Real Science Friday- Caterpillar Kills Atheism

[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: