How is that wrong when you just conceded that evolution is not a branch of science? I didn't say it wasn't scientifically based, I said that it wasn't a branch of science. Therefore, science isn't threatened by ID, whatsoever, because it isn't challenging the branch, its challenging some of the theories within that branch of sicence.
More nonsense. You say evolution isn`t a branch of sience because nobody gets a bachelors degree in evolution. How much more irrelevant than that can an argument get?
Intelligent design isn't science.
Oh, I see. And what are they doing? Playing with Play-doh?
Good question. What are they doing???? How come no peer reviewed scientific production is coming out of this ID movement???? Oh, but they don`t want to make the hard work of developping a real scientific theory. They just want to short circuit the whole process and jump directly from non-peer-reviewed bookstore publication and expect to be allowed into kidds science classroom. No way, Jose. That Ain`t gonna Happen.
Looking at creatures that employ camouflage as a defense or offense, I, personally, cannot see how anyone can miss the intent. That certainly doesn't make my view correct, but lets examine it a little.
Your inability to perceive or understand is nobody else`s problem. Argument from ignorance noted.
Creatures, such as the praying mantis, chameleon or the octopus each have some sort of camouflage ability. Lets start with the mantis. This critter has a body shape that looks like some twigs from a bushel, blending in with an actual plant. Looking at this creature, how can anyone possibly think that this amazing feature came by way of happenstance?
You would either have to figure out a way that any creature could develop this or concede that either the mantis willed itself, genetically, or that nature has a mind.
Or admit that you don`t know. More argument from ignorance
Similarly, the chameleon employs camouflage by using its chromatophores. The chameleon has these highly specialized cells that lie in two layers underneath the skin. The chromatophores contain a yellow and red pigment. Underneath this first layer are guanophores. These guanophores reflect light creating the illusion of incandescence.
Octopi and some other cephalopods are similar in that they can manipulate chromatophores by contraction and expansion as the result of controlling muscle fibers. They can terminate this color shifting almost instantly with motor neurons. As a result, these color changes can come about through the dispersal or aggregation of granules within the cell under hormonal control.
Now, if we were to assert that these instances are the result of a natural progression of evolution, then aren't we going to have to explain the mechanisms and reasons for this occurrence?
Evolutionists are not obliged to know exactly how any specific instance of evolution took place in order for the overall theory to be true
Why did these creatures develop this distinct feature and no other, when all organisms could benefit from them as well?
How come people speak english in England but speak italian in Italy?
How did we lose the procryptic ability? I don’t know about you, but I sure would not mind blending in with my environment. It certainly seems beneficial to me. Why is it lost during our divergence?
If you cannot logically answer this, then you will have to explain how the mantis, chameleon, or octopus granted itself these procryptic abilities. We know they are able to manipulate their body, but how would they be able to create this in their offspring’s genetic code?
Random mutation + natural selection
If you cannot answer that either, then you are going to have to admit that nature has a mind and that it exhibits intelligence and intent. If you cannot do that either then we aren't we inescapably driven towards an alternative answer? Out of all other options, we would have to concede that something else is the cause of this spectacular feat.
You could also admit that you don`t know. One more argument from ignorance has been noted
Does this, in any way, shape or form verify that God created this? Certainly not, however, couldn't we greatly assume that something cognizant is the cause of these features, because as we’ve seen, there is nothing in nature that would, alone, account for these occurrences. What other choice do we have left?
We can argue about who or what the Creator{s} are/is until we’re blue in the face and dripping with perspiration, but that much is inconsequential to the direct question. I know this much, however; that evolution does not answer the finer details of how this was even possible. Furthermore, it has nothing to support the belief. And the law of parsimony on animals with procryptism seems to speak the loudest of intent.
Your whole post is a freshman`s level argument from Ignorance. I would Grade you a C
*Pats NJ on the head*
Edited by fallacycop, : spelling
Edited by fallacycop, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
