Real Science Friday: A Bird, a Quadrillion Bacteria, and a Bible Tour

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
A Bird, a Quadrillion Bacteria, and a Bible Tour

This is the show from Friday, November 16th, 2012.

SUMMARY:

falcon-intake.jpg


* Flying Like a Falcon
: Bob and Fred talk about the terrific new issue of "Answers," the magazine by AnswersInGenesis.org. The fastest land animal on earth is the cheetah, but the fastest animal of all is the peregrine falcon. Dr. Don DeYoung, one of the foremost Creationist research scientists in the world and president of the Creationist Research Society, recently spoke at an event by the Rocky Mountain Creation Fellowship. His recent article about peregrine falcons describe how they can fly at speeds of 200 m.p.h. thanks to highly specialized "equipment" in their physiology.

jet-airplane.jpg


For the falcon to breathe at such high speeds, their nostrils have a conical structure in the center of their nostrils, functioning as a “baffle” which is copied in the designs of jet engines to this day. Did this “evolve” independent of the bird’s body shape, feather design, wing angle and optical system?

A falcon's eyes must be exceptional, with four times as many photo-receptor cells as a human eye, helping give it amazingly clear long-distance vision. Their eyes are also capable of functioning while speeding through the air at such high speeds, unlike the human eye, in part thanks to nictitating membranes, which are transparent eyelids, so that they can "close" their eyes and yet still see clearly. This brings to mind Bob's recent debate with a University of California professor of Ophthalmology on the evolution of the eye, in which the evolutionist made the following erroneous claims about the human eye:

003f.jpg


* Evolution Makes Eye Expert Ignorant on the Eye
: Gary Aguilar repeatedly claims that the plica semilunaris (in the corner of your eye), is a functionless leftover of evolution. However, according to the authoritative Foundations of Clinical Ophthalmology (Vol. 2, Ch. 2: Plica Semilunaris), the plica functions during movement of the eye, to help maintain tear drainage, and to permit greater rotation of the eyeball, for without the plica, the membrane called the conjunctiva would attach directly to the eyeball, restricting movement. Rather than being informed with the latest knowledge from his own field, Aguilar is decades out of date on the anatomy of both the wiring of the retina and on the plica, claiming it is a functionless leftover of the nictitating membrane (an additional, transparent eyelid in some creatures). Rather than researching his Darwinian claims in the most relevant scientific literature, Aguilar, following Dawkins, gets his outdated claims from a 150-year old book by Charles Darwin. Aguilar also repeats Dawkins' long-refuted claim, based on scientific ignorance and evolutionary bias, that the human eye is wired backward. For an explanation of why our eye is wired the reverse of an octopus, and optimally for human vision, listen to the Enyart-Aguilar-Eye-Excerpts, see Dr. Carl Wieland's article, and the peer-reviewed paper by Peter Gurney, a fellow of the Royal Colleges of Ophthalmologists, as well as his popular article that deals with both the plica and the wiring. (See more at realsciencefriday.com/eye.)

Back to the falcon, the peregrine has a black patch beneath its eyes, much like you see on football players, to reduce sun glare. Yet another distinct and independent part of the animal's genetic code that is part of the greater system. No doubt if the falcon's under-eye black patch said "John 3:16" like Tim Tebow's does, they would still argue that it was a random, freak occurrence, still denying evidence of design.

Don't miss our DinosaurSoftTissue.com and YoungEarth.com!

* Good Bacteria Treatment: A daring doctor at Australia's Center for Digestive Diseases is treating multiple sclerosis by introducing good bacteria into his patient. The patient has now traded his wheel chair for a motorcycle! Bacteria have a stunningly important role in the function of the human body, and outnumber actual human cells by a ratio of 9 to 1. Most kinds of bacteria in the world are good and conducive to health in living creatures. It's actually the weaker, genetically defective bacteria that we term "bad bacteria." But we understand that when God created the world, everything in it was "very good," including all bacteria.

* Stink Bugs: Secular, evolutionist scientists are regularly shocked by the very things that fit with a Creationist understanding of science. When researchers introduced insecticide to stink bugs, they were amazed that they developed a strong resistance to it within a single generation, thanks to assistance from bacteria. The scientists expected the beetles to perhaps eventually develop a beneficial mutation, after many generations, according to evolutionary theory. But, as usual, the secular scientists were taken aback by results that are completely antithetical to their evolutionist preconceptions. But this doesn't stop them from announcing every time that this unexpected result "proves evolution."
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
Ahh another wrong science Friday. Maybe Bob will someday get it through his head that vestigial does not mean functionless? It simply means it no longer has the function it once had. However, the muscles that once moved the third eyelid are still present in humans and are truly functionless.

Also Bob's image is incorrectly labeled for the Plica semilunaris. Here is an accurate illustration.

Gray1205.png



The Plica semilunaris of the conjunctiva: It is the vestigial remnant of the nictitating membrane (the "third eyelid") which is drawn across the eye for protection. It is present in other animals such as birds, reptiles, and fish. It is rare in mammals, mainly found in monotremes and marsupials. Its associated muscles are also vestigial. It is loose, thus eye movements are not restricted by it.



And yes the eye is wired backwards. I can testify this idea doesn't come from "evolutionary bias". Long before I came to accept evolution, I distinctly remember going to the eye doctor and seeing images of the retina. I wondered why the blood vessels were plainly visible, as it would make sense for the light sensitive cells to be on the outward side and the blood vessels underneath.

I was really quite stunned to find that blood vessels and nerves were layered over the top of the light sensitive cells. At the time I shrugged my shoulders and went on. Now I understand the reason for it.

fig3-59bBG.jpg


It's actually the weaker, genetically defective bacteria that we term "bad bacteria." But we understand that when God created the world, everything in it was "very good," including all bacteria.
Wait . . . "bad bacteria" are genetically defective? :rotfl: You're seriously making this claim? What a joke you are.

Perhaps you missed the classic Griffith's Experiment?


Griffith used two strains of pneumococcus (Streptococcus pneumoniae) bacteria which infect mice – a type III-S (smooth) and type II-R (rough) strain. The III-S strain covers itself with a polysaccharide capsule that protects it from the host's immune system, resulting in the death of the host, while the II-R strain doesn't have that protective capsule and is defeated by the host's immune system. A German bacteriologist, Fred Neufeld, had discovered the three pneumococcal types (Types I, II, and III) and discovered the Quellung reaction to identify them in vitro. Until Griffith's experiment, bacteriologists believed that the types were fixed and unchangeable, from one generation to another.



In this example, it's the "good" bacteria that are the "broken" ones. Another example would be E. coli O157:H7 It differs from harmless, common, "good" E.coli not by being "broken" but by gain of function through the acquisition of a toxin.

I know of no examples of pathogenic bacteria generated from "good" bacteria through loss of function mutations.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
the eye is wired backwards.
And...
I understand the reason for it.
:chuckle:

vestigial does not mean functionless
There is no debate over the term as it was never used. :idunno:

the muscles that once moved the third eyelid are still present in humans and are truly functionless.
Assertion sans evidence.

And, tellingly, you will never be able to provide evidence for any claim like this unless you actively enable the devolution of a function and record the process.
 

gcthomas

New member
And...:chuckle:
Assertion sans evidence.
... you will never be able to provide evidence for any claim like this ...

Do you really require direct, specific, physical evidence for all your beliefs? Or do you make a judgement on the balance and weight of the overall picture of the evidence?

If you don't require it for most of your beliefs, are your arguments here just rhetorical?
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Do you really require direct, specific, physical evidence for all your beliefs?
:AMR:

We're talking about Alate's assertion. Enough with the non-sequiturs, please.

Or do you make a judgement on the balance and weight of the overall picture of the evidence? If you don't require it for most of your beliefs, are your arguments here just rhetorical?

Just one post that makes sense, please. :thumb:
 

gcthomas

New member
:AMR:

We're talking about Alate's assertion. Enough with the non-sequiturs, please.

Just one post that makes sense, please. :thumb:

The questions make sense, even if you don't want to answer them.

Here's a directly related question:

You have firmly rejected Alate's 'assertion', even though the circumstantial evidence is good.

Why such a strong opinion - what evidence do you have that he is wrong? Or do you disagree from principle?
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The questions make sense, even if you don't want to answer them.Here's a directly related question:You have firmly rejected Alate's 'assertion', even though the circumstantial evidence is good. Why such a strong opinion - what evidence do you have that he is wrong? Or do you disagree from principle?

I've made no such assertion.

Alate has made the assertion sans evidence.

That which she asserts without evidence I am justified in rejecting without evidence. If she wants to present a convincing case for her ideas, let her produce evidence.

Now, have you anything of value to add?
 

gcthomas

New member
That which she asserts without evidence I am justified in rejecting without evidence.

I am still interested in your judgements. :argue:

You are, of course, entitled to take whichever side you wish. But the only reason you have given so far is that it is the opposite of another that has been expressed.

It seems, correct me if I am wrong, that you have chosen to to consider that this third eyelid has a function, because to believe otherwise would give some (very small) support for evolution. (Even though the issue is critical neither to the evolution nor creation cases.)
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I am still interested in your judgements. :argue:You are, of course, entitled to take whichever side you wish. But the only reason you have given so far is that it is the opposite of another that has been expressed.It seems, correct me if I am wrong, that you have chosen to to consider that this third eyelid has a function, because to believe otherwise would give some (very small) support for evolution. (Even though the issue is critical neither to the evolution nor creation cases.)

Alate has made an assertion for which she has no evidence and can never hope to have evidence.

If you wish to support an idea, you need to do so with evidence.

I have made no claim for function.

Are you done being a distraction or is this going to be your MO?
 

gcthomas

New member
The evidence is that no-one has found any possible plausible function for the associated muscles. It is negative evidence, but evidence nonetheless.

The OP claims this part has a function, but presents no evidence as to the role of the muscles. Don't you agree with the OP?
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The evidence is that no-one has found any possible plausible function for the associated muscles. It is negative evidence, but evidence nonetheless.
:rotfl:

The ole' eye-muscle-of-the-gaps argument.

The OP claims this part has a function, but presents no evidence as to the role of the muscles. Don't you agree with the OP?
I think you need to read that OP again. :thumb:
 

gcthomas

New member
The OP quotes from "the authoritative Foundations of Clinical Ophthalmology", which says "Although humans do not have a nictitating membrane, occasionally smooth muscle fibers may be present that are innervated with sympathetic nerves."

So, the OP claims a function for the plica semiluminaris, and links to an "authoritative" document section, which refers to occasional muscle fibers, indicating a link to the animal, third eyelid, function in the previous sentence.

I read the OP and the linked evidence. Didn't you?

Don't you agree with the OP, which claims a function for the plica, but offers no explanation for the role of the muscle?
 
Last edited:

gcthomas

New member
I think you need to read that OP again.

What do you think you saw in the OP that I have missed, then?

(I have presented evidence, as you asked. The evidence itself is from the 'authoritative' document linked to, and used as evidence, by the OP. No comments again?)
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
What do you think you saw in the OP that I have missed, then?

(I have presented evidence, as you asked. The evidence itself is from the 'authoritative' document linked to, and used as evidence, by the OP. No comments again?)

You're expecting Stripe to argue rationally. Based on my experience with him, that's not likely to happen. Once he's made up his mind on a position, nothing will sway him. And anything you present isn't evidence, because he says so. It can't be evidence if it disagrees with his position. :chuckle:
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
You're expecting Stripe to argue rationally. Based on my experience with him, that's not likely to happen. Once he's made up his mind on a position, nothing will sway him. And anything you present isn't evidence, because he says so. It can't be evidence if it disagrees with his position. :chuckle:

Speaking of evidence, when were you going to provide some for the assertion that certain things have no function? :think:
 

gcthomas

New member
The evidence, Stripe, is in the 'authoritative' document linked to by the OP. Or don't you believe the OP's judgement? (Or haven't you read it?)
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The evidence, Stripe, is in the 'authoritative' document linked to by the OP. Or don't you believe the OP's judgement? (Or haven't you read it?)

You should read the OP. :thumb:

Get back to us when you've done that.
 

gcthomas

New member
OP said:
* Evolution Makes Eye Expert Ignorant on the Eye: Gary Aguilar repeatedly claims that the plica semilunaris (in the corner of your eye), is a functionless leftover of evolution. However, according to the authoritative Foundations of Clinical Ophthalmology (Vol. 2, Ch. 2: Plica Semilunaris) http://www.oculist.net/downaton502/prof/ebook/duanes/pages/v8/v8c002.html#lym

and from that link (which the OP seems to have removed for some reason, but it was there earlier, so I put it back in).
OP said:
The nictitating membrane present in some animals is the counterpart to the plica, and is a partial or complete third eyelid. Although humans do not have a nictitating membrane, occasionally smooth muscle fibers may be present that are innervated with sympathetic nerves.

This will save you from reading it yourself, if you are having trouble.:cheers:

[Any idea why the link was removed from the OP? :idunno: Did the original poster not read the source fully before linking to it?:second: ]
 
Top