 6 to 10 thousand years any fossil puts them out to factors of millions, YEC is a joke, it's not even funny that you believe it.

No you're an idiot, more than transitional fossils, radiometric dating, astonomy, biology, physics... aaah what the point seriously it's like talking with children, is this what Jesus meant by "be as little children" ???
No you don't you adhere to the most wrong, how's that.
Yeah badly. Nothing about the make up of plants animals or people shows any design. You may think it does but when you break it all down if you had all the power of god would you make a MAN totally dependant on the life and death of billions of bacteria in your Gut, I mean would that be a good design ?

Would you design a tiger to kill when you had no death in your first plan ?
Yeah pop that dunce cap on yourself if you don't understand the very basics of the theory of evolution then don't make yourself look so stupid by using words like chance you're about 10 years behind in you rebutal try at least getting upto date, just skip by the irreducable complexity whilst you work your way up though that's been rubbished too.

Another crazed evolutionist who has :luigi: from reason so his pitiful world view will fit...

I don't feel that I need to get up to date on evolution. That theory should have been abandoned a long time ago. Its hard to believe it has made it this long :alien:

You say there is no design in things. Talk about rubbish. How long has it been since you took a walk outside? You also act like you could do a better job than God :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

That one made me roll...

"Destruction is certain for those who argue with their Creator. Does a clay pot ever argue with its maker? Does the clay dispute with the one who shapes it, saying, `Stop, you are doing it wrong!' Does the pot exclaim, `How clumsy can you be!' Isa 45:9 NLT

[DoogieTalons]

Then you're going to have to spell it out for me. Seems impossible what you're suggesting. :squint:Mary, research has been conducted into insect life cycles and evolution and various hypothesis have been formed, already.

When Bob says nothing has been done in this field he's talking out of his bible.

You have to understand that Catapillar is just a name for a Larva of a butterfly, it's the same creature. Research has been done in many insects larvae stage.

It's like the nymph stage of insects that hatch for various survival reasons be it sexual or a need for resources when the resources exists.

So instead of a catapillar laying eggs with enough food to support the full development then expend less energy when the larvae can fend for themselves.

Well I say fend for themselve many many many larvae don't make it, thats why there is strength in numbers. Not a good "DESIGN" but it's a good survival of Genes technique and it obviously works so it's evolution in action.

They make up in numbers what they lack in survival Skill, ever wondered why we only have one or two at a time, if god really wanted us to multiply he'd have had us laying thousands of eggs instead of this inneficent 9 month cycle which only 100 years ago used to kill 7 to 15 women and children per hundred... average of 1 in 10 !!! Go God, Go God, Go God...[/sarcasm]

These larvae do not fully liquify, as after thier fifth molt they have the beginnings of wings under thier skin.

The transformation is not difficult to imagine if you realise that a larvea is just an exposed embryonic stage, where as we transform in the womb, the larvae just does it outside.

About 88% of all insects go through what is known as complete metamorphosis, not just butterflys. Complete metamorphosis has 4 stages: [Source uen.org]

Egg - A female insects lays eggs.
Larva - Larvae hatch from the eggs. They do not look like adult insects. They usually have a worm-like shape. Caterpillers, maggots, and grubs are all just the larval stages of insects. Larvae molt their skin several times and they grow slightly larger.
Pupa - Larvae make cocoons or chysalis around themselves. Larvae don't eat while they're inside their cocoons. Their bodies develop into an adult shape with wings, legs, internal organs, etc. This change takes anywhere from 4 days to many months.
Adult - Inside the cocoon, the larvae change into adults. After a period of time, the adult breaks out of the cocoon.

Now because butterfly are beautiful we can take the step of personal incredulity and say wow a miracle... but when it's a fly and a bucket of squirming maggots we're not so inclinded to see it as so wonderous.

I wonder why Bob didn't use the humble house fly which goes through the same external gestaion as a butterfly as his "case study" probably as the housefly doesn't illicit such emotion and therfore would not prick that sense of wonder so sharply.

[DoogieTalons]

Another crazed evolutionist who has :luigi: from reason so his pitiful world view will fit...
Coming from the religous I'm flattered.

I don't feel that I need to get up to date on evolution. That theory should have been abandoned a long time ago. Its hard to believe it has made it this long :alien:

You should or you will remain ignorant, many field of science rely on evolutionary theory.

and if we're talking shelf life, shouldn't you have thrown away this Hebrew Torah based nonsense, we've moved on, the worlds a better place. Catch up or you'll waste your life.

You say there is no design in things. Talk about rubbish. How long has it been since you took a walk outside? You also act like you could do a better job than God :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Given the power ascribed to God I could design a better human and a better life and I'd be a lot less jealous and petty.

You wouldn't have to eat, or defacate. You could be perfect.

and if you all got me miffed I wouldn't have to flood the world in a failed and contrived attempt to sort it all out.

That one made me roll...
Yup I bet it did.

"Destruction is certain for those who argue with their Creator. Does a clay pot ever argue with its maker? Does the clay dispute with the one who shapes it, saying, `Stop, you are doing it wrong!' Does the pot exclaim, `How clumsy can you be!' Isa 45:9 NLT Dude seriouly your arguments are ten years old, creationism became intelligent design, intelligent design became garbage, your crowd have left those failed arguments behind and are probably coming up with rebrand to get back in those schools.

[Stripe]

With all that research, Doogie, one would think there should be an answer to the question posed....

[MaryContrary]

Mary, research has been conducted into insect life cycles and evolution and various hypothesis have been formed, already.

When Bob says nothing has been done in this field he's talking out of his bible.

You have to understand that Catapillar is just a name for a Larva of a butterfly, it's the same creature. Research has been done in many insects larvae stage.

It's like the nymph stage of insects that hatch for various survival reasons be it sexual or a need for resources when the resources exists.

So instead of a catapillar laying eggs with enough food to support the full development then expend less energy when the larvae can fend for themselves.

Well I say fend for themselve many many many larvae don't make it, thats why there is strength in numbers. Not a good "DESIGN" but it's a good survival of Genes technique and it obviously works so it's evolution in action.

They make up in numbers what they lack in survival Skill, ever wondered why we only have one or two at a time, if god really wanted us to multiply he'd have had us laying thousands of eggs instead of this inneficent 9 month cycle which only 100 years ago used to kill 7 to 15 women and children per hundred... average of 1 in 10 !!! Go God, Go God, Go God...[/sarcasm]

These larvae do not fully liquify, as after thier fifth molt they have the beginnings of wings under thier skin.

The transformation is not difficult to imagine if you realise that a larvea is just an exposed embryonic stage, where as we transform in the womb, the larvae just does it outside.

About 88% of all insects go through what is known as complete metamorphosis, not just butterflys. Complete metamorphosis has 4 stages: [Source uen.org]

Egg - A female insects lays eggs.
Larva - Larvae hatch from the eggs. They do not look like adult insects. They usually have a worm-like shape. Caterpillers, maggots, and grubs are all just the larval stages of insects. Larvae molt their skin several times and they grow slightly larger.
Pupa - Larvae make cocoons or chysalis around themselves. Larvae don't eat while they're inside their cocoons. Their bodies develop into an adult shape with wings, legs, internal organs, etc. This change takes anywhere from 4 days to many months.
Adult - Inside the cocoon, the larvae change into adults. After a period of time, the adult breaks out of the cocoon.

Now because butterfly are beautiful we can take the step of personal incredulity and say wow a miracle... but when it's a fly and a bucket of squirming maggots we're not so inclinded to see it as so wonderous.

I wonder why Bob didn't use the humble house fly which goes through the same external gestaion as a butterfly as his "case study" probably as the housefly doesn't illicit such emotion and therfore would not prick that sense of wonder so sharply.

Doogie. That's a whole lot of words there and none of them go anywhere near explaining how or why this transformation would evolve via random mutation. Quite the opposite. I get the impression you're avoiding the question pretty hard there. Can evolution theory address this or not? If it can't, fine. No biggie. But at least concede the theory has major holes in it.
This is the kind of thing that frustrates me about atheist evolutionists. They're every bit as fanatically loyal and blindly irrational about evolution as they accuse us of being about God.

"Give a rough description of how evolution could possibly explain a caterpillar liquefying itself and re-creating itself into a butterfly." If evolution theory can't do this then, if you're really the freethinker you claim to be, then you should have no problem admitting the theory has big holes. Instead you seem to pretty consistently hold it up as some kind of established truth, beyond any doubt, while mocking anyone who dares question it.

It makes sense that you can be born early and in great multitude, then eat the the plants instead of needing the energy stored in an egg, then transform into your mating form afterwards.
Sure it makes sense. We have butterflies. They continue to reproduce successfully. There's no denying that.
This does not answer the question how this process could ever have evolved by random mutation. At all. This is your version of "goddidit". Apparently, evolutiondidit.
How is mankind ever going progress when all it takes is a few thoughtless unintelligent sheep to simply cry "God did it?" and sit back resting on your genesis.

When you only have one answer the questions are pointless, isn't it great that most of the world don't think that way ? You'd still be pointing at the moon ad believeing it to be a "light".
I think creationists are stupid on purpose.
Do I need to point out how completely hypocritical you're being?

[Stripe]

EVOLUTIONDIDIT!

[DoogieTalons]

Doogie. That's a whole lot of words there and none of them go anywhere near explaining how or why this transformation would evolve via random mutation. Quite the opposite. I get the impression you're avoiding the question pretty hard there. Can evolution theory address this or not? If it can't, fine. No biggie. But at least concede the theory has major holes in it.
This is the kind of thing that frustrates me about atheist evolutionists. They're every bit as fanatically loyal and blindly irrational about evolution as they accuse us of being about God. Now I see how you want to learn, you see if I copied or wrote something about how it could happen and why metamorphosis happens then you'd just not want to listen. You don't want to hear or learn anything that could possibly discount Genesis. It's like talking to children.

"Give a rough description of how evolution could possibly explain a caterpillar liquefying itself and re-creating itself into a butterfly." If evolution theory can't do this then, if you're really the freethinker you claim to be, then you should have no problem admitting the theory has big holes. Instead you seem to pretty consistently hold it up as some kind of established truth, beyond any doubt, while mocking anyone who dares question it.They don't liquify themselves, they simply grow, would you say an embryo liquifies itself or would you say that it's changes are just growth.

I explained how this happens in the womb, and how a pupae does it outside after getting it's energy from plants instead of a nutrient rich and genetically expensive egg. You're being dumb on purpose. It's like you only read every third word or something.


Sure it makes sense. We have butterflies. They continue to reproduce successfully. There's no denying that.
This does not answer the question how this process could ever have evolved by random mutation. At all. This is your version of "goddidit". Apparently, evolutiondidit.
When you look at the many insects that metamorphosise you can see different stages of this type of development. Which shows how it could have grown.

We have thread weavers, we have chyrsalys' we have leaf folders, all different ways of doign the same job, you'd think if it was designed God would have it down pat. But no a cocoon is easy to eat, it's just universally safer than no cocoon. Do you not understand evolution at all ? When you ask what good is half an eye... well it's better than a quarter of an eye.

You won't get to grips with how tiny changes can work because you already believe they don't happen.

Why not for one week open your mind, buy a book like Climbing Mount immprobable and really try to understand it rather than relying on a dusty old tomb of hebrew superstition.

It's not nearly as difficult to imagine as Bob Enyart and now yourself is making out.

Bob makes the assertion it's impossible out of personal credulity. I made a case for it not being so incredidible a few posts back, are you ignoring these ?


Do I need to point out how completely hypocritical you're being? No but you do need to get out more.

Here's where you all get in a tiz try understand that according to studies, it is strongly suggested that the larvae of holometabolic insects (those who undergo a complete metamorphasis) are, essentially, precocious embryos that had hatched before they assumed the adult or nymphal forms.

It's not a different creature it's just a growing butterfly.

They evolved in the same way all animals did, infact the very existance of them support evolution and survival and certainly not some grand design.

Did you read my post and think about it or did you scan it for my personal opinion so you could rubbish it. You still have this full liquification in your head as a stumbling block yet you're probably happy to say a Blastocyst is a baby.

[DoogieTalons]

EVOLUTIONDIDIT!Yes stipe nice, if we personified evolution I guess your sarcastic retort would have a little humour in it. However evolution is aword describing a natural process, not some antithesis to God.

How do you know that God didn't create the evolutionary process ?

You may even be rubbishing one of your Gods creations.

[Stripe]

Doogie.

If evolution is so well grounded in reality it should be able to provide at least an idea (other than evolutiondidit) on how the butterfly developed the ability to perform metamorphosis upon itself. Would you like to explain or is your defence of your faith limited to, "I don't like what Christians believe so evolution must be true"?

[Stripe]

They don't liquify themselves, they simply grow, would you say an embryo liquifies itself or would you say that it's changes are just growth.Depends what kind of metamorphosis you are talking about:
In holometabolism, the larvae differ markedly from the adults. Insects which undergo holometabolism pass through a larval stage, then enter an inactive state called pupa, or chrysalis, and finally emerge as adults. Holometabolism is also known as "complete" and "complex" metamorphosis. Whilst inside the pupa, the insect will excrete digestive juices, to destroy much of the larva's body, leaving a few cells intact. The remaining cells will begin the growth of the adult, using the nutrients from the broken down larva. This process of cell death is called histolysis, and cell regrowth histogenesis.
-Wickedpedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamorphosis)

[MaryContrary]

So, should I just go ahead and give up on getting a straight answer out of you, Doogie?

They evolved in the same way all animals did, infact the very existance of them support evolution and survival and certainly not some grand design.
That's evolutiondidit, you doofus. If that's your answer then you're a hypocrite.
Did you read my post and think about it or did you scan it for my personal opinion so you could rubbish it. You still have this full liquification in your head as a stumbling block yet you're probably happy to say a Blastocyst is a baby.
I scanned back, read and thought about all your posts because I wanted to be sure I wasn't wasting your time on something you'd already answered. All I see is evolutiondidit. Just like the whole majority of this post of yours that I didn't bother responding to, it was 90% "Your just a dumb Christian!" and 10% "Evolutiondidit!"
Every one of your posts boil down to "it happens". Well, duh. The question is "how could this evolve into being?"

If you already answered the question and I just missed it out of stupidity then by all means cut and paste it right here and show me up. Right now you're just being a pigheaded jerk. I'm not impressed. I know plenty of pigheaded jerks. I don't know anyone who can answer this question, though.

[DoogieTalons]

Here's the facts behind this thread.

Bob Enyart has made a classic mistake with his fallicy of ignorance.

Because he doesn't know how it could have happened he's just saying god did it.

We are but a few hundred years into our understanding of the world once we got out of the dark ages of religion and we don't know everything about every insect that ever lived.

Metamorphosis is a growth stage, just as the dolphin loses it's "Limbs" as a feotus, the catapillar looses it's hind legs and grows wings inside it's chrysalis, just as a maggot grows wings inside it's cocoon.

Because an exact answer does not yet exist it doesn't mean it won't, it also means when it is explained it won't matter.

Creationists ignore every bit of evidence that does not point to genesis.

It ignores biology, it ignores astronomy, it ignores geology and it ignores physics.

I gave you a step by step diagram as how each stage of the the growth of a butterfly outside of the egg has been beneficial to it's survival would you suddenly believe in evolution ?

Once the bombadier beetle was the death of Atheism, strange how that was rebuked, this thread is in my subscribed. When something comes up I'll be there to say I told you so and despite evidence no doubt you wil lbe there to say God Did It.

[DoogieTalons]

So, should I just go ahead and give up on getting a straight answer out of you, Doogie?Nope because an answer does not yet exist does not mean God exists.


If you already answered the question and I just missed it out of stupidity then by all means cut and paste it right here and show me up. Right now you're just being a pigheaded jerk. I'm not impressed. I know plenty of pigheaded jerks. I don't know anyone who can answer this question, though. Ok If I could show you how in small steps a butterfly giving birth to an egg that containts fully grown butterfly, could have evolved into a butterfly giving birth to an egg which hatches early, stores energy and goes on its growth cycle outside the egg "could" have happened.

Would you believe Evolutionary theory over Genesis ? Would this one explanation of the benefits of external growth allow you to shake yourself free of this daft religion and perhaps read a bit more about real life, the universe and everything ?

[Frank Ernest]

Are you intentionally being obtuse or what?
If attempting to apply some logic is being obtuse, I guess so. :chuckle:

The function of the DNA is not random, the mutations of it are.
Random mutations result in ordered function? Gonna have to :think: on that one.

[Stripe]

Here's the facts behind this thread.

Bob Enyart has made a classic mistake with his fallicy of ignorance.

Because he doesn't know how it could have happened he's just saying god did it.

We are but a few hundred years into our understanding of the world once we got out of the dark ages of religion and we don't know everything about every insect that ever lived.

Metamorphosis is a growth stage, just as the dolphin loses it's "Limbs" as a feotus, the catapillar looses it's hind legs and grows wings inside it's chrysalis, just as a maggot grows wings inside it's cocoon.

Because an exact answer does not yet exist it doesn't mean it won't, it also means when it is explained it won't matter.

Creationists ignore every bit of evidence that does not point to genesis.

It ignores biology, it ignores astronomy, it ignores geology and it ignores physics.

I gave you a step by step diagram as how each stage of the the growth of a butterfly outside of the egg has been beneficial to it's survival would you suddenly believe in evolution ?

Once the bombadier beetle was the death of Atheism, strange how that was rebuked, this thread is in my subscribed. When something comes up I'll be there to say I told you so and despite evidence no doubt you wil lbe there to say God Did It.
Was that an, "I don't know"? :idunno:

[MaryContrary]

Nope because an answer does not yet exist does not mean God exists.
So what? What's that got to do with anything?
Ok If I could show you how in small steps a butterfly giving birth to an egg that containts fully grown butterfly, could have evolved into a butterfly giving birth to an egg which hatches early, stores energy and goes on its growth cycle outside the egg "could" have happened.

Would you believe Evolutionary theory over Genesis ? Would this one explanation of the benefits of external growth allow you to shake yourself free of this daft religion and perhaps read a bit more about real life, the universe and everything ?
If you show me how the transformation we're talking about could have evolved then I'll accept that evolution theory addresses this question. That's all I should accept from this. It'd be foolish to attach any more meaning to it than that.
Why are you even shooting for a full turnover of my entire faith on this one point when you can't even bring yourself to admit evolution theory can't do it?
Who's the blind fanatic here?

[DoogieTalons]

Was that an, "I don't know"? :idunno:No

One question simple answer required.

If I could show HOW it could be possible for insects to evolve into full external metamorphosis insects would you believe in the theory of evolution.

Remember, an cattapillar has all the information for a butterfly in it's cells which form as it grows because....ta daaa it actually is a butterfly. It's just a the embyonice stage.

It has as much information to create a Butterfly as a 20 celled Blastocyst has to create a human. So by your own argument it is a butterfly.

Would you discard your aged Genesis theory ?

[Stripe]

...Would you discard your aged Genesis theory ?No. Why would I need to do that?

[Stripe]

No

One question simple answer required.

If I could show HOW it could be possible for insects to evolve into full external metamorphosis insects would you believe in the theory of evolution.

Remember, an cattapillar has all the information for a butterfly in it's cells which form as it grows because....ta daaa it actually is a butterfly. It's just a the embyonice stage.

It has as much information to create a Butterfly as a 20 celled Blastocyst has to create a human. So by your own argument it is a butterfly.

Would you discard your aged Genesis theory ?Doogie. I really think you should not argue so much until your ability to be logical has caught up with your ability to be emotional.

[DoogieTalons]

Was that an, "I don't know"? :idunno:No

One question simple answer required.

If I could show HOW it could be possible for insects to evolve into full external metamorphosis insects would you believe in the theory of evolution.

Remember, an cattapillar has all the information for a butterfly in it's cells which form as it grows because....ta daaa it actually is a butterfly. It's just a the embyonice stage.

It has as much information to create a Butterfly as a 20 celled Blastocyst has to create a human. So by your own argument it is a butterfly.

Would you discard your aged Genesis theory ?

[DoogieTalons]

SO in short we come back to the stock creationist paradox.

Creationist
X couldn't have evolved so God did it.

Scientist
But it could have happned like this

Creationist
so what COULD you weren't there when it did so you don't know... so God is true.

Scientist
But you weren't there during the flood so you couldn't KNOW

Creationist.
But the bible blah blah blah.

Teaching you clowns achieves nothing you should just be gated and live together like the phelps... only not be let out.

[Clete]

If attempting to apply some logic is being obtuse, I guess so. :chuckle:
Yeah, I guess so! :nono:

Random mutations result in ordered function? Gonna have to :think: on that one.
Look Frank, I'm not arguing for Evolution here, I'm just trying to get you to stop saying silly things that make us all look stupid by association.

No, random mutations could not result in ordered function. Anyone who knows anything at all about how random systems work should know that. But that doesn't change the definition of the word "random" nor the phrase "random mutation" and if this last comment of yours has been the point you've been attempting to make this whole time then I recommend studying a lot harder on just how to go about "attempting to apply some logic" because that isn't the point that came across at all.

Resting in Him,
Clete

[DoogieTalons]

Ok let's have it.

Imagine an early flying insect, shall we'll start there.

Fossil records show that by the time insects had evolved wings there was already a form of metamorphosis, how far do you want me to go back ?

Enyart is looking at this problem from the wrong end of 450 million years.

Metamorphosisng insects existed before wings evolved so how far are you willing to go back.

We really have to show how insects could have benefited from metamorphosising in the first place.

We know that some insects don't fully metamorphosise but go through massive changes after hatching through a nymph stage.

Perhaps how insects evolved from that to metamorphosising ?

So the butterfly is an evolved version of an already metamorphosising winged insect, which is the evolution of an already metamorphosising non winged insect, which is the evolution of a non external metamorphosising insect.

Tell me Creationists where would you like me to start on the scale ?

Would you then show me how in 4000 years a cat could rapidly evolve into all the cats we know then stop the minute we had the ability to observe and record changes !!!

[Stripe]

Ok let's have it.

Imagine an early flying insect, shall we'll start there.

Fossil records show that by the time insects had evolved wings there was already a form of metamorphosis, how far do you want me to go back ?

Enyart is looking at this problem from the wrong end of 450 million years.

Metamorphosisng insects existed before wings evolved so how far are you willing to go back.

We really have to show how insects could have benefited from metamorphosising in the first place.

We know that some insects don't fully metamorphosise but go through massive changes after hatching through a nymph stage.

Perhaps how insects evolved from that to metamorphosising ?

So the butterfly is an evolved version of an already metamorphosising winged insect, which is the evolution of an already metamorphosising non winged insect, which is the evolution of a non external metamorphosising insect.

Tell me Creationists where would you like me to start on the scale ?

Would you then show me how in 4000 years a cat could rapidly evolve into all the cats we know then stop the minute we had the ability to observe and record changes !!!We'd like you to describe how the ability to decompose oneself in order to propagate the species could have evolved by random selection and natural mutation.

[DoogieTalons]

We'd like you to describe how the ability to decompose oneself in order to propagate the species could have evolved by random selection and natural mutation.You start from the false premis of decomposition, you assume total annialation and reformation, Wing cells are there, the brain and internal organs are there, much like an embryonic child in it's mothers womb.

When you start with ignorance you need to know what your real argument is first.

You're in effect asking how a bus can become a dog if you cover it in spinnach.

The answer is no one said it does, but the crazy creationists looking desperatly for a new argument, decide to make one up.

[Jukia]

We'd like you to describe how the ability to decompose oneself in order to propagate the species could have evolved by random selection and natural mutation.

This from the person claiming to have some geology education supporting Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory.

I think I have reached the point where I cannot decide whether stipe is really delusional or just putting us all on cause he has a lot of free time.

[MaryContrary]

You start from the false premis of decomposition, you assume total annialation and reformation, Wing cells are there, the brain and internal organs are there, much like an embryonic child in it's mothers womb.

When you start with ignorance you need to know what your real argument is first.

You're in effect asking how a bus can become a dog if you cover it in spinnach.

The answer is no one said it does, but the crazy creationists looking desperatly for a new argument, decide to make one up.

Sheesh! Not only is your faith in evolution theory completely blind it's insanely weak as well! I have no problem admitting it when there's something I just plain can't answer. I couldn't even begin to tell you all the thing I haven't the first clue about. But you're completely incapable of saying "idunno", aren't you? Nor can you for even one paragraph keep from sniping at creationism, as if that has anything to do with the question put before you.

A true "freethinker" would have responded about two pages back with, "I dunno. So what?"
:doh:

[DoogieTalons]

My very first post made it clear it's not a matter of knowing or not knowing it's a matter of knowing you don't know.

I cannot scientifically explain at the moment how an insect could evolve to be born outside the egg underdeveloped.

But the point of my post have been this.

Bobs Position is settled, he personally doesn't know, no one has yet given him a good enough explanation (as if one could exist) so God did it.

My position is this.

I personally don't know, but I have now read that insects evolved metamorphosis before wings, and benefitied from the young having different nutritianal needs to the old. I have now read three theories on a website I subscribe too and some vauge hypothesis on some I don't.

And I now know this in answer to the OP

Insects have been metamorphosising long before wings, this has evolved over 450 million years, it has in tiny steps managed to evolve to the purpae form to protect the exposed embryo through the rest of it's growth, this involves either simply wrapping leaves around itself for protection to cocoons and chysylis.

Leaving the egg early and having full access to abundant food improved survival over insects that didn't, predation wasn't as advanced back then when this was happening so simply protecting yourself from the elements was good enough, now the ones that look more like thier surorundings survive better when chrysalised or even actually using your surroundings. and guess what. Now 90% of insects are shown to live embryonically as grubs ect, the catapillar/butterfly is the pinnacle of this evolution, it supports it not destroys it.

When a butterfly emerges it has the same heart and brain as when it chrysalyses so it doesn't simple deconstruct itself it grows and in growing changes, much like a human embryo or a dolphin.

[nicholsmom]

Evolution isn't a lifestyle, it's a scientific theory- one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories ever made.

In what way do you find that evolutionary theory is useful?

[nicholsmom]

I never meant to say that you were ignorant of all science, just Biology...
You can save the keystorkes, as we've all figured out that you are not a Biologist. You are attacking a scientific theory while at the same time having absolutely no idea of what the theory even says. You're not only wrong on a few minor details, you're completely in the dark.

Why stop there? Why not branch out into other sciences, or mathematics? ...Don't bother with learning the math, just start posting!

Let's do that shall we? But if we branch out into other sciences, you will be sorely lacking. Did you miss these two posts SUTG? You seem to be completely forgetting chemistry and, yes, mathematics - statistical mathematics.

Crystalline particles are not "raw unorganized elements" they have a molecular structure that requires that they stack up into crystals - check into a little chemistry, will ya? Chemistry relies on the predictability of elements based on their atomic structure, hence the periodic chart. The processes needed for chemical reactions are very organized & predictable if the variables are known.

As for sand on a beach, it is neither raw (sand particles have known characteristics & are therefore predictable - they will not get up, form into a marionette and do polka for us), nor is the "ordering" unorganized (the size and density of the particles is what sorts them like change in a change counter & wind is directed by pressure & temperature variations, obstructions to flow, and gravity, among other things - predictable & reproducible if all factors are known).

You are going to have to come up with something better than these examples. Not one of them is viable.

Better yet, maybe take a chemistry class. Or maybe statistics so that you can make "better" guesses.

From what dark hole did you pull that number? A million years to evolve what? Have you done the statistical math yourself? Can I have a look at your paper, 'cause I really don't think that number can be anywhere near big enough.

Here is a sneak peek at some statistical math from someone you will find reputable. Here, first is the source: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html#Intro
You may note that this paper is full of guesses that I would argue, but I'll grant them for this purpose.

Here is the "math" (all hypothetical):

So you can see that even to an avid evolutionary scientist, a million years is barely enough to have produced a protein, maybe even simultaneous generation of gobs of proteins, but as yet no plants or animals, much less intelligent life.

BTW, you never did tell me what part was not biologically correct in my analysis of the "explanation" of how butterflies evolved. Without elaboration on your part we cannot know that even you have any understanding of biology. Let's here it.

[aharvey]

Real Science Friday- Caterpillar Kills Atheism (http://kgov.com/bel_56kbps/20080328)

This is the show from Friday March 28th, 2008.

* Challenge to Atheists: RSF co-hosts Fred Williams, with Creation Research Society, and Bob Enyart, challenge atheists to give a rough description of how evolution could possibly explain (it cannot) a caterpillar liquefying itself and re-creating itself into a butterfly. Evolution uses random mutations, small incremental changes, and natural selection. The chrysalis stage is an impassible gulf that small random changes cannot cross. A caterpillar species needs to begin digesting itself, turning itself into a "bag of rich fluid," and then forming all new tissue and organs, including wings, legs, antennae, heart, muscles and nervous system, building a brand new organism, and then starting the process all over again. So, Bob and Fred invite any atheist to spend the next 25 years trying to come up with a rough algorithm of how Darwinism can cross the Chrysalis divide!

* Evolutionist Criticizes Bob: Go figure. The last time Bob described the caterpillar liquefying itself and then re-forming itself, a feat impossible for Darwinism to accomplish, ...
Let's say I make the claim "Bob cannot grow bananas from seed; it's impossible for him to do so!" Is it my responsibility to demonstrate why he cannot do this, why it is impossible for him to do so? Or is my making the claim enough, all by itself, to make it Bob's responsibility to demonstrate that he in fact can do so? And is actually doing so the only way for Bob to demonstrate that it is not impossible for him?

[DoogieTalons]

Guess what, seems real scientists are always working for real answers rather than throwing thier hands in the air and saying "I don't know so God did it"

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/03/butterflies-rem.html

Very interestingly it points out...

The findings "challenge a broadly-held popular view of lepidopteran metamorphosis: that the caterpillar is essentially broken down entirely, and its components reorganized into a butterfly or moth," wrote the researchers.

noooOOoooOOoo don't tell me people are actually discovering new things all the time when the answers were supposed to be in Genesis

Wow research from March 05, 2008 rather than 1st Jan - 6000BC

[Stripe]

You start from the false premis of decomposition, you assume total annialation and reformation, Wing cells are there, the brain and internal organs are there, much like an embryonic child in it's mothers womb.

When you start with ignorance you need to know what your real argument is first.

You're in effect asking how a bus can become a dog if you cover it in spinnach.

The answer is no one said it does, but the crazy creationists looking desperatly for a new argument, decide to make one up.You're making up things that aren't there in order to avoid uttering the three necessary words.

The real argument is that a caterpillar decomposes itself. Wickedpedia describes the process as leaving only a few cells intact. We want a description of how this might happen by random selection and natural mutation.

If you don't have an explanation feel free to say so...
This from the person claiming to have some geology education supporting Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory.
I think I have reached the point where I cannot decide whether stipe is really delusional or just putting us all on cause he has a lot of free time.
My education did very little to prepare me to accept Dr. Brown's ideas. I do have some free time to spend on here though.

I think any comparison of my efforts with geology to Doogie's with biology are vastly overstated. I've spent four pages explaining and attempting to answer questions and I'm pretty sure I've said, "I don't know" somewhere along the line.

Let's say I make the claim "Bob cannot grow bananas from seed; it's impossible for him to do so!" Is it my responsibility to demonstrate why he cannot do this, why it is impossible for him to do so? Or is my making the claim enough, all by itself, to make it Bob's responsibility to demonstrate that he in fact can do so? And is actually doing so the only way for Bob to demonstrate that it is not impossible for him?
You're putting evolution into the position of being an observable process. Bob asserting that evolution cannot do something is a simple consequence of what he believes and a simple challenge to atheists. A challenge that seems to be unilaterally met with hostility or over-reaction.

[Stripe]

Guess what, seems real scientists are always working for real answers rather than throwing thier hands in the air and saying "I don't know so God did it"

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/03/butterflies-rem.html

Very interestingly it points out...

The findings "challenge a broadly-held popular view of lepidopteran metamorphosis: that the caterpillar is essentially broken down entirely, and its components reorganized into a butterfly or moth," wrote the researchers.

noooOOoooOOoo don't tell me people are actually discovering new things all the time when the answers were supposed to be in Genesis

Wow research from March 05, 2008 rather than 1st Jan - 6000BC:rotfl:

I don't think anybody is asserting that each butterfly organises itself from a random mixture of mushed up caterpillar. I'm sure the process is very directed and ordered. The question is how did such a process arise with the help of only mutation and selection?

[Jukia]

You're putting evolution into the position of being an observable process. Bob asserting that evolution cannot do something is a simple consequence of what he believes and a simple challenge to atheists. A challenge that seems to be unilaterally met with hostility or over-reaction.

Well, that is the problem. Pastor Bob believes something and everyone else who bothers to look at the evidence and make an attempt to understand is wrong.

[DoogieTalons]

Stipe, don't accuse me of making stuff up when the op state
A caterpillar species needs to begin digesting itself, turning itself into a "bag of rich fluid," and then forming all new tissue and organs, including wings, legs, antennae, heart, muscles and nervous system, building a brand new organism

Whereby the only thing quoted by scientists is "bag of rich fluid" which bob seemlessly misunderstands and asserts "forming all new tissue and organs, including wings, legs, antennae, heart, muscles and nervous system, building a brand new organism"

Which is just hog wash, it's not a brand new organsim for a start, that's just a grade school error, IF you believe it is then you blow out of the water the argument that an embryo is a baby... THINK STIPE, THINK MAN !!! what's wrong with you today.

and for a second, the heart and brain is reorded NOT recreated.

WOW you guys just don't get it do you it's all just "Lets quote a scientist and pop our own dumb assertions close enough to his quotes that people might confuse the two".

As a Christian once said to me "I'll pray for you"

I scincerly pity you.

Stipe if you believe an Embryo with less that 200 cells is a baby, please explain to me how a catapillar is not a butterfly, in say 100 words or less.

You guys are blind and your leaders have one eye, they just don't tell you exactly what they see.

[DoogieTalons]

:rotfl:

I don't think anybody is asserting that each butterfly organises itself from a random mixture of mushed up caterpillar. I'm sure the process is very directed and ordered. The question is how did such a process arise with the help of only mutation and selection?The mechanics arose before the wing stipe, can you not read, just because it's no miraculous it's no more miraculous than a maggot becoming a fly. it's just more evolved it's had 450 million years to get this good.

[aharvey]

I'm doing no such thing. I'm trying to establish what creationists consider acceptable standards of logic and argumentation. To me, when someone says that something is "impossible," that it "cannot" happen, rather than "unlikely" or "difficult," they are consciously making a stronger claim and presumably have some basis for that distinction. You mention "over-reaction," but when someone says that something is "impossible," that it "cannot" happen, rather than "unlikely" or "difficult," but show no effort at or interest in justifying this stronger position, isn't that a pretty clear case of over-reaction?

Why not try something different for a change, and actually answer the very simple questions I posed: when someone asserts that something is impossible, does he or does he not have any obligation to back up that strong and specific assertion? And if not, why on earth would there be any more obligation for anyone else to demonstrate his empty assertion to be wrong?

[GuySmiley]

This reminded me of someone . . .
God did it ?
No why bother looking God did it !!
Ok God did it.


Evolution did it!


God did it

Evolution did it!



I wouldn't, either God did it.


Evolution did it!


Very informative huh?

[Stripe]

Well, that is the problem. Pastor Bob believes something and everyone else who bothers to look at the evidence and make an attempt to understand is wrong.Feel free to stump up with some of that evidence anytime you want.

You could start with a story explaining how a butterfly might develop the ability to metamorphose.

[GuySmiley]

Perhaps because those "arguments" lack scientific basis and are a matter of faith.

Brower actually knows what he's talking about. But it's intellectually dishonest to cherrypick the man's considerable body of work to make a point at total odds with what he believes. Creationists, lacking bona fide scientific qualifications of their own, have no choice but to appropriate actual science.
So you adopt the entire belief system of anyone you find with an ounce of truth? This is a weak argument. You guys are grasping for criticisms.

[Stripe]

The mechanics arose before the wing stipe, can you not read, just because it's no miraculous it's no more miraculous than a maggot becoming a fly. it's just more evolved it's had 450 million years to get this good.I'm not suggesting it's a miracle happening every time a butterfly emerges from a cocoon. I'm asking how mutations and natural selection could account for such a process.

Why not try something different for a change, and actually answer the very simple questions I posed: when someone asserts that something is impossible, does he or does he not have any obligation to back up that strong and specific assertion? And if not, why on earth would there be any more obligation for anyone else to demonstrate his empty assertion to be wrong?
Not if the assertion is perfectly obvious. It's impossible for pigs to fly.

You're not going to keep arguing are you? :noid:

[aharvey]

Feel free to stump up with some of that evidence anytime you want.

You could start with a story explaining how a butterfly might develop the ability to metamorphose.
The story you are asking for here is exceedingly straightforward: Butterflies didn't develop the ability to metamorphose, they inherited it, with some relatively slight modifications, from their ancestors.

[SUTG]

Did you miss these two posts SUTG?

Actually, I ignored them since you seemed to be having trouble following the conversation.

Toast commeented that:

Information and building blocks do not organize themselves.

And I said "yes they do" and gave examples, one of which was chemistry and one of which was crystals. Then you replied with your confused post saying that "crystalline particles are not "raw unorganized elements" and so on...

Well, can you give me an example of something that is a "raw, unorganized element"? Are you expecting someone to give you a description, in detail, of how subatomic particles, over the ages, organized themselves into modern humans? I would be glad to do that, if that simple request is all that you are asking. Why didn't you just say so?


BTW, you never did tell me what part was not biologically correct in my analysis of the "explanation" of how butterflies evolved. Without elaboration on your part we cannot know that even you have any understanding of biology. Let's here(sic) it.

It is too blatant and obvious. If you are too lazy to educate yourself, I am not going to bother. You're really not in a position to say anything about Biology at all, except that you don't understand it.

[Stripe]

The story you are asking for here is exceedingly straightforward: Butterflies didn't develop the ability to metamorphose, they inherited it, with some relatively slight modifications, from their ancestors.So .. ummm .. evolutiondidit?

[Stripe]

So .. ummm .. evolutiondidit?I expect better Aharvey. When you ask me questions on hydroplate theory I say things like gravitydidit or pressuredidit. You won't catch me saying hydroplatetheorydidit.

[SUTG]

So .. ummm .. evolutiondidit?

You're actually right, for once. :thumb:

[aharvey]

Not if the assertion is perfectly obvious.
What about assertions of impossibility that are not "perfectly obvious"? Do you think imperfectly obvious assertions of impossibility need to be explained?

It's impossible for pigs to fly.
The problem here, stipe, is that the reason this assertion seems perfectly obvious is because it is so easy to explain and defend (c'mon, I'll bet even you could defend this assertion even though it is perfectly obvious)! In striking contrast, you are tagging Bob's assertion as "perfectly obvious" despite the fact that it 1) does not have any easy and obvious logical basis, and 2) is actively contradicted by a very large community of professional scientists. I would argue that these two features alone would pretty much define an assertion as not being perfectly obvious!

You're not going to keep arguing are you? :noid:

[aharvey]

I expect better Aharvey. When you ask me questions on hydroplate theory I say things like gravitydidit or pressuredidit. You won't catch me saying hydroplatetheorydidit.
Well, sadly, here you're merely displaying your poor critical thinking skills and your tendency to jump to conclusions. You utterly missed my point. Asking how a butterfly developed the ability to metamorphosis is a nonsensical question, because evolutionary theory would not support the idea that butterflies developed the ability to metamorphose.

To use your own inept analogy, how would the hydroplate theory explain the ability of big chunks of granite to float uphill?

If you want serious answers stop asking absurd questions. And try to make at least a feeble attempt to give the impression that you are genuinely interested in a serious discussion of the subject.

[Stripe]

You're actually right, for once. :thumb:I'll take that :D

[Jukia]

Feel free to stump up with some of that evidence anytime you want.

You could start with a story explaining how a butterfly might develop the ability to metamorphose.

Nope, not worth the effort with Pastor Bob. Review the thread dealing with manganese nodules, I went out of my way to get the appropriate info and the good Pastor took a hike.

It all boils down to the unability or, more properly, lack of desire on the part of fundy's to make any attempt to gain some knowledge of the real world which even has a chance of raising issues about a literal Genesis. If Pastor Bob, or you, had any real desire to try to understand the question you are more than welcome to go off on your own and learn something.

[PlastikBuddha]

In what way do you find that evolutionary theory is useful?

Let's see- pretty much every aspect of biology and related sciences from taxonomy to organic chemistry to genetics for starters. Not just useful, but indispensible.

[PlastikBuddha]

Doogie.

If evolution is so well grounded in reality it should be able to provide at least an idea (other than evolutiondidit) on how the butterfly developed the ability to perform metamorphosis upon itself. Would you like to explain or is your defence of your faith limited to, "I don't like what Christians believe so evolution must be true"?

If gravity and magnetism are so well grounded in reality it should be possible to explain HOW and WHY they work. Saying that because we don't understand everything is not the same as saying we understand nothing.
Anyhoo:

Growth patterns intermediate to full metamorphosis already exist, ranging from growth with no metamorphosis (such as with silverfish) to partial metamorphosis (as with true bugs and mayflies) complete metamorphosis with relatively little change in form (as with rove beetles), and the metamorphosis seen in butterflies. It is surely possible that similar intermediate stages could have developed over time to produce butterfly metamorphosis from an ancestor without metamorphosis. In fact, an explanation exists for the evolution of metamorphosis based largely on changes in the endocrinology of development (Truman and Riddiford 1999).
Heres more:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/10/991001064049.htm

[Jukia]

stipe: check out Buddha's link and some of the articles referenced there.

[Stripe]

If gravity and magnetism are so well grounded in reality it should be possible to explain HOW and WHY they work. Saying that because we don't understand everything is not the same as saying we understand nothing.
They both work by attracting mass towards mass. We don't know how, but we can describe what must have happened to get from one situation to another.

Growth patterns intermediate to full metamorphosis already exist, ranging from growth with no metamorphosis (such as with silverfish) to partial metamorphosis (as with true bugs and mayflies) complete metamorphosis with relatively little change in form (as with rove beetles), and the metamorphosis seen in butterflies. It is surely possible that similar intermediate stages could have developed over time to produce butterfly metamorphosis from an ancestor without metamorphosis. In fact, an explanation exists for the evolution of metamorphosis based largely on changes in the endocrinology of development (Truman and Riddiford 1999).
Heres more:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/10/991001064049.htm

The existence of a complete range of metamorphoses types only shows that it will be possible to line those examples up and demonstrate evolution :chuckle:

From your article the only part that seems to address the issue is:
Their proposition suggests that a change in hormonal function during embryonic development led to the evolution of a unique larval stage, an innovation that allowed a virtual population explosion among these species in the last 250 million years.
All the article seems to do is raise more questions. At what stage did the reproductive stage shift from the pre-change stage to the post-change? Did that happen all at once or gradually .. and if gradually .. how did larvae within a cocoon, half dissolved in their own enzymes, reproduce :chuckle:

No wonder Jukia doesn't want to offer anything...

[fool]

Let me quickly explain this to everyone.
ToE is a theory.
A theory is an attempt to explain an observation.
The observation= the dead stuff in the ground don't look like the stuff alive now.
That's it
It's really nothing to be afraid of.
Unless that bothers you for some reason.

[Toast]

Let me quickly explain this to everyone.
ToE is a theory.
A theory is an attempt to explain an observation.
The observation= the dead stuff in the ground don't look like the stuff alive now.
That's it
It's really nothing to be afraid of.
Unless that bothers you for some reason.

Nicely put fool.. Hopefully you realize theories can be wrong. See my sig for details on this. ;)

[fool]

Nicely put fool.. Hopefully you realize theories can be wrong. See my sig for details on this. ;)

Did you read any of his books?

[PlastikBuddha]

They both work by attracting mass towards mass. We don't know how, but we can describe what must have happened to get from one situation to another.

Exactly: we don't know how. Ignorance of some particulars does not invalidate an entire theory. Particularly when dealing with soft-bodied insects that are unlikely to leave us a great of physical evidence. How many fossilized caterpillars are you aware of? We have to work with what we have available.


The existence of a complete range of metamorphoses types only shows that it will be possible to line those examples up and demonstrate evolution :chuckle:

From your article the only part that seems to address the issue is:
Their proposition suggests that a change in hormonal function during embryonic development led to the evolution of a unique larval stage, an innovation that allowed a virtual population explosion among these species in the last 250 million years.
All the article seems to do is raise more questions. At what stage did the reproductive stage shift from the pre-change stage to the post-change? Did that happen all at once or gradually .. and if gradually .. how did larvae within a cocoon, half dissolved in their own enzymes, reproduce :chuckle:

Of course it raises more questions. That's often, if not always, what science does. Think of it this way, Stipe: The process of metamorphosis is development from egg to adult, interrupted. Why? Because there is a reproductive advantage to laying a million or so eggs that can hatch in an early stage and supply their own energy to complete growth as opposed to laying a hundred eggs that have enough stored energy go from fertilized egg to adult in one pop. Endocrinolgy explains the changes in hormones that can allow these changes in lifestyle to come about. Once again, because we can't travel back in time and watch the whole process take place doesn't mean we can't extend what we do know backwards and provide a working hypothesis about how it happened. This provides the ever-comforting security blanket needed by the Luddites to cuddle in times of scientific distress- it's just a bunch of maybe's and "we think's" and "Possibly's". :duh: If uncertainty is something you can't handle then perhaps science is the field for you because it isn't just biology that uses these phrases.

No wonder Jukia doesn't want to offer anything...
Yes, it typically is a waste to provide any answers to YEC'ers. You don't want answers, you want reassurance. That's not what ToE is about.

[Ktoyou]

Exactly: we don't know how. Ignorance of some particulars does not invalidate an entire theory. Particularly when dealing with soft-bodied insects that are unlikely to leave us a great of physical evidence. How many fossilized caterpillars are you aware of? We have to work with what we have available.


Of course it raises more questions. That's often, if not always, what science does. Think of it this way, Stipe: The process of metamorphosis is development from egg to adult, interrupted. Why? Because there is a reproductive advantage to laying a million or so eggs that can hatch in an early stage and supply their own energy to complete growth as opposed to laying a hundred eggs that have enough stored energy go from fertilized egg to adult in one pop. Endocrinolgy explains the changes in hormones that can allow these changes in lifestyle to come about. Once again, because we can't travel back in time and watch the whole process take place doesn't mean we can't extend what we do know backwards and provide a working hypothesis about how it happened. This provides the ever-comforting security blanket needed by the Luddites to cuddle in times of scientific distress- it's just a bunch of maybe's and "we think's" and "Possibly's". :duh: If uncertainty is something you can't handle then perhaps science is the field for you because it isn't just biology that uses these phrases.

Yes, it typically is a waste to provide any answers to YEC'ers. You don't want answers, you want reassurance. That's not what ToE is about.

I wish the same could be done viewing the teaching of Genesis, no one thought about facts then. The notion of a fact is new to human thinking. Why so much early writing is poetic is that the way it was said was more important than any notion of facts. The early Israelites listened to the stories in Geneses to understand the nature of man and his relationship with God. Questions asked today would heave been irreverent at that time

[SUTG]

Let me quickly explain this to everyone.
ToE is a theory.
A theory is an attempt to explain an observation.
The observation= the dead stuff in the ground don't look like the stuff alive now.


But don't foget that the ToE explains alot of other things besides the dead stuff in the ground.

[SUTG]

Nicely put fool.. Hopefully you realize theories can be wrong. See my sig for details on this. ;)

Theories can be wrong, and in your signature one of the ways that evolution could be shown to be wrong. What makes the theory so strong is that there are so many opportunities for it to be shown wrong, but it passes all of them.

[fool]

But don't foget that the ToE explains alot of other things besides the dead stuff in the ground.

A powerful solvent indeed.
My point was that ToE sprung from an observation regarding the dead stuff in the ground, not from a desire to deny the existence of God so that one could eat a whole box of eskimo pies without feeling guilty.

[Toast]

Theories can be wrong, and in your signature one of the ways that evolution could be shown to be wrong. What makes the theory so strong is that there are so many opportunities for it to be shown wrong, but it passes all of them.

Excuse me if this argument has already been made before, I don't get much time to read these days, or sift through all the material on TOL, but a classic argument that I've read against ToE found in books such as, "Darwins Black Box", which I have read btw, as well as other critical books of evolution, is the bacterial flagellum. How could it evolve in a step-wise process? Its a fairly complex thing, and would not be useful unless it was all there, and is one of the key ways bacteria transport themselves around right? I'm no biology major, and biology is something that I would like to get a chance to study more in detail hopeully soon. Right now I'm focusing on learning physics/chemistry/electronics, which is a handful.

[Granite]

So you adopt the entire belief system of anyone you find with an ounce of truth? This is a weak argument. You guys are grasping for criticisms.

No, actually, I don't. I'm pointing out the inconsistency and hypocrisy in criticizing evolution, then using evolutionists to bolster your argument.

[aharvey]

Excuse me if this argument has already been made before, I don't get much time to read these days, or sift through all the material on TOL, but a classic argument that I've read against ToE found in books such as, "Darwins Black Box", which I have read btw, as well as other critical books of evolution, is the bacterial flagellum. How could it evolve in a step-wise process? Its a fairly complex thing, and would not be useful unless it was all there, and is one of the key ways bacteria transport themselves around right? I'm no biology major, and biology is something that I would like to get a chance to study more in detail hopeully soon. Right now I'm focusing on learning physics/chemistry/electronics, which is a handful.
So to which type of bacterial flagellum are you referring? There are many many types of flagella that vary a great deal in their construction, function, and, dare I say it, complexity. By itself this observation would seem to challenge the idea that there's only one way to build a functional flagellum, one that requires only one set of components all developed in one particular fashion. Wouldn't it?

And am I reading your response to fool correctly? The only book or books you've read about evolution are criticisms of it?

[Carnivour]

But in fact, we argue from science, stating that such theories as evolution seem to go against the basic laws of science, such as laws of thermo and entropy.

How can you claim to be arguing from science, when you obviously don't know enough of it to realize that the entropy argument is ridiculous? Sheesh.

[Toast]

So to which type of bacterial flagellum are you referring? There are many many types of flagella that vary a great deal in their construction, function, and, dare I say it, complexity. By itself this observation would seem to challenge the idea that there's only one way to build a functional flagellum, one that requires only one set of components all developed in one particular fashion. Wouldn't it?

And am I reading your response to fool correctly? The only book or books you've read about evolution are criticisms of it?

Not sure which kind of flagellum, read Darwins Black Box..

To answer your last question, negative, I grew up going to public schools and I attended biology class there. We were taught evolution, and I believed evolution.

[Toast]

How can you claim to be arguing from science, when you obviously don't know enough of it to realize that the entropy argument is ridiculous? Sheesh.

Um, I'm studying laws of thermo as we speak in my engineering class. Evolution claims that things have gone from disorder to order, when Entropy states the opposite. Thanks for your time.

[Carnivour]

Um, I'm studying laws of thermo as we speak in my engineering class. Evolution claims that things have gone from disorder to order, when Entropy states the opposite. Thanks for your time.

The SLoT applies to isolated systems, something the Earth obviously isn't.

[Toast]

The SLoT applies to isolated systems, something the Earth obviously isn't.

Ah, but the Earth is part of an isolated system, the universe.. No evidence that an infinite amount of energy is being pumped into the universe. Everything runs out of energy over time, and falls to pieces. Question, do you beilieve the universe has been here forever?

[Stripe]

How very unresponsive!
Exactly: we don't know how. Ignorance of some particulars does not invalidate an entire theory. Particularly when dealing with soft-bodied insects that are unlikely to leave us a great of physical evidence. How many fossilized caterpillars are you aware of? We have to work with what we have available.
We don't know how gravity works, but we can sure give a reasonable guess as to what happened given a starting point and a final result. Why can't evolution do the same?


Of course it raises more questions. That's often, if not always, what science does.
Bad science, perhaps.

Think of it this way, Stipe: The process of metamorphosis is development from egg to adult, interrupted. Why? Because there is a reproductive advantage to laying a million or so eggs that can hatch in an early stage and supply their own energy to complete growth as opposed to laying a hundred eggs that have enough stored energy go from fertilized egg to adult in one pop.
I don't have an argument with that, but it also wasn't the question. Or anything even closely related to the question.

Endocrinolgy explains the changes in hormones that can allow these changes in lifestyle to come about. Once again, because we can't travel back in time and watch the whole process take place doesn't mean we can't extend what we do know backwards and provide a working hypothesis about how it happened.
OK. Explain how a caterpillar's ancestor developed the ability to dissolve itself in order to turn into a butterfly while retaining the ability to reproduce more effective offspring...

This provides the ever-comforting security blanket needed by the Luddites to cuddle in times of scientific distress- it's just a bunch of maybe's and "we think's" and "Possibly's". :duh: If uncertainty is something you can't handle then perhaps science is the field for you because it isn't just biology that uses these phrases.
I'm comfortable with not understanding how things work at times. I'm not comfortable with ideas that we must rely on our imaginations to find answers for.

Yes, it typically is a waste to provide any answers to YEC'ers. You don't want answers, you want reassurance. That's not what ToE is about.
I'll agree that the TOE ain't all that reassuring :chuckle:

[SUTG]

Ah, but the Earth is part of an isolated system, the universe.. No evidence that an infinite amount of energy is being pumped into the universe. Everything runs out of energy over time, and falls to pieces. Question, do you beilieve the universe has been here forever?

Well, by this understanding, the fact that you are alive at all violates the second law of thermodynamics, so you can't possibly be alive! :dead:

[SUTG]

Excuse me if this argument has already been made before, I don't get much time to read these days, or sift through all the material on TOL, but a classic argument that I've read against ToE found in books such as, "Darwins Black Box", which I have read btw, as well as other critical books of evolution, is the bacterial flagellum. How could it evolve in a step-wise process? Its a fairly complex thing, and would not be useful unless it was all there, and is one of the key ways bacteria transport themselves around right? I'm no biology major, and biology is something that I would like to get a chance to study more in detail hopeully soon. Right now I'm focusing on learning physics/chemistry/electronics, which is a handful.

Have you read the whole book Darwin's Black Box?

If so, you should be aware that Behe states:

-The Earth is billion of years old.
- Evolution had produced new organisms.
- All organisms share a common ancestor.
- Humans evolved from apes.

Oh, and his Irreducible Complexity arguments states that there was no way for the flaggellum to have possibly evolved by Darwinian process. All that has to be done to refute a statement like this is to show that there is indeed a way that flaggellum could have possibly evolved by Darwinian process. This has been done, so the argument is obsolete.

[nicholsmom]

I personally don't know, but I have now read that insects evolved metamorphosis before wings, and benefitied from the young having different nutritianal needs to the old. I have now read three theories on a website I subscribe too and some vauge hypothesis on some I don't.

And I now know this in answer to the OP

Insects have been metamorphosising long before wings, this has evolved over 450 million years, it has in tiny steps managed to evolve to the purpae form to protect the exposed embryo through the rest of it's growth, this involves either simply wrapping leaves around itself for protection to cocoons and chysylis.

Leaving the egg early and having full access to abundant food improved survival over insects that didn't, predation wasn't as advanced back then when this was happening so simply protecting yourself from the elements was good enough, now the ones that look more like thier surorundings survive better when chrysalised or even actually using your surroundings. and guess what. Now 90% of insects are shown to live embryonically as grubs ect, the catapillar/butterfly is the pinnacle of this evolution, it supports it not destroys it.

When a butterfly emerges it has the same heart and brain as when it chrysalyses so it doesn't simple deconstruct itself it grows and in growing changes, much like a human embryo or a dolphin.
I want to know if you agree with aharvey on this:
The story you are asking for here is exceedingly straightforward: Butterflies didn't develop the ability to metamorphose, they inherited it, with some relatively slight modifications, from their ancestors.

If you agree that evolution is not about development, but about inheritance, then your argument about pupae evolving a protection mechanism (chrysalis, etc) cannot be taken seriously. Before the pupae evolved this mechanism, they will have died out before being able to successfully pass on an alteration (however minor) genetically, having never reached maturity. The reason I claim that the only way a species can get through this type of development (metamorphosis of any kind) would be in one giant leap, because any other answer ends in the death of the species before procreation can occur. The prolonging of this stage that you call "embryonic" would not be stable enough in any fraction of the increment to produce a mature, reproducible adult stage. That's where the problem comes into play - not with the wings, but rather with reaching maturity at all without the process being complete.


And I said "yes they do" and gave examples, one of which was chemistry and one of which was crystals. Then you replied with your confused post saying that "crystalline particles are not "raw unorganized elements" and so on...

Well, can you give me an example of something that is a "raw, unorganized element"? Are you expecting someone to give you a description, in detail, of how subatomic particles, over the ages, organized themselves into modern humans? I would be glad to do that, if that simple request is all that you are asking. Why didn't you just say so?

I think you should re-read my post. I stated exactly why I objected to your examples so that you could know what is meant by "raw, unorganized elements" becoming something organized spontaneously. The trouble is that you'd rather just point and giggle than address the issue. That sand is sifted by density ought not to be a surprise, nor should it make you say "look a miracle!" It is only following the well-observed laws of motion. That crystals form from shaped molecules is likewise just a matter of following the rules. How are these things unorganized?

Now if you come up with a sandstorm that forms into a clown that tiptoes across a tightrope, then you'd have something.

The reason that Darwin was able to believe in such theories was that he did not have the benefit of viewing molecular structure. Things sure do look like order from randomness until you can really get a look up close. Then it is obvious that these things are really only obeying the laws like everything else in our universe. If obeying the laws of nature only gets you to increased randomness, then how will you ever get to any level of complexity?

[PlastikBuddha]

How very unresponsive!

We don't know how gravity works, but we can sure give a reasonable guess as to what happened given a starting point and a final result. Why can't evolution do the same?

Because it relies on RANDOM mutations! Really, Stipe, that should be pretty obvious.


Bad science, perhaps.

Real science. Not the kind that starts with the "answer" and works backwards, like creationism.

I don't have an argument with that, but it also wasn't the question. Or anything even closely related to the question.

I can't see how.


OK. Explain how a caterpillar's ancestor developed the ability to dissolve itself in order to turn into a butterfly while retaining the ability to reproduce more effective offspring...

I already did. All of the steps from egg to adult are observable in modern insects. All that is needed is a change in the timing (controlled by hormones) to delay certain steps so that for instance, a caterpillar hatches and increases its own energy supply before making the final transformation. It has nothing to with the ability to reproduce since this happens BEFORE adulthood. :duh:

I'm comfortable with not understanding how things work at times. I'm not comfortable with ideas that we must rely on our imaginations to find answers for.

Then you're not comfortable with science at all. It all comes down to using the imagination.

I'll agree that the TOE ain't all that reassuring :chuckle:

That's not what it's there for. If you want reassurance get a security blanket. If you want to understand how life came to be what is today then get ToE. Ask for it by name.

[fourcheeze]

Ah, but the Earth is part of an isolated system, the universe.. No evidence that an infinite amount of energy is being pumped into the universe. Everything runs out of energy over time, and falls to pieces.

Have you seen that big hot thing in the sky pumping energy into our system?


Question, do you beilieve the universe has been here forever?


Depends on what you mean by "forever".

[Lighthouse]

:mock:random mutations.

[fourcheeze]

If you agree that evolution is not about development, but about inheritance, then your argument about pupae evolving a protection mechanism (chrysalis, etc) cannot be taken seriously. Before the pupae evolved this mechanism, they will have died out before being able to successfully pass on an alteration (however minor) genetically, having never reached maturity.


I will first confess that I'm not at all well read on the whole pupae thing. However assuming that at some point a species existed which had a similar larval stage to a butterfly, but was much less complex than the butterfly, then it seems consistent within the ToE that this could have been an ancestor to the butterfly.

The prolonging of this stage that you call "embryonic" would not be stable enough in any fraction of the increment to produce a mature, reproducible adult stage. That's where the problem comes into play - not with the wings, but rather with reaching maturity at all without the process being complete.Again I'm speaking out of complete ignorance to this exact area, but I can work out at least two logical progressions that would be consistent with evolutionary theory. One would be that the early stage originally had the ability to reproduce and that this was lost because of the secondary phase taking over before maturity was ever reached.

Alternatively there are many animals that produce wings to reproduce. Over time development of the essentials can be move later and later until you have almost a different creature.

[Toast]

Have you read the whole book Darwin's Black Box?

If so, you should be aware that Behe states:

-The Earth is billion of years old.
- Evolution had produced new organisms.
- All organisms share a common ancestor.
- Humans evolved from apes.

Oh, and his Irreducible Complexity arguments states that there was no way for the flaggellum to have possibly evolved by Darwinian process. All that has to be done to refute a statement like this is to show that there is indeed a way that flaggellum could have possibly evolved by Darwinian process. This has been done, so the argument is obsolete.

Yea, i've read the entire book, and I understand his POV, however, I'm focusing on that which I believe to be true and a valid argument.. As for it being disproven, I somehow doubt that..

[Toast]

Have you seen that big hot thing in the sky pumping energy into our system?



Depends on what you mean by "forever".

Yea, its the sun, which will run out of energy one day. Forever means forever..

Simply put, the universe couldnt be here forever and be in an ordered state.

[PlastikBuddha]

Yea, its the sun, which will run out of energy one day. Forever means forever..

Simply put, the universe couldnt be here forever and be in an ordered state.

Who believes the universe has been here forever?

[fourcheeze]

Yea, its the sun, which will run out of energy one day. Forever means forever..


The point is that it hasn't run out yet, which is why things around here can go into a more ordered state at its expense.


Simply put, the universe couldnt be here forever and be in an ordered state.

Again it still depends what you mean by forever. If you believe that the beginning of the universe defines what we know as time, then it could have been around "forever".

Generally though the problem you are alluding to: "where did all that energy come from in the first place and why hasn't it all run out" is solved by the total sum of the energy of the universe being zero.

In any case, don't confuse ToE with atheism. It's quite feasible to many of us that the whole thing was set off by God (or other supreme being) but didn't take the course set out by Genesis.

[Stripe]

Because it relies on RANDOM mutations! Really, Stipe, that should be pretty obvious.
I know the theory. The question is, "How?" Telling me it is random is wholly unresponsive.
Real science. Not the kind that starts with the "answer" and works backwards, like creationism.This statement directly contradicts your comment about imagination.
Then you're not comfortable with science at all. It all comes down to using the imagination.

I already did. All of the steps from egg to adult are observable in modern insects.
Which is only proof that all those examples exist today and that they can be lined up to "show" such development.

All that is needed is a change in the timing (controlled by hormones) to delay certain steps so that for instance, a caterpillar hatches and increases its own energy supply before making the final transformation. It has nothing to with the ability to reproduce since this happens BEFORE adulthood.
The ability to reproduce is located in a butterfly. According to evolutionary theory that ability had to once reside in the ancestral, and imaginary, caterpillar-only version.

[aharvey]

Not sure which kind of flagellum, read Darwins Black Box..
I think you're missing the point here (I'm not the first to make it in response to Behe's unfortunate example, incidentally). There are many different types of bacterial flagella, they share variable numbers of components, and the shared components may or may not differ in their details, and yet all these different types of flagella somehow manage to be functional. Thus, Behe's claim that a bacterial flagella can only function if it has one specific and complete set of components is demonstrably incorrect. Furthermore, if I'm not mistaken he admitted in the Dover trial that natural selection could lead from one of these flagellar types to another.
To answer your last question, negative, I grew up going to public schools and I attended biology class there. We were taught evolution, and I believed evolution.
Yes, I'm sadly familiar with the level of detailed coverage public schools devote to evolutionary theory. So in fact your answer would be in the positive: the only book or books you've read concerning evolutionary theory have been criticisms of it.

[aharvey]

If you agree that evolution is not about development, but about inheritance, then your argument about pupae evolving a protection mechanism (chrysalis, etc) cannot be taken seriously. Before the pupae evolved this mechanism, they will have died out before being able to successfully pass on an alteration (however minor) genetically, having never reached maturity. The reason I claim that the only way a species can get through this type of development (metamorphosis of any kind) would be in one giant leap, because any other answer ends in the death of the species before procreation can occur. The prolonging of this stage that you call "embryonic" would not be stable enough in any fraction of the increment to produce a mature, reproducible adult stage. That's where the problem comes into play - not with the wings, but rather with reaching maturity at all without the process being complete.
It sounds like you have the likely evolutionary progression in this example backwards. You don't start with a caterpillar and ask how it can evolve the ability to profoundly metamorphose (there are no caterpillars that lay eggs, but there are winged insects that do not undergo profound metamorphoses). You start with a winged adult and you ask how it can evolve a larval stage that is different from the adult, and then how can it evolve a larval stage that is ultimately so different that it requires a metamorphosis, then how can it evolve a metamorphosis that is as dramatic as that of a butterfly.

The ability to reproduce is located in a butterfly. According to evolutionary theory that ability had to once reside in the ancestral, and imaginary, caterpillar-only version.
See above, stipe. Once again, you've got evolutionary theory wrong. There was never a caterpillar-only version, except in your fevered imagination. There was a winged, non-metamorphosing version.

[nicholsmom]

I will first confess that I'm not at all well read on the whole pupae thing. However assuming that at some point a species existed which had a similar larval stage to a butterfly, but was much less complex than the butterfly, then it seems consistent within the ToE that this could have been an ancestor to the butterfly.

Ok, but how did that ancestor get to the point of metamorphosis? I'm not overly concerned that this be an issue about butterflies, but about the possibility of inheritance of metamorphosis.


Again I'm speaking out of complete ignorance to this exact area, but I can work out at least two logical progressions that would be consistent with evolutionary theory. One would be that the early stage originally had the ability to reproduce and that this was lost because of the secondary phase taking over before maturity was ever reached.

Yes, I agree with the idea that an earlier relative could be able to reproduce without metamorphosis. The question is how can it have gone from that to the requirement of metamorphosis without a big leap? How could it get there in generational minor alterations to the genome? Since evolutionary change comes about by way of inheritance of "random mutations" of the genome, how could the non-metamorphosing insect ancestor pass on a random mutation that would get the next generation to even a half-way point in the pupate stage? What would that look like? The pupate stage has no intermediate "steps" or stages at which to stop for a "breather" to mate at that point in the process. It must get all the way through the process & emerge on the other side whole & ready to procreate.

I don't mind saying that this process is a "leap" in the otherwise slow process of evolution, but it seems that the evolutionists don't want to say that - or haven't yet said it. If they would say, "yes, it represents a leap, which is something for which we cannot account," then fine, they are admitting that they are also just guessing based on really nothing in this particular instance. If they are willing to admit that their guesses - on just this one issue - are no more based in scientific observation than those of creationists, then we can agree.

Alternatively there are many animals that produce wings to reproduce. Over time development of the essentials can be move later and later until you have almost a different creature.
Again, you have not shown a viable, slow, incremental processes for getting through the pupate stage of insect life. If evolutionary advances are made by minute random mutations that are inherited a piece at a time, then what would each stopping point look like? An oozy mass is all I can see, and no one has suggested anything like an inheritable alteration that is not a great leap.

[Stripe]

See above, stipe. Once again, you've got evolutionary theory wrong. There was never a caterpillar-only version, except in your fevered imagination. There was a winged, non-metamorphosing version.
OK, that makes a little less nonsense :chuckle:

[aharvey]

OK, that makes a little less nonsense :chuckle:
Great, so could you tell nicholsmom? I don't think she's reading my posts!

Oh, and what about post 155? Pigs flying and all that.

[Stripe]

Great, so could you tell nicholsmom? I don't think she's reading my posts!
Nicholsmom! Aharvey has an answer for one of the side questions we had. Stick to the point of the OP. :)

Oh, and what about post 155? Pigs flying and all that.
Not sure. Did someone steal it?

[nicholsmom]

It sounds like you have the likely evolutionary progression in this example backwards. You don't start with a caterpillar and ask how it can evolve the ability to profoundly metamorphose (there are no caterpillars that lay eggs, but there are winged insects that do not undergo profound metamorphoses). You start with a winged adult and you ask how it can evolve a larval stage that is different from the adult, and then how can it evolve a larval stage that is ultimately so different that it requires a metamorphosis, then how can it evolve a metamorphosis that is as dramatic as that of a butterfly.


This idea is much more appealing. Can you give me any info on these non-metamorphosing insects? Are there any living now that we know of (I realize that we know very few of the extant species of insects in the world)? Are there any in the fossil record? Do you have some websites I can look at? I have 2 daughters who are in the 4H entomology project & I'm sure they'd have fun with a poster on this sort of thing. I mean, butterflies & moths seem to predominate the bug boxes in addition to lots of beetles & dragonflies. If there were something this special about one of the species, that would be quite an ed-box coup for them.

[PlastikBuddha]

I know the theory. The question is, "How?" Telling me it is random is wholly unresponsive.

The how of mutations? That's known and understood. The how of mutations being expressed? That's known and understood. Which expressed mutations will prove to be beneficial (or at least non-harmful) and thus be passed along to the next generation and which mutations are most likely to occur in any given generation are questions we just don't have the kind of computing abilities to answer. I think even the attempt would make the human genome project look like Pong.

This statement directly contradicts your comment about imagination.

Only if you assume that people don't have any kind of critical thinking abilites to help them distinguish between an imagined experimental results and predictions and actual ones. Science is based ultimately on observation, otherwise it's just philosophy or pure math.



Which is only proof that all those examples exist today and that they can be lined up to "show" such development.

Or to provide a plausible explaination for how metamorphasis evolved.

The ability to reproduce is located in a butterfly. According to evolutionary theory that ability had to once reside in the ancestral, and imaginary, caterpillar-only version.
And? Obviously the caterpillar-like form would be predate the winged one by a long time (the larval stages of many different insects are similar) so the ability to reproduce would be standard issue - as it is in all organisms. I don't see the problem.

[fourcheeze]

An oozy mass is all I can see, and no one has suggested anything like an inheritable alteration that is not a great leap.

I think you're assuming that the Oozy mass came first, when it may have come after the ability to metamorphose.

[Jukia]

Nicely put fool.. Hopefully you realize theories can be wrong. See my sig for details on this. ;)

Sorry, but your quote mine does not really provide any details. That is one of the problems with quote mining. It sounds nice but is usually a bit soft on substance.

[koban]

Let me quickly explain this to everyone.
ToE is a theory.
A theory is an attempt to explain an observation.
The observation= the dead stuff in the ground don't look like the stuff alive now.
That's it
It's really nothing to be afraid of.
Unless that bothers you for some reason.



Scares the heck out of some people. :)

[DoogieTalons]

I want to know if you agree with aharvey on this:

Yes I do, but....

If you agree that evolution is not about development, but about inheritance,
No I don't and I bet neither does AHarvey, it's about both. But each individual does not develop, just has the opportunity to survive with it's lot.

I think A harveys subsequent post about explains it all.

When you read this stuff do you feel educated or do you just kick into religion mode and dismiss it as it doesn't match your 6000 year old scripture.

[Stripe]

The how of mutations? That's known and understood. The how of mutations being expressed? That's known and understood. Which expressed mutations will prove to be beneficial (or at least non-harmful) and thus be passed along to the next generation and which mutations are most likely to occur in any given generation are questions we just don't have the kind of computing abilities to answer. I think even the attempt would make the human genome project look like Pong.
Just give us a rough outline of how. Like ... first there was this winged thing and then because of something it gained the ability to decompose itself ... that's the challenge Bob presented. Pong we can leave alone :chuckle:

Only if you assume that people don't have any kind of critical thinking abilites to help them distinguish between an imagined experimental results and predictions and actual ones.
You've just switched your usage of the term 'imagination' from something that might be useful to something with negative connotations.

Am I asked to respect the evolutionists ability to think because you imagine a situation that's different from the one I believe? Hows about you set up something remotely equitable when it comes to scientific philosophy?

Tell us, PB, what is the difference between a creationist imagining a conclusion and then providing evidence for it and an evolutionist imagining a conclusion and then providing evidence for it?
Science is based ultimately on observation, otherwise it's just philosophy or pure math.
What is the difference between a creationist providing evidence for an observation and an evolutionist providing evidence for an observation?

Or to provide a plausible explaination for how metamorphasis evolved.
Sure, if you believe your imagination :chuckle:

And? Obviously the caterpillar-like form would be predate the winged one by a long time (the larval stages of many different insects are similar) so the ability to reproduce would be standard issue - as it is in all organisms. I don't see the problem.
I don't think you appreciated the challenge. Aharvey already answered it, anyhow.

[fool]

Scares the heck out of some people. :)
But it dosen't need to.
It's all OK.
It's better to accept in and move on, move on in what direction is another thread entirly.

[nicholsmom]

I think you're assuming that the Oozy mass came first, when it may have come after the ability to metamorphose.

Oh no. The oozy mass is what is inside the chrysalis, cocoon or "rolled leaf" of the pupate stage. The question is how can an insect go into the pupate stage & emerge partway through it (minute, random alterations of the genome) to then reproduce when any "partway" through this stage is an oozy mass.

[fool]

Tell us, PB, what is the difference between a creationist imagining a conclusion and then providing evidence for it and an evolutionist imagining a conclusion and then providing evidence for it?



There's no difference.
They are both doing science wrong.
Or more specifically they are not doing science, they are making rhetoric.
Which is useful to those who want to hear rhetoric, but of little value to those who seek truth.
The first step is a big one "observe".
Tha means the exact oppisite of what is laid out in that statement of faith.
They should have a statement of objectivity, which I will make for all who are reading this now, "I, fool, will pledge to be objective in all my dealings with everyone I come in contact with wether I find their position onerous or not".
Who's with me?

[fourcheeze]

Oh no. The oozy mass is what is inside the chrysalis, cocoon or "rolled leaf" of the pupate stage. The question is how can an insect go into the pupate stage & emerge partway through it (minute, random alterations of the genome) to then reproduce when any "partway" through this stage is an oozy mass.

I think what I'm trying to say is that the oozy mass may not be necessary for metamorphisis, but it may be more efficient. And it may have got more oozy over time.

There's nothing to suggest that one minute it had to go from no oozy mass to oozy mass, if you see what I mean.

[fool]

Oh no. The oozy mass is what is inside the chrysalis, cocoon or "rolled leaf" of the pupate stage. The question is how can an insect go into the pupate stage & emerge partway through it (minute, random alterations of the genome) to then reproduce when any "partway" through this stage is an oozy mass.

This has been explained to you many times now.
Why don't you turn on your brain and ask a real question, like how did they get to practice this matamorphisis without a cacoon?
How rediculaous is it to believe they made up this cacooning method while they were making up this metamorposys method?
The two technologies had to come into existence at the same time!
Silk spinning, silk strength, cacoonong techniques, where to cacoon, when to cacoon, are you just going to sit there and throw stones or are you going to go out and observe different insect cacoons?
The ball is in your court.

[SUTG]

:mock: oozy mass

[Stripe]

OK. Let me pretend to be an atheist:
Some ancient creature used to be born as a smaller version of itself.
Its descendents developed the ability to protect themselves during longer and longer sleep periods by making cocoons.

Then further descendents began decomposing parts of themselves which gave rise to the ability to grow new organs.

This process continued until today where almost all the caterpillar is dissolved before emerging as a butterfly.

The evidence is in the variety of forms of metamorphosis we see today.

....

I shoulda been an evolutionist. I bet I can draw pictures of that and all!

[Lighthouse]

OK. Let me pretend to be an atheist:
Some ancient creature used to be born as a smaller version of itself.
Its descendents developed the ability to protect themselves during longer and longer sleep periods by making cocoons.

Then further descendents began decomposing parts of themselves which gave rise to the ability to grow new organs.

This process continued until today where almost all the caterpillar is dissolved before emerging as a butterfly.

The evidence is in the variety of forms of metamorphosis we see today.

....

I shoulda been an evolutionist. I bet I can draw pictures of that and all!
:chuckle:

[fool]

OK. Let me pretend to be an atheist:
Some ancient creature used to be born as a smaller version of itself.
Its descendents developed the ability to protect themselves during longer and longer sleep periods by making cocoons.

Then further descendents began decomposing parts of themselves which gave rise to the ability to grow new organs.

This process continued until today where almost all the caterpillar is dissolved before emerging as a butterfly.

The evidence is in the variety of forms of metamorphosis we see today.

....

I shoulda been an evolutionist. I bet I can draw pictures of that and all!

Git drawin!

By the way, did that stuff in the water jug ever become a rock?

[Stripe]

Git drawin!

By the way, did that stuff in the water jug ever become a rock?No, but it sure scared off them slugs!

[nicholsmom]

Yes I do, but....

No I don't and I bet neither does AHarvey, it's about both. But each individual does not develop, just has the opportunity to survive with it's lot.

I think A harveys subsequent post about explains it all.

When you read this stuff do you feel educated or do you just kick into religion mode and dismiss it as it doesn't match your 6000 year old scripture.

Why do you keep trying to tie me to young Earth? I have said that I honestly don't care about the age of the Earth issue, and that if I ever tend to lean toward it, that that is entirely a religious decision that I am quite willing to set aside. In other words, I grant you the billions of years old universe, so quit knocking me for a young Earth bias that isn't there.

[nicholsmom]

I think what I'm trying to say is that the oozy mass may not be necessary for metamorphisis, but it may be more efficient. And it may have got more oozy over time.

There's nothing to suggest that one minute it had to go from no oozy mass to oozy mass, if you see what I mean.

Now, that makes sense. I could follow that.

[PlastikBuddha]

Just give us a rough outline of how. Like ... first there was this winged thing and then because of something it gained the ability to decompose itself ... that's the challenge Bob presented. Pong we can leave alone :chuckle:

1. Primitive proto-insect. Non-winged. No larval stage.
2. More specialized insect. More complex growth cycle but still no larval stage- the change from ancestral form is still present during early growth, however, in the same way that some modern species retain primitive traits during fetal development. This is where "decomposition" occurs first. Inside the egg.
3. Winged insect. The larval stage is now a seperate state of existence. This is done by delaying the steps between larva and decomposition hormonally.

You've just switched your usage of the term 'imagination' from something that might be useful to something with negative connotations.

No, you're just "imagining" it. The ability to imagine a scenario in answer to observed facts if different from the ability to imagine a scenario in response to unalterable beliefs. ToE is put on the line every time a prediction- they are testable and even if it isn't something that people spend a lot of time thinking about if the results don't pan out it's time to think about finding another theory. Have YEC'ers ever admitted that they could be wrong? At the same time there are quite a few quotes from Darwin himself about what kinds of thinks would falsify his theory. This goes beyond imagining a possible answer to one's questions and "knowing" the answer beforehand.

Am I asked to respect the evolutionists ability to think because you imagine a situation that's different from the one I believe? Hows about you set up something remotely equitable when it comes to scientific philosophy?

You don't think that's equitable? Possibly because YEC doesn't stand up as a scientific philosophy? :think:

Tell us, PB, what is the difference between a creationist imagining a conclusion and then providing evidence for it and an evolutionist imagining a conclusion and then providing evidence for it?

None at all :D Now show me creationists "imagining" a conclusion, not presupposing it.

What is the difference between a creationist providing evidence for an observation and an evolutionist providing evidence for an observation?

None at all. How much evidence have creationists provided for their claims beyond pointing fingers at ToE. You and I both know actual research in that field is scant.

Sure, if you believe your imagination :chuckle:

A plausible explaination is not the same as belief. It is a starting point for further observation and eventually experimentation.

I don't think you appreciated the challenge. Aharvey already answered it, anyhow.
Okeedokee. I freely admit that there a lot of people here more qualified than me to answer it. Doesn't mean I don't want to play too, though. ;)

[nicholsmom]

"I, fool, will pledge to be objective in all my dealings with everyone I come in contact with wether I find their position onerous or not".
Who's with me?

Why don't you turn on your brain and ask a real question,

Nice & objective.
like how did they get to practice this matamorphisis without a cacoon? I don't have a problem of cocoon vs. "rolled leaf" that's why. I asked the questions to clarify my understanding of the issue at hand. And, by others, these questions have been answered satisfactorily to me. I can see that this is an issue with answers - maybe not accurate or correct ones, but reasonable ones nonetheless, with which I have no quarrel.

How rediculaous is it to believe they made up this cacooning method while they were making up this metamorposys method?
Who is the "they" to whom you refer here? I repeat, I have no issue with the evolution of the cocoon. My issue, now resolved as far as understanding is concerned, is with the leap from non-pupating species to pupating species.

The two technologies had to come into existence at the same time!
Silk spinning, silk strength, cacoonong techniques, where to cacoon, when to cacoon, are you just going to sit there and throw stones or are you going to go out and observe different insect cacoons?
I find it fascinating that you refer to cocooning as "technology" and "techniques" as though they were "thought out" or "planned" by someone. Why do you do that?

The ball is in your court.
I think perhaps we are on completely different "courts" - maybe even in completely different arenas.

BTW, please get a spell-checker or something. It is very hard to follow an argument that stretches the imagination by way of spelling. Don't think that this means I am deriding you for ignorance or anything like that - just get a checker; mine saves me again and again.

[Johnny]

There was a good paper published 10 years ago in Nature putting forth an interesting hypothesis.

Truman JW, Riddiford LM The origins of insect metamorphosis Nature 401, 447-452 Sept. 1999
Abstract:
Insect metamorphosis is a fascinating and highly successful biological adaptation, but there is much uncertainty as to how it evolved. Ancestral insect species did not undergo metamorphosis and there are still some existing species that lack metamorphosis or undergo only partial metamorphosis. Based on endocrine studies and morphological comparisons of the development of insect species with and without metamorphosis, a novel hypothesis for the evolution of metamorphosis is proposed. Changes in the endocrinology of development are central to this hypothesis. The three stages of the ancestral insect species—pronymph, nymph and adult—are proposed to be equivalent to the larva, pupa and adult stages of insects with complete metamorphosis. This proposal has general implications for insect developmental biology.

You can find this paper free on google.

[DoogieTalons]

OK. Let me pretend to be an atheist:
Some ancient creature used to be born as a smaller version of itself.
Its descendents developed the ability to protect themselves during longer and longer sleep periods by making cocoons.

Then further descendents began decomposing parts of themselves which gave rise to the ability to grow new organs.

This process continued until today where almost all the caterpillar is dissolved before emerging as a butterfly.

The evidence is in the variety of forms of metamorphosis we see today.

....

I shoulda been an evolutionist. I bet I can draw pictures of that and all!
Are you being wrong on purpose ? I don't know if this post is a Joke or you can't read what AHarvey wrote.

You read about how no catapillar ever laid eggs yes ?
You read about how the pupae is the equivalent of a protected embryo ?

You can read can't you ? I don't know how stupid you have to be to read this thread, be involved in it and then make the post above ? Thank goodness your students actually have a higher education to go to I guess they're gonna have a lot of questions after a term with you.


As for lighthouse chuckling at it well... that sort of makes my point for me.

[Stripe]

Are you being wrong on purpose ? I don't know if this post is a Joke or you can't read what AHarvey wrote.

You read about how no catapillar ever laid eggs yes ?
You read about how the pupae is the equivalent of a protected embryo ?

You can read can't you ? I don't know how stupid you have to be to read this thread, be involved in it and then make the post above ? Thank goodness your students actually have a higher education to go to I guess they're gonna have a lot of questions after a term with you.


As for lighthouse chuckling at it well... that sort of makes my point for me.uh ... what?

[aharvey]

OK. Let me pretend to be an atheist:
Some ancient creature used to be born as a smaller version of itself.
Its descendents developed the ability to protect themselves during longer and longer sleep periods by making cocoons.

Then further descendents began decomposing parts of themselves which gave rise to the ability to grow new organs.

This process continued until today where almost all the caterpillar is dissolved before emerging as a butterfly.

The evidence is in the variety of forms of metamorphosis we see today.

....

I shoulda been an evolutionist. I bet I can draw pictures of that and all!
Well, I've seen the pictures you've drawn to illustrate ideas that you like, so I wouldn't recommend it here!

Just quickly, you're still doing the create-a-strawman-then-mock-it thing here; is it just part of your essential Christianity or what?

Variety itself is not evidence. There are patterns in that variety (it's not just random variation); that's the part that always seems to trip you guys up. I have a game that can illustrate this nicely; let me think about how to convert it to web form.

By the way, don't forget to explain why it's okay for you to assert without justification that something is impossible when that assertion is demonstrably not "perfectly obvious," and more so why it is necessary for others to demonstrate that this empty assertion is incorrect.

And I know it's not this thread, but given that Walt is Bob's "favorite scientist," I'm sure he won't mind if I remind you here not to forget about resolving your latest set of hydroplate contradictions.

[Stripe]

:rotfl:

[Bob Enyart]

Supersport, on Dec. 6, 2008 commenting on RSF Caterpillar Kills Atheism in another forum, wrote:

I cannot emphasize how much I love this stuff....it's simplicity and truth at its finest -- I thrive on it..I crave it: No science required...no knowledge of any goofy theory, no schooling, no professors, no degrees, no books, no university study to rely on -- just two guys talking about the miracle of creation. After listening to this short audio, it should be obvious and self-evident to everyone that God is the creator of all. Check it out -- it's a great listen. Bob Enyart and Fred Williams tell a great story and put on display the staggering brilliance, genius and beauty of our living God.

http://www.kgov.com/bel_56kbps/20080328

Real Science Friday- Caterpillar Kills Atheism

p.s....please do yourself a favor and listen to it all.....and notice the creationists' $20,000 offer to the evo institution to carbon date the dino soft tissue -- only to be ignored. What does that tell you about the motivations of these people?

I really do love common sense and wisdom. There is so little of it to go around nowdays, when I hear two people who are obviously wise and unfooled by today's mob of storytellers in science and media, it just gives an all-over warm feeling and a desire to thank God for people like this.

Wow, Supersport, that's humbling. I shared your comment with Fred Williams. You equally encourage us! Thanks!

In Christ,
Bob Enyart

[TheAnomalist]

One word: flatfish.

[Stripe]

That might be two words.

[koban]

Well, I've seen the pictures you've drawn to illustrate ideas that you like, so I wouldn't recommend it here!

Just quickly, you're still doing the create-a-strawman-then-mock-it thing here; is it just part of your essential Christianity or what?

Variety itself is not evidence. There are patterns in that variety (it's not just random variation); that's the part that always seems to trip you guys up. I have a game that can illustrate this nicely; let me think about how to convert it to web form.

By the way, don't forget to explain why it's okay for you to assert without justification that something is impossible when that assertion is demonstrably not "perfectly obvious," and more so why it is necessary for others to demonstrate that this empty assertion is incorrect.

And I know it's not this thread, but given that Walt is Bob's "favorite scientist," I'm sure he won't mind if I remind you here not to forget about resolving your latest set of hydroplate contradictions.



Doggone it Harv! :sibbie:

Would you quit gettin' yerself banned! :sozo2:

[Stripe]

Doggone it Harv! :sibbie:

Would you quit gettin' yerself banned! :sozo2:
:rotfl:

That's what we're always sayin' when you're red, Koban.. :D

[koban]

:noid:

I've been red?

[Stripe]

Like a book :)

[koban]

and now, for the ADD version!


Look a bike! :)

[Stripe]

:rotfl:

Look, a elephant.

[Jukia]

Supersport, on Dec. 6, 2008 commenting on RSF Caterpillar Kills Atheism in another forum, wrote:



Wow, Supersport, that's humbling. I shared your comment with Fred Williams. You equally encourage us! Thanks!

In Christ,
Bob Enyart

By another forum do you mean another Bob Enyart thread or another forum entirely? If the latter can you give a cite to the particular forum? I've seen supersport post in other fora. He tends to flame out when hit with real facts by real scientists.

[Jukia]

One word: flatfish.

Or oysters.
Just more of the fundamentalist, "I don't see how this is possible, therefore Goddidit".

[TheAnomalist]

That might be two words.

Nope. It's one. :banana:

[pozzolane]

Our argument is not one from incredulity.

I have a couple of questions to the evolutionists in this thread, doogie or whomever..


I am as much of an "evolustionist" as I am a "gravitationalist", but I'll answer your question if you like.


Could evolution be theoretically disproven? If so, how?


In the same way that gravity can be disproven, yes. Evolution is an observation...Do you mean disprove "natural selection" which is currently the best scientific explanation there is for the observation of evolution? Sure, in theory, natural selection can be disproved.


Just interested in seeing how much your bias prevents you from seeing the truth.

This kind of quip I find most droll. As if the scientist cares before hand what mode of operations his observations take. In other words, science is about observing and explaining truth phenomena, so your statement is much of the kettle calling the pot, a "kettle".


:e4e:

[pozzolane]

Ask any scientist or engineer(which I am currently training to be btw)


You don't have to give up your faith to be a scientist, or an engineer. But if you wish to be one of my peers, you might have to resign your views on the "bias" nature of the scientific method which I addressed above. You can't just look at the evidence that you think suits your fancy. And this is exactly what creationists and ID'ers do. They don't wish to do science, they just wish to attempt to throw sticks into the proverbial gears of people who really do wish to do science, but who's findings may compete with the asserted dogmatic claims of the religious.

[pozzolane]

(It also occurs to me that "random mutations" and "natural selection" are clashing concepts.)


How so? Are you an exact replica of your father and mother? Suppose that you lived in a "dog eat dog" type environment in the wild. And suppose that you lived off of a certain type of moss that grows between damp rocky area's just barely large enough for a small hand to slide in to rub some of that moss off to eat. Now imagine your brother was born with a gene that made his hand slightly larger than your father or yours. His mutation for a slightly larger hand would be completely random, but due to it, he would be naturally selected to not be able to feed himself, and therefor die (most likely before passing his large hand genes on). Now imagine that your genes made your hand slightly smaller than the norm, and therefore allows you to feed yourself with greater ability. You would most likely survive in order to pass your small hand gene's on.

By this logic, the same random mutation that your brother received naturally brought his life, and genes, to an end. Whereas you were naturally selected as more suitable for passing your genes on in your environment...

So tell me how they are "clashing concepts" again...?

[pozzolane]

Can evolution theory address this or not? If it can't, fine. No biggie. But at least concede the theory has major holes in it.


Mary,

Simply put, just because an observed phenomena has yet to be explained in full, does not mean that it cannot be explained. If one wishes to debate science and science philosophy, you might want to refresh yourself on how science works.

Science is not about making random claims and then searching for evidence to fit the claim. The important first step that most people miss, who are ignorant of the scientific method, is "observation".

The scientific method proceeds thus:

1) Observation - a phenomena is witnessed/observed in which no explanation is existing
2) Hypothesis - An educated guess is made about the natural events that surround the observed phenomena.
3) Vigorous testing - A testing procedure is designed in order to validate or reject the hypothesis in step 2.
4) If multiple different tests suggest validity to the hypothesis, then you have a "theory". If not, reformulate the hypothesis and begin testing (step 3) again.

This is far different than:

1) Make claim regardless of observation
2) Only search for evidence that (you think) validates your claim
3) (part a) If none is found, then imply that a competing hypothesis/theory has holes. (part b) Do this because it doesn't agree with your own assertions.
4) Do no research, but insist that you have enough understanding to invalidate the research of others because of an unanswered "question". If question is answered go back to step 3 (part b).

As a person of science and research myself, I've stood in front of a review board giving presentations for research that I and my colleagues had done. There were many questions that went unanswered in the review process, but this only implied that we were yet to explore those domains. Our reviewers did not say "Oh, you have many major holes in your research!"