Search This Blog

Saturday, November 06, 2010

A new word for readers and another problem for Darwinists - Biomimetics




I do not want you to choke on evolution, therefore I keep providing more evidence for your perusal that, when viewed as a whole, falsifies Darwinism and makes it plain that Darwinism is not just wrong, it is in fact absolutely preposterous!   It is the most hideous hoax ever perpetrated on modern man, an excuse for megalomaniacs to kill and maim hundreds of millions of people and a terrible drag on the resources of real science.   Every penny spent, every second spent in the vain attempt to prove Darwin's fairy tale hypothesis is time and money taken away from real useful research.   Because God is a brilliant Designer, there are myriad design features in creatures as lowly as insects and bacteria we can learn from and utilize to make life better for people.


Biomimetics

Science studies the structures and behaviors of organisms to learn from them and, when we can mimic to an extent the design features we find in nature we call that "biomimetics."   My friend the Insectman, Karl Priest, could probably write pages and pages on the remarkable design features of insects that science is studying as well as behavioral studies, and in fact has done just that!   Insects often have amazing abilities that outstrip anything man is able to do even with the help of computers.  Yes, mankind is not the smartest of the smart, we are far behind God and are learning a great deal from His designs.  For instance I will present a handful of articles for your perusal and then make a finishing statement that will also introduce the next post...


~

Beetle feet stick to their promises

November 3, 2006 

 Beetle feet stick to their promises




















Credit: Max Planck Institute for Metals Research

Microscope image of the biomimetic surface structure of the new adhesive material. The material (green), which was inspired by the soles of insects' feet, sticks to the glass (blue). 


Mushroom-shaped microhairs are the secret of a new adhesive material which scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Metals Research in Stuttgart, Germany, have developed. Inspired by the soles of beetles' feet, and therefore biomimetic, the special surface structure of the material allows it to stick to smooth walls without any adhesives. Potential applications range from reusable adhesive tape to shoe soles for climbing robots and are therefore of considerable relevance to technology.

It has been known for some time how insects, spiders and geckos have such a remarkable talent for walking on walls and ceilings. Extremely thin hairs literally stick their feet to the wall and the larger the animal, the finer the hairs. Geckos, which are heavy compared to a fly, have been using nanotechnology for this purpose for millions of years. According to findings made by scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Metals Research in Stuttgart, the shape of the fibres is also significant; for example, spatula-shaped ends on the hairs provide particularly strong adhesion.

These discoveries aroused great expectations. Is it possible to simply copy the structure of the soles of insects' feet and before long find equivalent biomimetic, i.e. nature-inspired, adhesive materials in everyday use? The researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Metals Research and their colleauges at Gottlieb Binder GmbH in Holzgerlingen, a specialist company for fastener systems, needed plenty of staying power themselves, because the first generations of the surfaces they created with a variety of methods were not effective adhesives.

However, the scientists have now taken a big step forwards in copying the biological adhesive mechanism. They have developed a material with a biomimetic microstructure that exhibits excellent adhesive qualities, basing it on investigations of the foot soles of several types of beetle. Their particularly strong adhesive force is the result of very small, specially shaped hairs reminiscent of tiny mushrooms.

In rigorous tests carried out by the Max Planck researchers with measuring instruments developed especially for the purpose, the artificial adhesive system gave an impressive performance and demonstrated many benefits. It lasts for hundreds of applications, does not leave any visible marks and can be thoroughly cleaned with soap and water. The researchers found that five square centimeters of the material can hold objects weighing up to one hundred grams on walls. However, this limit is much lower for ceilings. Smooth structures, such as glass or polished wood, are good bases but woodchip wallpaper is not very suitable.

"Insects also find it difficult to travel over slightly roughened surfaces - it's a fundamental problem for adhesion mechanisms," explained Project Leader Stanislav Gorb.

To manufacture the material, a mold, similar to a cake tin in baking, is used in which the required surface is embossed as a negative image. The mould is filled with a polymerizing mixture which is allowed to cure and then released from the mould. This sounds easy, but is the result of a "great deal of trial and error." The researchers found the construction of the microstructural "cake tin" particularly challenging and exactly how it works remains a trade secret. Optimizing the polymer mixture also taxed the researchers: if it is too fluid it runs out of the mold; if it is too viscose, it won't even go in.

Potential applications range from protective foil for delicate glasses to reusable adhesive fixtures - say goodbye to fridge magnets, here come the microhairs, which will also stick to your mirror, your cupboard and your windows. For example, the new material will soon be found in industrial production processes in the manufacture of glass components. It has already been shown to perform in higher weight categories: the artificial adhesive fibers on the soles of a 120 gram robot helped it to climb a vertical glass wall (Daltorio et al. 2005).

In their current research, the scientists are trying to improve the adhesion by refining the structures even further. "However, there's still a lot of work to be done by the Working Group. Something that functions smoothly in the laboratory is a long way away from large-scale production," explained Stanislav Gorb.

Citation: S. Gorb, M. Varenberg, A. Peressadko and J. Tuma, Biomimetic mushroom-shaped fibrillar 
adhesive microstructure, Journal of the Royal Society Interface 17 October 2006

Source: Max Planck Institute for Metals Research

~

Now concerning the Jewel Beetle:

Beetle "hears" when it is burning


Written by Dr. H. P. Bustami   
Saturday, 16 August 2008
Jewel beetle
Jewel beetle (Melanophila acuminata). photo: AG Prof. Schmitz , University Bonn, Germany
His larvea feed on burnt wood and so mother nature invented for a tiny little beetle a special device to "hear" the fires which can provide a home to his offspring. Even in 80 kilometres distance the insects from the family of the jewel beetles (or metallic wood-boring beetles) can detect the infrared light emitted by fires.  The zoologists from the University of Bonn (Germany) now provided evidence for this fire sensor which is fivefold as sensitive as technical infrared sensors.
 

The heat stimulus which arrives on the beetles surface is directly transformed into a mechanical stimulus for which the beetle has special mechanical receptors which are common in insects (for example in grasshoppers and crickets to detect sound waves being part of the "ears" of these insects).

Eventually these pressure variations caused by the transformed heat stimulus elicit an electrical impulse in sensory neurons. These sensory neurons relay the information to the insect brain.
Infrared sensors of a jewel beetle
Infrared sensor of a jewel beetle (photo: AG Prof. Schmitz)

Such sophisticated infrared sensors are not very common in nature and show again the high developed mechanisms in apparently "primitive" animals like insects. Man is far away from reaching such perfection in his own techniques.

Source: Martin Müller, Maciej Olek, Michael Giersig, and Helmut Schmitz: Micromechanical properties of consecutive layers in specialized insect cuticle: the gula of Pachnoda marginata (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae) and the infrared sensilla of Melanophila acuminata (Coleoptera, Buprestidae), J. Exp Biol 2008 211: 2576-2583.

~

Bees Solve Math Problems Faster Than Computers

Bees can solve complex mathematical problems that would normally keep computers busy for days, according to a new report from UK researchers.1

Through careful observation, University of London scientists have determined that bees routinely solve the "traveling salesman problem," in which a subject must determine the shortest route between multiple destinations in order to conserve energy. But the scientists don't know how the bees do it with a brain the size of a grass seed.

"Bees learn to fly the shortest possible route between flowers even if they discover the flowers in a different order," according to a Royal Holloway, University of London press release.1 Researchers watched as bees encountered "computer controlled artificial flowers" at random, then quickly calculated the shortest route before visiting them all again.

Current computer programs that perform these kinds of calculations operate by totaling the lengths of each possible route and then comparing them to find the shortest one.

There is no way that such tiny brains, using such little energy, could arrive at the right answer so quickly and consistently using the same approach as these computers. So, the researchers speculated that the bees must be using an unknown shortcut algorithm.

Such an algorithm could be a valuable assistance in solving traffic flow problems on roadways and in man-made data networks.

Also crowded into a bee's tiny brain are other shortcut algorithms that enable bees to completely avoid crash landings.2 Research has also discovered advanced capabilities in other insects. For example, ants possess superior traffic flow instincts compared to man-made systems.3 And even slime mold can build more efficient transportation tracks than those devised by Japanese railway engineers.4 All of these algorithms, if they could be discovered or reinvented, have the potential for use in human designs.

Since not even humans with supercomputers could develop these clever algorithms, they must have been purposefully programmed into the insects by an intelligent programmer. Nature by itself could never put together such intricate programs. Even if it could, where would it obtain the power needed to insert them into the exact animals that require them?

Bees, like ants and so many other creatures, clearly look as though they have been expertly designed. Further, it appears that their Designer is vastly more clever than humans, who have trouble understanding, much less duplicating, the abilities of these creatures.
References
  1. Tiny brained bees solve a complex mathematical problem. Royal Holloway, University of London press release, October 25, 2010, reporting on researcher appearing in Lihoreau, M. L. Chittka, and N. E. Raine. 2010. Travel Optimization by Foraging Bumblebees through Readjustments of Traplines after Discovery of New Feeding Locations. The American Naturalist. 176.
  2. Thomas, B. Bee Landing Strategy May Lead to Better Aircraft. ICR News. Posted on icr.org January 12, 2010, accessed October 26, 2010.
  3. Thomas, B. Ant Algorithms Argue Against Evolutionary Origins. ICR News. Posted on icr.org February 17, 2009, accessed October 26, 2010.
  4. Thomas, B. Slime Networks Are Better Organized than Railway Systems. ICR News. Posted on icr.org January 29, 2010, accessed October 26, 2010.
* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
Article posted on November 2, 2010.

~

The Insect Without Children

Jeremiah 51:15
"He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heaven by his understanding."
Did you know that there is a creature that can have a huge number of offspring, yet never have any children? That unusual creature is the aphid. The first aphid of spring is a female, has no wings, and hatches from an egg early in the season. After about ten days, she will give live birth to another fully formed adult female aphid. There have been no males around. Within ten days the new female, too, is ready to give live birth to another fully formed adult female.

By the end of the summer, that first female aphid could have almost six million offspring! Obviously, one plant can't hold that many aphids. So those offspring born with wings fly off to another plant to continue this mysterious process. Once cold weather begins, the female aphids begin giving birth to both male and female aphids, some with wings and some without. The winged males fly back to the original plant, mate, and this time the females produce eggs that can withstand winter so the entire cycle can start again the next year.

The word “understanding” is often used in Scripture and refers to the sense in which God created all things in such a way that they interact and react to countless situations in precisely the way He designed them. The lowly aphid is an astonishing example of this principle!

~

Mankind can learn from every creature.  He can learn to apply the design creature-features that help him live and work more productively and he can clearly see that such wonderful and complex and brilliant designs require a Designer.   Particularly since a source of information is needed for such designs!

One of the many fatal flaws of Darwinism is the notion that one ancestral simple organism could have produced the millions of different organism types found today.   The problem is that, for one thing, life depends on life to stay alive.  We live in an ecosystem that frankly involves far more symbiosis that we acknowledge.   If all the bacteria in the world were to die suddenly, all of mankind would also die off almost immediately.   Plant life cannot exist without animal life and vice-versa.

For instance, anyone who is knowledgeable about keeping freshwater tropical fish knows that you cannot simply fill a tank with water, heat it to the proper temperature range, throw in some kind of rocks/pebbles/etc. (I prefer smoothed small river stones myself) and a few plants and then introduce fish!   The fish that you put into that tank will soon die off, at least most of them, unless they are especially hardy and able to withstand drastically unfriendly environments and the fish tank enthusiast does a great deal of partial water changes.   Why?

Because there is a natural cycle of bacteria that live on left-over food and fish excrement and begin to convert the ammonia produced by the fish and fish waste.   Here is an article on the nitrogen cycle of tropical fishtanks that is easy to comprehend:


Nitrogen Cycle

Introduction: First of all What the heck is this and why would you care? Well, this cycle is the mistake of all newbies to the hobby and why most people fail in their attempts at keeping fish! This cycle is the natural way food, fish waste, and fish breathing is broken down in the aquarium. After the tank is setup and you put those little fishes in the tank the cycle starts. Yes, that is right the cycle starts the second the fish are dropped in the tank! The first thing that happens is the fish breathing. Through breathing the fish enter into the tank along with Carbon Dioxide and other gases is Ammonia. This Ammonia is the first step in the cycle. This Ammonia is broken down into Nitrite and later on the Nitrite is broken down into Nitrate. This Nitrate is the final stage in the cycle and is the easiest element to keep in check and the least toxic to the fish in the tank. These elements must be closely monitored and kept in check. Through biological filtration these elements can be kept at minimums. Biological filtration is very important in any aquarium. These filters are, undergravel filters, ceramic pipe and sponges in canister filters, Bio Wheels on back box filters, and others which we will go into more depth in other pages. These filters are where helpful bacteria can attach themselves and grow to remove these different chemicals and make your tank healthy for your fish.

Where most people fail being new to the hobby is not understanding this cycle - Me being one of them - and having your tank become a glass coffin. Food broken down in the tank also adds to the ammonia levels and is one of the leading causes to fish deaths in a new tank by newbies. Over feeding fish is a major no-no! Especially in an unestablished new tank. And the smaller the tank the worse off it is. Small amounts of water are very unforgiving. For this reason when starting a new tank feed your fish very little!!! The fish will survive on very little food with no problems but by over feeding and sending ammonia level off the charts they will surely visit fishy heaven. Well lets get into each part of the cycle.



cycle graph




First cycle (Ammonia): NH3 and NH4. The first part of the cycle starts with ammonia. And also this is the most toxic substance to fish. Ammonia is given off by fish through their gills. Also through fish waste (Poop and pee). And other sources such as a dead fish left in the tank and food decay. A test kit to monitor this is a must. Levels in a new tank will soar and should be monitored daily and always keep an eye on the fish. This first cycle is the toughest and should be toughed out by fish that can tolerate these levels better than expensive low tolerant fish. More on the best fish to use later. If done properly this cycle can be dealt with and no problems will arise. Lucky for us that there are bacteria in the air everywhere that thrives on ammonia. When enough ammonia is in the tank these little hungry bacteria settle in the tank and start eating the ammonia. Now this might not sound like a tasty treat for you or me but these bacteria love the stuff. They will establish a colony in a tank in the gravel, clay pipe, Bio Wheels, ECT. Anything that they can attach themselves to and multiply on. Unfortunately the ammonia levels soar during this time before the bacteria can establish itself and keep levels low.

With just .5 to 1 PPM (Parts per million) fish will show signs of stress clamping of fins and fast breathing through their gills. At higher levels these signs get worse and more noticeable. With levels of 6 to 7 PPM fish deaths could occur. In a new tank these and higher levels will be reached before the ammonia-eating bacteria can establish itself and drop levels. With pH levels above 7 (neutral) or alkaline water this ammonia is even more toxic to the fish. Acid water with ammonia in it is less harmful to fish than is alkaline water. Water changes at this time are a MUST! You must change the water at the very least by at least 25%. More preferably the water should be changed every 2 or 3 days. Get a gravel cleaner and clean the gravel every week at this time. You do not want anything increasing the ammonia level any higher than they have to be. Make sure the tank is well aerated during this first stage as well.

Why your fish are breathing heavy is because the fish are being suffocated by the ammonia. Ammonia interferes with the fishes ability to get oxygen into their bodies. It may sound dumb but the fish drowns from lack of oxygen. High aeration, low feeding amounts; small number of fish, and frequent water changes and cleanings at this time and you and your fish should make it through this phase.



test kit


Second Cycle (Nitrite): NO2. Nitrite is the waste product from the ammonia-eating bacteria. This substance is less toxic than ammonia but in high levels it to can cause death. Nitrite in a fishes blood stream can hamper their red blood cells in their ability to carry oxygen. At high levels this to will cause fish to suffocate and can be seen by a fish swimming frequently to the surface to get air. Although I have found that the first stage is the most difficult for the fish and once this stage has been cleared and the fish survive this stage should be easy.

Nitrite eating bacteria will establish itself to in the gravel and other media as does the ammonia bacteria. Although the same as with the ammonia bacteria. Nitrite levels will soar as it takes time for the nitrite-eating bacteria to establish its colony. You should get a test kit for this as well. For when the nitrite levels hit zero your tank will be fully cycled. Also I noticed that this is the slowest and levels soar the highest during this cycle. All of my tanks stayed off the readable chart levels for more than 2 to 3 weeks. And even then only slowly dropped to zero. Nitrite eating bacteria take longer in their multiplying time. And since the nitrite level are rising quickly from a pretty well established ammonia eating bacteria it takes a while for the NO2 eating bacteria to equal the output from the NH4 bacteria. Be patient at this stage and you be on your way to being able to add new fish.



cycle
Respiratory cycle
photo from Rolf C Hagen Inc.

Third Cycle(Nitrate): NO3 Once you have fully cycled your tank the NO2 bacteria will produce NO3 nitrate as a waste product. This is a pretty stable substance and is pretty much nontoxic. But at high levels this too is toxic to fish. This is where your plants and water changes come in at. How it was told to me was "as to not pollute change the water and dilute". Nitrate is a natural fertilizer Plants will use the nitrate as a food source.

Also if you do not have plants in your tank save the water for houseplants. The fish waste and the nitrate will combine for a nice food source for them as well.   (radar note:  very smart to do this, your inside plants will like this and so will your outside shrubbery and ornamental plants and young trees when you do an occasional one-third water change.  Never let fish water go to waste, ha ha) They will also like the water with no chlorine in it. Nitrate at levels of 80-140 PPM. can also be toxic to fish so be sure that you do water changes at least every two weeks. For those of you that have 10 gallon tanks a once a week no less than 25% water change should be done. At lower water volumes and no plants levels climb quickly. My 10-gallon tanks will be from a 10-20 PPM. To 80-100 PPM. in one week at around 30-40% water changes. I change the water every week. There are bacteria that will eat nitrate and require another filter that contains sponge balls to attach themselves to. I believe they turn the nitrate into nitrogen gas and it leaves the tank but water changes are less expensive and the fresh new water will be good for the fish.


Nitrogen Cycle Graphs (link)

Conclusion: I will share with you my results of dates and times and what tests I performed. I did not have the help of using someone's gravel or other material to speed the process along. If you know of someone or if you know of a pet store that takes good care of their aquariums. Ask them for some of the gravel. At the pet store ask if they will give you a scoop of gravel or if you have to purchase a scoop of it. Remember that the gravel they give you should be place into a piece of cheese clothe and placed in your tank after the fish have been in there for 3 to four days. This will make sure that some ammonia levels have been raised to a point where the bacteria have a food source. You can place the gravel right in the tank if you wish and the gravel matches or does not bother you with your own. This will jump start your tank and shorten the time it takes to cycle the tank.

Remember to be patient and don't run out and Max that tank out without cycling it. The ammonia levels will jump off the charts and you will lose your fish. Watch the over feeding of the fish. A hungry fish will last longer than a fish that cannot get oxygen into its body. Aeration at high levels makes that water extremely oxygen rich. Change the water often. Changing the water often will dilute levels. After the tank is cycled then you can add more fish. Fish should be added at a slow level even after the tank is cycled. Remember that the amount of bacteria in the tank will only rise to a level of waste being produced by that number of fish. Adding a lot of fish will again rise levels of ammonia and nitrite till the bacteria can raise it's levels to match the new load in the tank. Add fish at 4- 6 fish per 1 to 2 weeks as to number 1: raise levels slowly and number 2: not shock the community with large numbers of new fish. Next we will talk about types of fish to use for this cycling of the tank! Stay tuned! Same Bat (I mean BAD) channel!



~


Frankly, you do not need to have an undergravel filter at all and, if you want to have a supply of freshwater shrimp in the gravel you must NOT have one.   Good side-of-tank filters with bio-wheels do the trick quite nicely.   I always have an air pump that is producing bubbles via a bubble strip or similar thing in order to help aerate the tank along with a powerful filter with a bio-wheel (or wheels.  We have three going on the 55 gallon tank but just one on the 29 gallon tank) that is rated capable of filtering maybe one size bigger than the tank you have.

Debbie with her hand-designed shirt, necklace and earrings = my better half!


All due credit goes to my wife, who does most of the tank cleaning and filter changing and water changes.  I fix faulty filtering devices or decide to replace them and I set up the initial tank cycles, provided the shrimp and the snails and the original fish for the tanks.  Debbie does most of the maintenance work and also the rock and plant arrangements (although the big Plecos just knock things over and uproot plants at will).  She is also the one who thought up containing the Java Moss within the kind of netting that often comes with apples or potatoes so it doesn't grow indiscriminately and spread out like a 70's Afro hairdo.
I managed to find freshwater shrimp in a local pond and got a colony to grow in one tank and have been keeping a colony going in both tanks.  Debbie shakes them out of the filters and also removes most of them from old/dirty water before feeding plants with it.  A couple of days ago she was literally shaking the shrimp off of the sides of her arms from reaching into the dirty water buckets to fill up aqua globes for the house plants. (the water gets periodic changes before it actually looks "dirty") I also got some small pond snails and cultivated them in the 29 gallon live-breeder tank.   We harvest them periodically to put into the bigger tank, where the Botia and Clown loaches live.  Loaches love to eat snails.   We also have plenty of wood in both tanks for the Plecostomus population to gnaw on.  Finally we do make sure to keep both tanks supplied with Anacharis plants, which help with the natural cycle of waste conversion and provide food for Plecostomus and for snails, etc.  Our shrimp colony thrives in the freshwater tank, where there are three smaller Plecos and lots of Swordtails, Bricks and Platies, all of which can and do interbreed as they are all of the same general kind of fish.

In the big tank we have two 12-year-old Plecos and two 12-year-old African Upside-Down Catfish as well as several Corydoras cats that are between 5-10 years of age, various Barbs and a couple of Angelfish who are around four years old.   The livebreeder tank includes two juvenile Plecos less than four years old and one Zebra Pleco who is nearly 10 years of age but is of a species that does not grow very large so he is small enough to enjoy the small tank and the rock cave we have provided for him (he usually does not appear until late in the evening).  


One of our two big Plecos at age seven.   Both measure over a foot long now...

I started my fish tanks quite easily, with all the right equipment, but instead of the laborious process that some undergo I simply used the "feeder fish" method.   You buy a bunch of cheap feeder fish ( White Clouds or Guppies both work quite well) and start the tank with them.   Most of them will die off while the tank begins to start the nitrogen cycle because the ammonia level of the tank gets high.   I simply kept taking out a third of the water periodically and replaced it with fresh water.   I used White Clouds back 12-odd years ago when I began keeping fish again and of the two dozen Clouds I originally purchased, about half of them lived through the cycling and several of them lasted for five or six years before passing on.  It was simple and logical way to start the tank cycle and Guppies will also work quite well.   Never consider a Goldfish to be a "tropical fish" and never mix them with other fish.   Goldfish are carp and exceedingly "dirty" fish with excrement that is much more toxic than normal tropical fish.   (I did raise a few Koi for profit several years ago more to watch their growth and behavior than to make the money, although I did receive a nice return on my investment).

The bottom line?  You cannot just plop fish into water and expect them to live.   The fish and the plants and the microbes all must work together and depend upon each other for survival.   There has to be a source of light that the plants and algae can use photosynthesis while helping to recycle the waste materials from the fish.  The fish need the water to be aerated and occasionally replenished in part with fresh source water to imitate life in a natural stream or lake or pond.  The plants and bacteria need the fish to provide waste materials they will convert into food.  The fish need the bacteria to recycle their waste and the plants to both help in the process and provide food for some varieties.   As owners we must change filters and do water refreshment, provide fish food and cultivate the shrimp and snails that help keep the big fish healthy.  We also use Java Moss in the live breeder tank to provide shelter for baby fish and small snails and shrimp.

Also, I recommend smoothed gravel stones so that the Corydoras cats or loaches do not rub off their barbels and mouths trying to dig in the gravel for fish food and shrimp.  Too many people buy that cheap sharp-edged gravel and then wonder why their bottom-dwelling fish do not live long.  We have some sand mixed in with the gravel so that at the very bottom there is good rooting for rooted aquatic plants and to provide more "housing" choices for bacteria and shrimp alike. 


A Corydoras resting on smoothed river gravel such as used in our fish tanks

The Earth is quite similar.   Plants could not have survived long without animals and vice-versa.   The symbiotic relationships between species of all kinds is beyond one human to document in a lifetime.  Earth is a fantastic testimony to a Great Designer and also to the sin and fallibility of mankind and the unswerving truth of the Laws of Thermodynamics that show us that life and matter and everything are devolving from an original state rather than evolving into higher forms.   Our genome is degrading, our ecosystem survives but has challenges (the declining bee population, for example) that have absolutely nothing to do with man and his pitifully tiny impact on our massive planet.  Anthropic Global Warming my butt!   The Sun is the engine that drives global warming and cooling and the Earth has design features that react to the activities of the Sun to help balance the temperatures out.   

The Earth was made in six days by God with all kinds of plants and animals in place, ready and willing and able to do their part to keep the biosphere going despite the 2LOT and whatever mankind does to harm or try to help.  We have barely scratched the surface of the lessons we can learn from organisms if we would be wise enough to recognize them for what they are - brilliantly designed biological machines far more efficient and intricate than we have yet been able to completely fathom. 

44 comments:

radar said...

For those who are particular about such things, what we call our "freshwater shrimp" are actually Daphnia. I suppose I should get a good photo of both of our tanks for those who keep fish, as they are works of art in the hands of my wife.

Also, our big plecos are trained to come to the top of the tank and eat flake food looking like sea cows. They figured that out for themselves a few years ago and anytime the lid opens they will head up to the surface. On occasion we give them a worm cube, which must be like paradise in the form of food to plecos. I have seen them falling backwards to the bottom of the tank, all energy directed on sucking on and eating that worm cube to the point of laying on their backs across a rock on the tank bottom forcefully sucking on the cube. Cracks me up!

Jon Woolf said...

And of course, we all know how much this resembles this.

[snicker.wav]

Bees, like ants and so many other creatures, clearly look as though they have been expertly designed.

Looks can be deceiving.

This sounds easy, but is the result of a "great deal of trial and error."

The answer is right in front of you, and yet you miss it time after time.

Even if it could, where would it obtain the power needed to insert them into the exact animals that require them?

Cart. Horse. Revision of sequence strongly recommended.

Y'know, last week I watched the digitally restored 70th Anniversary DVD of The Wizard of Oz. And for some reason, in the scene where the Wizard is revealed, I thought of you for a second. Why do you suppose that is?

[rumble] "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!" {flash!}

radar said...

Jon Woolf, you are so blinded that you have become a caricature. I actually used the Wizard of Oz scenario before you - with Evolution as the man behind the screen and research being Toto the Dog revealing that the Wizard was just a con man who had lost his way. So I agree with you that readers should pay no attention to that man, be he Richard Dawkins or PZ Myers or any other of a number of religious zealots who run roughshod over science to push their preposterous propaganda.

As to your links, I hate to tell you this since you must have missed it during first grade science class? Ocean shrimp are saltwater creatures whereas Daphnia aka water fleas aka fresh water shrimp are found in fresh water and I have fresh water tanks? I thought you were some kind of scientist...

Anonymous said...

"Every penny spent, every second spent in the vain attempt to prove Darwin's fairy tale hypothesis is time and money taken away from real useful research."

Scientists have stopped "proving" the theory of evolution a long time ago, and contrary to what you hear in your YEC bubble, there is no scientific controversy. These days, scientists are merely dotting the Is and crossing the Ts.

YECs, on the other hand, can't make any progress because they're not doing any actual research. That's why all they can do (and this blog is a good example of that) is whine about the referee, misrepresent scientific facts and theories for the uninformed (try and find an instance of Radar actually using a correct definition of any aspect of evolution or abiogenesis on this blog) or make unsupported claims (e.g. Radar going on about the supposed loss of information).

Jon Woolf said...

Radar, you really must stop underestimating your correspondents...

Ocean shrimp are saltwater creatures whereas Daphnia aka water fleas aka fresh water shrimp are found in fresh water...

Well now, y'see, there are freshwater species of shrimp too. Which look very much like the typical saltwater shrimps, and not much like Daphnia. One web query would have told you that. Daphnia isn't a shrimp, period.

And as usual, you make the mistake of thinking that the science of evolution is somehow wounded by the fact that some of those who defend it are jerks on other subjects. Sorry. Science doesn't work that way.

Anonymous said...

Once again, Radar, you make the unfounded and unsupportable assertion that any complexity MUST be proof of a designer. You may want to take a closer look at what AI proponents are actually saying on the subject of complexity, since at least they are trying to make their work seem scientific. Hint: they do not claim that all complexity is proof of a designer.

Something that is co-dependent now wasn't always necessarily co-dependent. It could easily have evolved into co-dependency.

radar said...

Once again, Radar, you make the unfounded and unsupportable assertion that any complexity MUST be proof of a designer. You may want to take a closer look at what AI proponents are actually saying on the subject of complexity, since at least they are trying to make their work seem scientific. Hint: they do not claim that all complexity is proof of a designer.

Something that is co-dependent now wasn't always necessarily co-dependent. It could easily have evolved into co-dependency.


Blah blah blah. You have no evidence for any of this, it is all religious belief for you without any basis in fact. Of course complexity falsifies Darwinism because it requires huge amounts of non-material INFORMATION!

Operational scientists, yes, I agree, they do not try to prove Darwinism nor do they use it in their research. In order to get published they throw in a few Darwinist boilerplate phrases and then present their findings. You never see any Darwinist proof within the body of their papers.

Woolf, get over yourself, I don't care what you think about my shrimp. It is a common name we use. In the fish game often barbs are called tetras and tetras are called barbs. I call my little critters shrimp because "water fleas" has a negative connotation. They are highly useful to keeping my fish healthy and I specified that they go by the scientific name of Daphnia, so you are not "uncovering" anything, you are just avoiding the greater argument which you cannot win.

radar said...

Readers, what the Darwinist commenters are avoiding is the fact that our most brilliant engineers are studying God's designs to learn to mimic them. While Darwinist doofs try for hundreds of generations of fruit flies to make them become something else (epic fail), real researchers are using fruit flies to seek cures for cancer and other health issues important to mankind.

Darwinists scan the skies for a message from ET. Real scientists scan the skies to learn more about the Sun, the Solar System and the stars and other celestial objects.

Real operational science does not even consider Darwinism, it is irrelevant to science as it cannot be replicated or tested or falsified or observed. It is simply a worldview, a religion, and of no consequence to science. But the one thing Darwinists contribute to society is the steady drumbeat of propaganda extolling the virtues of the ideas that spawned Mao, Stalin and Hitler. Good show NOT!

Anonymous said...

“Blah blah blah. You have no evidence for any of this, it is all religious belief for you without any basis in fact.”

Evidence for what? Did you even read the comments? They are pointing out that your claims are unfounded. Complexity is not automatic proof of a designer since an alternative explanation is available. ID proponents (sorry, I wrote AI proponents above, my bad) are aware of this and have therefore become more specific about where to draw the distinction. And that distinction is not just "complexity", but something much more specific. You should try to educate yourself on that distinction.

I think Jon Woolf has already rightly pointed out that not only are you not aware of what you're arguing against, you're also uninformed about what you're arguing FOR. Truly amazing.

And anybody who disagrees with you must be part of some conspiracy or a "brainwashed liar".

Why are you so averse to arguing openly and honestly, with facts and CORRECT definitions?

“Of course complexity falsifies Darwinism because it requires huge amounts of non-material INFORMATION!”


Information itself is not supernatural. By Jove, Radar, you’re living on some other planet of made up definitions and distinctions that goes beyond even most creationists. Very creative of you, but in the end you're only left with utter fantasy arguments.
 Don't take our word for it. Ask some of the people on your side. Seriously.

Ask them if information is supernatural.

“Operational scientists, yes, I agree, they do not try to prove Darwinism nor do they use it in their research.”

Not true.

“In order to get published they throw in a few Darwinist boilerplate phrases and then present their findings. You never see any Darwinist proof within the body of their papers.”


What exactly do you mean by “Darwinist proof”? Confirmation of the theory of evolution? You’ll certainly find that in papers.

Anonymous said...

“Readers, what the Darwinist commenters are avoiding is the fact that our most brilliant engineers are studying God's designs to learn to mimic them.”

What engineers and scientists study are functionality in nature. Some may think it’s God’s design, others may think it’s the product of evolution, natural functionality that evolved through natural selection over millions and billions of years of trial and error. I suspect a large majority of them believe the latter, but their reasons are not relevant.

“While Darwinist doofs try for hundreds of generations of fruit flies to make them become something else (epic fail),”

No, they succeeded at that. They did breed different fruit flies (and different bacteria etc.), which confirmed speciation - the origin of species through natural selection.

“real researchers are using fruit flies to seek cures for cancer and other health issues important to mankind.”

And you think these “real researchers” for some reason reject the theory of evolution? Evidence? Names?



How are fruit flies being used to cure cancer, btw?

“Darwinists scan the skies for a message from ET.”

What on Earth does that have to do with evolution? Why do you call SETI researchers “Darwinists”?

“Real scientists scan the skies to learn more about the Sun, the Solar System and the stars and other celestial objects.”

And you think these “real scientists” for some reason reject the theory of evolution? Evidence? Names?


Your whole line of argument doesn't add up. You demonize something you call "Darwinists" without any rhyme or reason - while of course avoiding the fact that you can't address some of the most basic falsifications of YEC and can't falsify the theory of evolution without throwing in massive misrepresentations of what the theory of evolution actually says. On an argumentative level, you're down for the count, which is why you have to resort to sheer propaganda and logical fallacies (emotional appeals, strawman arguments, muttering about conspiracies etc.).

It's interesting to watch you squirm like this while failing to address the actual falsifications of YEC. You really have no answers, do you?

Anonymous said...

“Real operational science does not even consider Darwinism,”

False, as I think was mentioned on your blog already. Genetic algorithms for example are a part of "operational science".

“it is irrelevant to science as it cannot be replicated or tested or falsified or observed.”

False, false, false, false. The theory of evolution has been replicated, tested, observed, never falsified even though it is falsifiable, in multiple fields. Deny it all you want. As I see you’ve done aplenty on your blog. All this information is easily available to you and your readers, courtesy of the Internet.

“It is simply a worldview, a religion, and of no consequence to science.”

The modern synthesis of evolution is a scientific theory and therefore of great consequence to science. It may be a part of some people’s worldview, but it has nothing to do with any kind of religion. It seems you’re indulging in some extreme projection here, as everything you say does happen to apply completely to YEC, not the theory of evolution.

“But the one thing Darwinists contribute to society is the steady drumbeat of propaganda extolling the virtues of the ideas that spawned Mao, Stalin and Hitler. Good show NOT!”

And again, false. Where is this propaganda today? Are you suggesting people who accept the theory of evolution are advocating eugenics, ethnic cleansing, mass murder, genocide?

If that's what you're suggesting, please provide proof. Otherwise you should do what a decent person would do and retract your heinous insinuations.

And if you want to blame Darwin for Mao, Stalin and Hitler, then would you blame Jesus for the Crusades, the Inquisition and witch hunts? Faulty logic in either case, but perhaps this example might illustrate to you just how wrong-headed your reasoning is.

highboy said...

"And if you want to blame Darwin for Mao, Stalin and Hitler, then would you blame Jesus for the Crusades, the Inquisition and witch hunts? Faulty logic in either case, but perhaps this example might illustrate to you just how wrong-headed your reasoning is."

Difference being that the no matter how you look at the Bible there was never an explicit command from Christ to His followers to kill people aren't Christians, while one organism exterminating another organism is indeed natural selection.

Jon Woolf said...

Darwin never advocated or supported genocide, either.

highboy said...

"Darwin never advocated or supported genocide, either."

No one said he did. But the Origin of the Species, which he wrote himself describing natural selection, explicitly states "Origin of the Species and The Survival of the Favored Races Due To Natural Selection". Pretty cut and dry.

Jon Woolf said...

Pretty cut and dry.

To someone who doesn't know what Darwin was talking about, I suppose it is.

The full and complete title of Darwin's first book is

On the Origin of Species
By Means of Natural Selection
or
The Preservation of Favoured Races
in the Struggle for Life


Being a naturalist, writing mainly for other naturalists, Darwin was using the taxonomic definition for the word "race": a population which is distinct in some traits, and breeds true in those traits, but is not distinct enough to be called a separate species. The modern synonym is "subspecies." There is no judgment of superiority or inferiority intended or implied.

Anonymous said...

"no matter how you look at the Bible there was never an explicit command from Christ to His followers to kill people aren't Christians"

And no matter how you look at The Origin of Species, there was never an explicit command from Darwin to any readers to exterminate any species. The analogy holds up.

"one organism exterminating another organism is indeed natural selection"

Not so. An organism exterminating another organism can also be artificial selection.

Anonymous said...

And yet again, Radar and Highboy are left without a comeback.

Wow.

Anonymous said...

"Are you suggesting people who accept the theory of evolution are advocating eugenics, ethnic cleansing, mass murder, genocide?

If that's what you're suggesting, please provide proof."

Nada?

radar said...

I do not run on your schedule. You want me to tie Darwin and Eugenics and Hitler all together? Come back Tuesday but you won't like it. Truth hurts.

radar said...

And mr anonymous "Darwinism has never been tested or falsified, etc." is full of hot air. We have had scientists spending years of time and millions of dollars trying to get something, ANYTHING, to evolve. Never happens. Change within kind is not evolution. Not the Darwinian kind that turns one thing into something else. All these years of failed tests should serve as falsification.

GA's were already proven to be a result of modeling and not blind chance so they are irrelevant.

Operational science does not use Darwinist thinking in any way, shape or form other than those fields seeking (and failing) to prove it to be even a working hypothesis.

Origins science requires presuppositions. You are sold out to materialist options only, so you are stuck trying to create the Universe and life and information and also explain the diversity of life. You have massive problems in every area so you wall together like musk oxen to keep other ideas away so they won't kill off your weak and pathetic one. You will not be able to fool the people forever...

My presupposition is that God created and that fits what we see today perfectly. Therefore a Universe with comprehensible laws is expected. Design features and forms that are found everywhere speak to a Designer. So go fish.

Jon Woolf said...

"We have had scientists spending years of time and millions of dollars trying to get something, ANYTHING, to evolve."

And succeeding. Many times over.

"GA's were already proven to be a result of modeling and not blind chance"

Not by anyone who actually knew what he/she was talking about. The ability to go beyond expectations, beyond what even the programmers thought was possible, is what makes genetic algorithms so useful.

"Origins science requires presuppositions."

True.

"You are sold out to materialist options only,"

False.

"You want me to tie Darwin and Eugenics and Hitler all together? Come back Tuesday but you won't like it. Truth hurts."

So does seeing aggressive, massive illogic from someone who is smart enough to know better. Study some history, Radar -- real history, not the distorted pap fed to you by creationist writers. Charles Darwin in his later years was a comfortably middle-class liberal Englishman who opposed slavery and racism, advocated cooperation between people and groups of people, regretted the way that native people were all-too-often treated by Europeans, and thoroughly disapproved of the sort of thinking that (in a fit of colossal irony on the part of the Universe) would later become known as "social darwinism."

Eugenics as a philosophy appeared after Darwin died, and became popular several decades later still. And Hitler was a power-mad lunatic who would use anything handy as a defense for his insane ramblings. He cited Scripture as readily as he did the doctrines of eugenics and social darwinism, and was equally facile with ideas taken from dark-side magic.

"My presupposition is that God created and that fits what we see today perfectly. "

Only if your idea of God is an entity with the mind of a two-year-old and the soul of a sadistic thug.

Anonymous said...

"I do not run on your schedule."

Don't know what you run on.

"You want me to tie Darwin and Eugenics and Hitler all together?"

Since I assume your tack will amount to something fairly analogous to tying Jesus to the Inquisition, have to say I particularly care. More to the point, why would you think eugenics has any relevance today?

"Come back Tuesday but you won't like it."

You don't say. Think you'll have some beef this time? I'm dubious.

"Truth hurts."

Well in that case this blog would be sheer bliss.

Except I happen to think that ignorance hurts. Bummer.

Anonymous said...

"I particularly care" = "I don't particularly care"

Anonymous said...

"We have had scientists spending years of time and millions of dollars trying to get something, ANYTHING, to evolve."

And they showed exactly that, precisely to the exact extent that the theory of evolution would predict it.

Incidentally, how many millions did they spend, exactly? Or did you just make that up?

"Never happens."

Since it clearly did happen, this statement is devoid of truth.

"Change within kind is not evolution."

"Kind" is not something that is included in the theory of evolution, or even in ANY of modern science for that matter. If you want to critique (or even discuss) the theory of evolution, you can't just throw random terms in there to muck things up. The theory of evolution covers all of Linnean taxology, which, as it happens, does not feature anything called "kinds".

So would you care to define "kind", and where would you see it fitting in with Linnean taxology?

"Not the Darwinian kind that turns one thing into something else."

The "Darwinian kind that turns one thing into something else" - what, you haven't seen this? Seriously? It's on your own blog.

But seriously, take your fingers out of your ears and give it a try: can you define this "kind" that you speak of for us?

Can you?

No?

If you can't, I certainly hope you don't intend on this "kind" chitchat being part of any scientific discussion.

Anonymous said...

"All these years of failed tests should serve as falsification."

1. Logically speaking, if these tests had indeed failed, they would NOT serve as a falsification, since all they would have done (if they had indeed failed) would be to show a lack of a positive confirmation, not a proof of a negative.

2. That aside, the tests didn't fail. They did demonstrate speciation. Perhaps that's not something you can understand, perhaps it's not something you WANT to understand (more likely IMO). But the fact of the matter is that that is what they demonstrated. Do read up on them before commenting further. We only have your best interests at heart, sweetie, don't want you to embarrass yourself.

"GA's were already proven to be a result of modeling and not blind chance so they are irrelevant."

Where was this proven exactly? Sounds like a bit of a... misunderstanding. Which is being "kind" in another (actually defined) sense of the word.

"Operational science does not use Darwinist thinking in any way, shape or form other than those fields seeking (and failing) to prove it to be even a working hypothesis."

All your pretending that the theory of evolution is just a hypothesis is just ever so much childish trashtalk - does little more than make you look misinformed at best and dishonest at worst. We don't want that, now do we?

"Origins science requires presuppositions."

Since you threw the word "science" in there, no, it doesn't require presuppositions. On the contrary. Scientists simply discuss what is observable and draw their conclusions from that. Once you start with metaphysical presuppositions (say "there is a God" or "there is no God"), forget it, you're not doing science anymore.

Anonymous said...

"You are sold out to materialist options only,"

Something tells me you're a teensy bit confused about this word "materialist".

"so you are stuck trying to create the Universe and life and information and also explain the diversity of life."

Diversity of life is fully covered by the theory of evolution. You might want to do some reading on that. Science is not "stuck" on that, not even remotely. Only some religious fundamentalists think this clashes with their texts and so feel inclined to put up a wall (oxen-like, if you will) to avoid scientific understanding. But that's your problem, not the problem of scientists or any other rational people.

"Rational" doesn't need to exclude religious people, btw. I'd hate to insult rational people, and we don't want to tar them all with your stubbly brush, do we? :-) Plenty of religious folk are on board with the theory of evolution. Will they go to hell, you suppose?

And why would scientists be stuck "trying to create the Universe and life and information"? It's already there, no need to create it. Why would that require God? (Serious question, by the way. Got an answer? :-))

You've admitted your presupposition. Fine. What you haven't faced up to is the issue that once you presuppose that God created, this can then blind you to the possibility that God DIDN'T create. Are you open to that possibility? If not, please explain why.

Anonymous said...

"You have massive problems in every area so you wall together like musk oxen"

A lovely image, must make a note of that. Very poetic. But what are these "massive problems" you speak of? And, supposing that they exist and that you can explain them in a coherent way, what do you suppose would make your worldview immune to them?

"to keep other ideas away so they won't kill off your weak and pathetic one."

Nobody has yet managed to falsify the theory of evolution, so perhaps it's not as wek and pathetic as you think. YEC on the other hand is falsified over and over, yet for some reason you think it's not "weak and pathetic". Hm. Perhaps because it's protected by a "wall of musk oxens"?

"You will not be able to fool the people forever..."

No fooling necessary. That's the beauty of it. I note you still don't have a falsification that doesn't rest on a massive misrepresentation of science, the theory of evolution etc. That alone would brand what you're doing as weak and pathetic. But whatever.

"My presupposition is that God created"

Would you be open to the idea that God did not create?

Would you be open to the idea that God created, but in a different way than your human, limited interpretation of the Bible has so far led you to believe?

Would you be open to those ideas?

If not... forget it, you're just engaging in demagoguery.

Anonymous said...

"and that fits what we see today perfectly."

Not in the limited way that you seem married to. That's what the falsifications of YEC are all about. From what I see, you can't address them. (Not that you're an authority, but I'm just sayin.)

"Therefore a Universe with comprehensible laws is expected."

The same would be expected as a result of simply observing the world around us and finding that it consistently follows certain comprehensible laws. Well whoopdeedoo. No belief in a deity is required to observe THAT consistency.

When you have a hammer, ever problem looks like a nail. When you believe in God, suddenly God is the reason for everything. When I throw a ball up in the air, it falls back down. CONSISTENTLY. Must be because of God!

Wow.

Now put that presupposition aside and throw the ball back in the air and see what happens.

Think about it, Radar. Put aside any and all presuppositions and examine the world around you. Step by step, what can you falsify?

Can you do it, Mr. Open-Minded?

"Design features and forms that are found everywhere speak to a Designer. So go fish."

Functionality by itself is not automatic proof of a designer.

So go fish yourself.

radar said...

anonymous, you are making such ridiculous statements that you approach the brainless boobness stage. You just make statements with no evidence and pretend that you have some authority. You are simply a troll.

Me, I can find authority to help me make arguments:

“In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular
biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account
at all.” - Dr Marc Kirschner

Now please tell me you at least know who Marc Kirschner is?

radar said...

Jon, you are about fifty snicker.wav past your yearly quota. Sounds like the kind of nervous laughter that frightened people experience when they think they are going to get clobbered.

Jon Woolf said...

I know who Marc Kirschner is. I also know that the quote you posted was taken out of context, and that anyone who claims Kirschner is anti-evolution, or meant that statement in an anti-evolution way, is a lying son of a bitch.

In the full original quote -- now sadly out of view behind the Glob's paywall, but reproduced here -- Kirschner was lamenting the fact that those disciplines don't take evolutionary theory into account, and suggesting that they could learn more stuff, faster, if they did.

Someday, Radar, you will learn that creationist writers lie whenever it suits their purposes. CHECK THE ORIGINAL SOURCE. ALWAYS.

Anonymous said...

"anonymous, you are making such ridiculous statements that you approach the brainless boobness stage. You just make statements with no evidence and pretend that you have some authority. You are simply a troll."

Wow, what a well-reasoned comeback. And then a bit of quote mining.

Is that really all you've got? The state of YEC is sad indeed, and you don't even seem to realize it.

Jon Woolf said...

Oh, and Radar: I laugh at your posts because they're such perfect examples of creationist Fail. I've been commenting here for months now, others like scohen and lava and creeper and canucklehead have been commenting for years, and yet you defiantly refuse to learn anything from that experience. You don't check your sources. You don't learn the actual science behind the arguments. You haven't even learned how to phrase your claims in less obviously-wrong ways. As an advocate for creationism, you're a joke.

Anonymous said...

Not the first to say it here but better creationists please! Nice work by Anonymous in this comment thread, BTW. I really enjoy it when newer arrivals (I think?) run through one of Radar's Gish Gallops practically line-by-line. Good stuff. Your style should drive Radar and hb nuts. I suspect Kimbal will do his best to bury your comments (AKA his shame) with a shwack of "new" copypasta in the coming days.

Oh and big LOL @ Radar for calling Jon a "caricature". There is just SO MUCH psychological projection coming from our dear blog writer, it's almost unbelievable. Also, LOVE how the Radar's smug and condescending "I hate to tell you this since you must have missed it during first grade science class... I thought you were some kind of scientist...", becomes "Woolf, get over yourself, I don't care what you think about my shrimp." after taking yet another virtual smackdown from Jon.

- Canucklehead.

Anonymous said...

Hilarious. Has Radar really run out of the building while leaving a stack of questions unanswered? Muttering something about "brainless boobness"? Doesn't feel like facing up to his dumb quote mining? How embarrassing.

Always the same with creationists, can't make it through an argument without a pile of lies and fallacies and distortions. Love the arrogance on this one though! ROFLMAO

radar said...

Since I actually post evidence and have an online identity, unlike various anonymous posters who have no identity, no credibility and no facts to back up their claims, I often blow off their questions, too. I am not going to follow every rabbit trail. Tonight is Darwin-Eugenics-Hitler night and that is the way it is.

highboy said...

"And yet again, Radar and Highboy are left without a comeback.

Wow."

Sorry I wasn't checking the blog every 5 minutes so I could quickly retort to some anonymous poster over the internet.

"And no matter how you look at The Origin of Species, there was never an explicit command from Darwin to any readers to exterminate any species. The analogy holds up."

To use your words: Not true. No one said there was a command in Darwin's theory.

"artificial selection".

no such thing in a naturalistic worldview slick. Either humans are nothing more than another biological creature in nature or they're not. If one human race kills off another in the natural order it can't be "artificial". Its completely natural. If a species is exterminated in the natural order it was natural selection. Nature selected said species for extinction.

Now I'll let your groupie teenager canuck lead a cheer for you before you post your next response.

radar said...

Highboy,

You have a bit of patience with some of these posters that is admirable. Patience is a virtue but stupid gets to be wearying and I am still recuperating from an illness so I dole out my time carefully.

Naturally (pun intended), if Darwinism was true there would be nothing wrong with genocide because for one thing it is part of the survival of the fittest and for another there is no basis for morality. In the naturalistic materialistic atheistic world, all morality has been borrowed and used to either hide behind or club people with but certainly never to use to examine one's self. Selfishness is at the core of atheism.

Darwin believed that people of color were lower-level humans who would eventually die off unless carefully preserved like zoo animals and so the Western World has sought to "preserve their culture" by trying to keep them from modernizing and realizing the benefit of the natural resources that surround them. Sure, let natives live in huts and the white people will throw them a few centavos for digging rare earths from the ground.

There is no bigger hypocrite on this planet than an atheistic naturalistic materialist who utters the words "right" or "wrong" as they have no standing on moral grounds whatever.

Anonymous said...

Highboy,

Thanks for the entertainment. Your attempts at insulting are -as always- hilarious!

Anonymous said...

Holy moly, Highboy, three years of theological instruction and you have no idea what naturalism entails? Did you flunk out or did they somehow skip that part?

highboy said...

"Holy moly, Highboy, three years of theological instruction and you have no idea what naturalism entails? Did you flunk out or did they somehow skip that part?"

anonymous, please. If you actually had a rebuttal to any of the claims I made you would have made them. Nothing I said about naturalism is factually incorrect. Otherwise, show evidence as to how. Or maybe just keep smoke-screening your incompetence with lame sarcasm that I'm sure would have been found witty a couple of decades ago.

Anonymous said...

"No one said there was a command in Darwin's theory."

Did anyone say there was a command from Jesus in the Bible on this subject? That's the argument you proposed to show the situations were not analogous.

Anonymous said...

"There is no bigger hypocrite on this planet than an atheistic naturalistic materialist who utters the words "right" or "wrong" as they have no standing on moral grounds whatever."

It comes from the same place as that of a Christian. It is agreed by consensus among mankind over time, and it is subject to change - very slow change, but change nonetheless. Christians do not stand above this. Otherwise how would you explain that Christians today do not fully adhere to all the dictates of the Bible, and that morality has evolved over time?

So much hate, so little forgiveness and desire for understanding. Makes me wonder why you people label yourself Christians sometimes.

Anonymous said...

"Either humans are nothing more than another biological creature in nature or they're not."

That doesn't mean they're not capable of conscious decision-making.

"If one human race kills off another in the natural order it can't be "artificial"."

If a conscious decision to eliminate another race/species is involved, then it's artificial. Do some reading on "natural selection" and "artificial selection" and see if you can spot the difference.