Real Science Friday- Caterpillar Kills Atheism

[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 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.