Real Science Friday- Caterpillar Kills Atheism

[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

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]

Real Real Science Friday

Real Real Science Friday

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.