Real Science Friday- Caterpillar Kills Atheism

Status
Not open for further replies.

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
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
:rotfl:

I don't think anybody is asserting that each butterfly organises itself from a random mixture of mushed up caterpillar. I'm sure the process is very directed and ordered. The question is how did such a process arise with the help of only mutation and selection?
 

Jukia

New member
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.

Well, that is the problem. Pastor Bob believes something and everyone else who bothers to look at the evidence and make an attempt to understand is wrong.
 

DoogieTalons

New member
Stipe, don't accuse me of making stuff up when the op state
the other Bob said:
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

Whereby the only thing quoted by scientists is "bag of rich fluid" which bob seemlessly misunderstands and asserts "forming all new tissue and organs, including wings, legs, antennae, heart, muscles and nervous system, building a brand new organism"

Which is just hog wash, it's not a brand new organsim for a start, that's just a grade school error, IF you believe it is then you blow out of the water the argument that an embryo is a baby... THINK STIPE, THINK MAN !!! what's wrong with you today.

and for a second, the heart and brain is reorded NOT recreated.

WOW you guys just don't get it do you it's all just "Lets quote a scientist and pop our own dumb assertions close enough to his quotes that people might confuse the two".

As a Christian once said to me "I'll pray for you"

I scincerly pity you.

Stipe if you believe an Embryo with less that 200 cells is a baby, please explain to me how a catapillar is not a butterfly, in say 100 words or less.

You guys are blind and your leaders have one eye, they just don't tell you exactly what they see.
 

DoogieTalons

New member
:rotfl:

I don't think anybody is asserting that each butterfly organises itself from a random mixture of mushed up caterpillar. I'm sure the process is very directed and ordered. The question is how did such a process arise with the help of only mutation and selection?
The mechanics arose before the wing stipe, can you not read, just because it's no miraculous it's no more miraculous than a maggot becoming a fly. it's just more evolved it's had 450 million years to get this good.
 

aharvey

New member
I'm doing no such thing. I'm trying to establish what creationists consider acceptable standards of logic and argumentation. To me, when someone says that something is "impossible," that it "cannot" happen, rather than "unlikely" or "difficult," they are consciously making a stronger claim and presumably have some basis for that distinction. You mention "over-reaction," but when someone says that something is "impossible," that it "cannot" happen, rather than "unlikely" or "difficult," but show no effort at or interest in justifying this stronger position, isn't that a pretty clear case of over-reaction?

Why not try something different for a change, and actually answer the very simple questions I posed: when someone asserts that something is impossible, does he or does he not have any obligation to back up that strong and specific assertion? And if not, why on earth would there be any more obligation for anyone else to demonstrate his empty assertion to be wrong?
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Well, that is the problem. Pastor Bob believes something and everyone else who bothers to look at the evidence and make an attempt to understand is wrong.
Feel free to stump up with some of that evidence anytime you want.

You could start with a story explaining how a butterfly might develop the ability to metamorphose.
 

GuySmiley

Well-known member
Perhaps because those "arguments" lack scientific basis and are a matter of faith.

Brower actually knows what he's talking about. But it's intellectually dishonest to cherrypick the man's considerable body of work to make a point at total odds with what he believes. Creationists, lacking bona fide scientific qualifications of their own, have no choice but to appropriate actual science.
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.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The mechanics arose before the wing stipe, can you not read, just because it's no miraculous it's no more miraculous than a maggot becoming a fly. it's just more evolved it's had 450 million years to get this good.
I'm not suggesting it's a miracle happening every time a butterfly emerges from a cocoon. I'm asking how mutations and natural selection could account for such a process.

Why not try something different for a change, and actually answer the very simple questions I posed: when someone asserts that something is impossible, does he or does he not have any obligation to back up that strong and specific assertion? And if not, why on earth would there be any more obligation for anyone else to demonstrate his empty assertion to be wrong?
Not if the assertion is perfectly obvious. It's impossible for pigs to fly.

You're not going to keep arguing are you? :noid:
 

aharvey

New member
Feel free to stump up with some of that evidence anytime you want.

You could start with a story explaining how a butterfly might develop the ability to metamorphose.
The story you are asking for here is exceedingly straightforward: Butterflies didn't develop the ability to metamorphose, they inherited it, with some relatively slight modifications, from their ancestors.
 

SUTG

New member
Did you miss these two posts SUTG?

Actually, I ignored them since you seemed to be having trouble following the conversation.

Toast commeented that:

Information and building blocks do not organize themselves.

And I said "yes they do" and gave examples, one of which was chemistry and one of which was crystals. Then you replied with your confused post saying that "crystalline particles are not "raw unorganized elements" and so on...

Well, can you give me an example of something that is a "raw, unorganized element"? Are you expecting someone to give you a description, in detail, of how subatomic particles, over the ages, organized themselves into modern humans? I would be glad to do that, if that simple request is all that you are asking. Why didn't you just say so?


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(sic) it.

It is too blatant and obvious. If you are too lazy to educate yourself, I am not going to bother. You're really not in a position to say anything about Biology at all, except that you don't understand it.
 
Last edited:

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The story you are asking for here is exceedingly straightforward: Butterflies didn't develop the ability to metamorphose, they inherited it, with some relatively slight modifications, from their ancestors.
So .. ummm .. evolutiondidit?
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
So .. ummm .. evolutiondidit?
I expect better Aharvey. When you ask me questions on hydroplate theory I say things like gravitydidit or pressuredidit. You won't catch me saying hydroplatetheorydidit.
 

aharvey

New member
Not if the assertion is perfectly obvious.
What about assertions of impossibility that are not "perfectly obvious"? Do you think imperfectly obvious assertions of impossibility need to be explained?

It's impossible for pigs to fly.
The problem here, stipe, is that the reason this assertion seems perfectly obvious is because it is so easy to explain and defend (c'mon, I'll bet even you could defend this assertion even though it is perfectly obvious)! In striking contrast, you are tagging Bob's assertion as "perfectly obvious" despite the fact that it 1) does not have any easy and obvious logical basis, and 2) is actively contradicted by a very large community of professional scientists. I would argue that these two features alone would pretty much define an assertion as not being perfectly obvious!

You're not going to keep arguing are you? :noid:
 

aharvey

New member
I expect better Aharvey. When you ask me questions on hydroplate theory I say things like gravitydidit or pressuredidit. You won't catch me saying hydroplatetheorydidit.
Well, sadly, here you're merely displaying your poor critical thinking skills and your tendency to jump to conclusions. You utterly missed my point. Asking how a butterfly developed the ability to metamorphosis is a nonsensical question, because evolutionary theory would not support the idea that butterflies developed the ability to metamorphose.

To use your own inept analogy, how would the hydroplate theory explain the ability of big chunks of granite to float uphill?

If you want serious answers stop asking absurd questions. And try to make at least a feeble attempt to give the impression that you are genuinely interested in a serious discussion of the subject.
 

Jukia

New member
Feel free to stump up with some of that evidence anytime you want.

You could start with a story explaining how a butterfly might develop the ability to metamorphose.

Nope, not worth the effort with Pastor Bob. Review the thread dealing with manganese nodules, I went out of my way to get the appropriate info and the good Pastor took a hike.

It all boils down to the unability or, more properly, lack of desire on the part of fundy's to make any attempt to gain some knowledge of the real world which even has a chance of raising issues about a literal Genesis. If Pastor Bob, or you, had any real desire to try to understand the question you are more than welcome to go off on your own and learn something.
 

PlastikBuddha

New member
Doogie.

If evolution is so well grounded in reality it should be able to provide at least an idea (other than evolutiondidit) on how the butterfly developed the ability to perform metamorphosis upon itself. Would you like to explain or is your defence of your faith limited to, "I don't like what Christians believe so evolution must be true"?

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.
Anyhoo:

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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top