Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationists: Why is Evolution Bad Science?
Jon_the_Second
Member (Idle past 19810 days)
Posts: 33
From: London, UK
Joined: 11-07-2004


Message 121 of 283 (157034)
11-07-2004 6:46 PM


I've been lurking for a while but only just registered, sorry if this post seems a little late.
Just a quick note on an issue raised earlier about how lungs came about. I suggest anyone interested looks into the insect respiratory system. In it's most basic form it consists of hollow tubes through the insect, and air diffuses through. Then the more complitcated / bigger insects have small are sacs that "pump" the air through (for example when an insect beats its wings). It is not difficult to see how this pump system can evolve into rudimentary lungs passing the air into tubes, and then into a separated circulatory system. I'm not saying that necessarily is the way it happened, but it certainly would seem possible and plausible for lungs to evolve, as there are steps to go through.

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by AdminJar, posted 11-07-2004 6:59 PM Jon_the_Second has not replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 283 (157037)
11-07-2004 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Jon_the_Second
11-07-2004 6:46 PM


Welcome Jon
We're glad you decided to join our discussion.
I hope you will also take the time to check out the forum Guidelines which can be found here.
Along the lines of your insect analogy you may also want to explore the function of some balast sacks found in various marine critters. There are indications that they might also have been a pathway towards lungs.

How pierceful grows the hazy yon! How myrtle petaled thou! For spring hath sprung the cyclotron How high browse thou, brown cow? -- Churchy LaFemme, 1950

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Jon_the_Second, posted 11-07-2004 6:46 PM Jon_the_Second has not replied

  
winston123180
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 283 (157096)
11-07-2004 11:31 PM


If there is any creature on earth that could not possibly have evolved, that creature is the Bombardier Beetle. It needed God to create it with all its systems fully functional. The study of this incredible insect has been going on for many years. IN 1928, authors C.L. Metcalf and R.L. Flint wrote: "The bombardier beetle, Brachinus, ejects an acrid fluid which is discharged with a distinct popping sound and a small cloud of vapor that looks like smoke from a minature cannon." More recently, Time Magazine reports:
...the bombardier (beetle) does nappear to be unique in the animal kingdom. Its defense system is extraordinarily intricate, a cross between tear gas and a tommy gun. When the beetle senses danger, it internally mixes enzymes contained in one body chamber with concentrated solutions of some rather harmless compounds, hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinones, confined to a second chamber. This generates a noxious spray of caustic benzoquinones, which explosed from its body at a boiling 212 degrees Farenheit. What is more, the fluid is pumped through twin rear nozzles, which can be rotated, like a B-17's gun turret, to hit a hungry ant or frog with bull's eye accuracy.
You might wonder how an evolutionist might explain this marvelous insect. Evolutionist Mark Isaak writes:
Do bombardier beetles look designed? Yes; they look like they were designed by evolution. Their features, behaviors and distribution nicely fit the kinds of patterns that evolution creates. Nobody has yet found anything about any bombardier beetle which is incompatible with evolution.
How does evolution, a mindless, undirected, purposeless, random chance process "create?" As Jewish scholar, Dr. Lee Spetner writes:
Randomness is an essential feature of NDT [neo-Darwinian theory]. There is no known physical or chemical mechanism to generate heritable variations that will improve adaptivity or increase the complexity of living organisms. The neo-Darwinians, therefore, had to choose randomness to produce the variations they need. In this way they hoped that, through the direction afforded by natural selection, they could describe an evolutionary process that could account for a natural origin and development of life. The neo-Darwinians have rejected nonrandomness as the major feature of variation.
Evolutionary theory has big problems when attempting to explain the existence and complexity of bombardier beetle by means of random, chance happenings. Each stage in the evolution of its special chemicals would have led to its destruction. This one-half inch insect mixes chemicals that violently react to produce something similar to an explosion. How could the bombardier beetle have evolved such a complex means of defense without killing itself in the process? This problem has the members of the evolutionary establishment scratching their heads. Evolutionary theory says that you lose it if you don't use it. But, how do you use it unless you have it in completed and in fully functional form?
We have two options then. One is to believe that a mindless, random, chance process brought into existence exactly what would be essential for the creature to maintain life and defend itslef. The other option is that God, in his sovereign wisdom, designed and created precisely what was needed for the welfare of the creature and encoded the information in its genes. With godless evolution, a new enzyme or chemical or organ or fin or beak or bone will have to randomly, mindlessly, unexplainably evolve until the creature gains its new improvement. As creationists, we would say that God created it just like it is, a discreet, fully functional little bug with an incredibly complex defense mechanism.
The bombardier beetle is irreducibly complex. Remember back in fourth grade when we reduced fractions down until they could be reduced no farther? This beetle cannot be reduced! If it doesn't have all its parts, it can't defend itself or, even worse, it could blow itself up. Naturally, it could not evolve after it blew itself up and was dead, so how did it get here? The evolutionists might say, "Mother nature, beneficial mutations, natural selection and time did it." Creationists would say, "God did it." (By the way, what or who is "Mother Nature" who does all these miraculous things?)
To prevent its own destruction, the little bug manufactures a chemical, called an inhibitor, and mixes it in with the reactive chemicals. But with the inhibitor, it would not be able to use the expulsion of hot, burning liquid and gases to discourage its enemies. A spider would eat it because the beetle has no solution to exploit to protect itself. Again, we have a dead beetle. Dead bugs cannot evolve the next chemical needed to release the protective reaction. That chemical turns out to be an anti-inhibitor. When the anti-inhibitor is added to other chemicals, an explosive reaction does occur and the beetle is able to defend itself.
There is still another problem, however. The beetle must have an especially tough "combustion chamber." That chamber must have an outlet for the violent reaction to release its energy or once again, we have a dead bug. Problem solved: this unique creature has the necessary equipment, including twin-tail tubes to "exhaust" its defensive reaction. These tubes can be aimed at enemies in a 180 degree arc from straight to the rear, to directly toward the front. Amazingly, it does not shoot friendly creatures but only its enemies! How does a one-half inch long insect know how to aim at and shoot potential enemies?
When the little bug shoots its cannons (and it can shoot either side individually or both sides together) all we hear with our human ears is a "pop." But it is not just a single pop. It is a series of sequential pops that sequence so fast we only hear one "pop." If it was just one big POP, it would be like lighting the after-burners on a jet engine and the diminutive creature would blow itself out of the picture. But with a sequential pop it can hang on with its little legs and remain in place! Incredible!
How did its incredibly complex nervous system and advanced chemical system evolve? There is nothing exactly like bombardier beetles in the entire animal kingdom. Is this an example of the "impersonal, plus time, plus chance" or is it an examble of special, intricate creation by a God who is intimately involved with His creatures? Which system of belief can best explain the marvelous bombardier beetle: Evolution or Creation?

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by crashfrog, posted 11-07-2004 11:42 PM winston123180 has not replied
 Message 125 by AdminNosy, posted 11-08-2004 12:29 AM winston123180 has replied
 Message 136 by NosyNed, posted 11-08-2004 10:17 PM winston123180 has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 124 of 283 (157103)
11-07-2004 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by winston123180
11-07-2004 11:31 PM


Not really on topic, but not really true, either.
CB310: Bombardier beetle evolution
In short, there's exist a number of transitional evolutionary states for the bombardier mechanism that we know are viable, because we find them in existing beetles. Which is exactly what you say can't happen.
Obviously, we know that it does, and that therefore evolution is a more than adequate explanation for the existence of these beetles.
If you want to talk more about it, open a new thread. I wonder why you so boldly assert that the beetle leaves "evolutionists scratching their heads", when the quote you provide from an evolutionist gives exactly the opposite impression - that evolutionists see nothing unusual about this insect.
Oh, and AbE: This isn't even an accurate description of the bombardier mechanism. How credulous an argument for design can this be if the people making the argument can't be bothered to get their facts straight?
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 11-07-2004 11:45 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by winston123180, posted 11-07-2004 11:31 PM winston123180 has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 125 of 283 (157116)
11-08-2004 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by winston123180
11-07-2004 11:31 PM


Welcome Winston
However, plagerism is not welcome here.
Your post is cut and pasted from elsewhere.
While you may use references to support your posts you must offer the ideas in your own words.
It is also dishonest to post from somewhere else and not attribute it.
Please refrain in the future.
Besides as Crash has noted, you might want to pick sites that are a bit more reliable
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 11-08-2004 12:31 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by winston123180, posted 11-07-2004 11:31 PM winston123180 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by winston123180, posted 11-08-2004 9:20 PM AdminNosy has replied

  
winston123180
Inactive Member


Message 126 of 283 (157438)
11-08-2004 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by AdminNosy
11-08-2004 12:29 AM


Re: Welcome Winston
It's not really from a website. It's from the book that I quoted just a few books above that one, just adding to it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by AdminNosy, posted 11-08-2004 12:29 AM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by AdminNosy, posted 11-08-2004 9:26 PM winston123180 has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 127 of 283 (157439)
11-08-2004 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by winston123180
11-08-2004 9:20 PM


Book Source
So the whole thing is from the book? You may refer to the book as a source. Though, of course, it is easier to refer to a web site and in that case you probably have to paraphrase less.
You sat and typed that whole thing out of the book then did you?
Just which book was it? I'm a big confused on the actual reference.
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 11-08-2004 09:34 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by winston123180, posted 11-08-2004 9:20 PM winston123180 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by winston123180, posted 11-08-2004 9:48 PM AdminNosy has replied

  
winston123180
Inactive Member


Message 128 of 283 (157447)
11-08-2004 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by AdminNosy
11-08-2004 9:26 PM


Re: Book Source
Martin, Jobe The Evolution of a Creationist (Biblical Discipleship Publishers: Rockwall, TX), 39-42.
(Giraffe reference - pgs. 131-134). ISBN - 0-9643665-0-9
I am a pretty fast typer (like 104 wpm last time I had to take a test). Typing that much isn't a big deal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by AdminNosy, posted 11-08-2004 9:26 PM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by AdminNosy, posted 11-08-2004 9:50 PM winston123180 has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 129 of 283 (157448)
11-08-2004 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by winston123180
11-08-2004 9:48 PM


Re: Book Source
Good, it seems you did forget to reference it though.
You could have saveed youself time by referring to the website where it is.
http://www.present-truth.org/...Creationist/Chapter%2001.htm
Now did you want to open a new thread for this. It's big enough that it should be taken into a thread on it's own.
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 11-08-2004 09:52 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by winston123180, posted 11-08-2004 9:48 PM winston123180 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by winston123180, posted 11-08-2004 10:03 PM AdminNosy has replied

  
winston123180
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 283 (157455)
11-08-2004 10:02 PM


More from the same source (pgs. 159-161).
One of God's amazing creations is the deap-sea Angler fish. This fish makes its home more than a mile deep in the ocean water. On her forehead the female has a "fishing rod" tipped with an "artificial worm." She dangles this "bait" over her mouth to attract her next meal. Ah, but there is a problem -- her next meal annot see th ebait, since it is too dark under more than a mile of seawater. Starvation sets in while she waits for her first deep-sea fish dinner. At last, she realizes, "I must do something about this darkness problem." But alas, it is too late. She is dead and dead fish can not evolve the adaptations needed to rectify deadly problems, even though evolution says that, given enough time, mindless, random chance processes will evolve whatever her situation (or environment) tells her is needed to survive. It may not be logical to some, but it seems to me that she would get mighty hungry waiting perhaps hundreds of years for her first meal.
The only possibility is that God created the Angler fish with all the fully-functional equipment it needed to survive at great depths. To solve the darkness problem, God created a special kind of light on the bait. This light displays highly advanced technology -- it gives off no heat! A compound called Luciferin is oxidized with the help of an enzyme that scientists named Luciferase, and this reaction produces heatless light. (Research scientists have broken down Luciferase into more than 1,000 proteins, but they still do not know how the heatless light is produced. Someone someday may figure out how God made this heatless light. Need I say that they will join the ranks of the righ and famous?)
Ask an evolutionist how a deep-sea fish could evolve the ability to produce high-tech light on an artificial bait dangled over the fish's mouth? God made His creation to display His glory and power. No one could look at the Angler fish and say it is the result of the "impersonal plus time plus chance," unless that person had already decided to refuse to believe in the God of the Bible (Romans 1). The vain speculations of macroevolution lead to foolish thinking and impossible conclusions.
Naturally, the Angler fish needs to reproduce and has a special way of doing this. In the darkness of the deep, it is difficult for th emaile and female to find each other. God designed the eggs of the female so that they float up through a mile of ocean to the surface. On the ocean surface, the eggs form a jellylike mass and then hatch. The young fish, male and female, grow and mature in the surface waters. At a certain point in their development, the male finds a female and bites and holds on to her abdomen. Soon the tissues of the female grow into and attach to the mouth tissues of the male, and the female drops to the bottom of the ocean carrying her parasite male with her, not to separate "'til death do they part." He found her in the light of the surface waters, so he does not have to grope around in the dark of the deep looking for a mate. How could all of this evolve when it is so ultra-specialized and unique? Why does the female not chase the male away when he biter her abdomen? What possible evolutionary mechanism enables the male's circulatory system to merge with the female's? And from what creature did this peculiar fish evolve? Evolution has no answers.
A major difference between the Angler fish and other fish is the Angler's lack of a swim bladder, which is an air sac to provide buoyancy and to prevent sinking. If it had evolved without an air bladder, it would sink and die. If it had an air bladder and had evolved the bait and light in surface waters, it would be easy prey for other predators and "survival of the fittest" would force it into extinction. Another feature of the deep sea Angler is its special body, which is designed to prevent crushing. A pressure of over 2,000 pounds per square inch is exerted on the body of the fish at one mile deep. It survives this great pressure with no problem. ON the other hand, if the first Anglers were surface fish and lost their air bladders, (through let's say, some unexplainable genetic mutation) and then sank to the bottom of the sea, they would have been crushed. Dead animals don't evolve any further.
The deep-sea Angler had to have been created with all its special equippment fully functional. God says that as we study His creation, it should cause our thoughts to focus on the Creator, give Him thanks, and honor Him as God (Rom1).

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by crashfrog, posted 11-08-2004 10:11 PM winston123180 has not replied
 Message 135 by Coragyps, posted 11-08-2004 10:15 PM winston123180 has not replied
 Message 140 by Coragyps, posted 11-08-2004 10:24 PM winston123180 has not replied
 Message 143 by pink sasquatch, posted 11-08-2004 10:31 PM winston123180 has replied

  
winston123180
Inactive Member


Message 131 of 283 (157456)
11-08-2004 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by AdminNosy
11-08-2004 9:50 PM


Re: Book Source
Sure :-)
Wow, didn't realize the text was available online, heh could have saved a little time.
This message has been edited by winston123180, 11-08-2004 10:05 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by AdminNosy, posted 11-08-2004 9:50 PM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by AdminNosy, posted 11-08-2004 10:12 PM winston123180 has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 132 of 283 (157459)
11-08-2004 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by winston123180
11-08-2004 10:02 PM


Were you going to address rebuttals, at all? Just curious. I'm somewhat dismayed to see you jump into your next example without having defended the first one.
There's nothing mysterious about the chemiluminescence employed by the angler fish, by the way. It is, after all, the same sort of reaction employed in those snap-light rods they give to deep-sea divers and kids on Halloween. There's no secret at all to it, especially if you've ever seen a florescent light. (Which is slightly different but another example of the heatless light your author thinks is such a big deal.)
Need I say that they will join the ranks of the righ and famous?
They didn't, did they. Looks like your guy is wrong again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by winston123180, posted 11-08-2004 10:02 PM winston123180 has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 133 of 283 (157460)
11-08-2004 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by winston123180
11-08-2004 10:03 PM


New Topic then
Please propose the Bombadier beatle as a Proposed New Topic then.
Do NOT copy the entire thing into the opening post.
Give the link that I gave you and then
pick the main points that you consider to be most telling. If you do that in a tight and tidy fashion I'll be able to promote the topic in short order.
However, it won't be able to go where it belongs in Biological Evolution as that forum seems to be broken as far as starting new topics goes.
Let's hold off on the angler fish one shall we? Perhaps when you've worked throught the beetle one then you can bring up the other.
Crash as already pointed out that the beetle source you've used may be very wrong. I think you need to learn to be a bit more critical before you start too many topics.
In the focussed topic Crash can be asked to back up what he has said with more care than his quick reference he gave here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by winston123180, posted 11-08-2004 10:03 PM winston123180 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by crashfrog, posted 11-08-2004 10:15 PM AdminNosy has replied
 Message 137 by winston123180, posted 11-08-2004 10:18 PM AdminNosy has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 134 of 283 (157462)
11-08-2004 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by AdminNosy
11-08-2004 10:12 PM


In the focussed topic Crash can be asked to back up what he has said with more care than his quick reference he gave here.
I'd love to do that. I'm sure my wife has some great materials on beetles.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by AdminNosy, posted 11-08-2004 10:12 PM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by AdminNosy, posted 11-08-2004 10:18 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 135 of 283 (157463)
11-08-2004 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by winston123180
11-08-2004 10:02 PM


The only possibility is that God created the Angler fish with all the fully-functional equipment it needed to survive at great depths.
Nope. Maui might have created it. Or aliens. Or Neptune/Poseidon. Or it might even have evolved through pathways that this imagination-impaired author didn't think of and/or didn't read up on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by winston123180, posted 11-08-2004 10:02 PM winston123180 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024