| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Budikka666" |
| Date: |
30 Sep 2006 06:36:55 AM |
| Object: |
Why There's No Design Item #3 |
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060923105230.htm
reports that: "In only a few generations, the male cricket on Kauai,
one of the Hawaiian Islands, underwent a mutation -- a sudden heritable
change in its genetic material -- that rendered it incapable of using
song, its sexual signal, to attract female crickets, according to a new
study by UC Riverside evolutionary biologists.
"In addition, the researchers found that although the new male
crickets' wings lack the file and scraper apparatus required for
producing sound, the males are able to mate successfully with females,
thus ensuring evolutionary success. They accomplish this by simply
altering their behavior in an ingenious manner, suggesting that
behavior can help what may seem like a harmful mutation spread."
This thread could quite equally have been titled "evolution in action"
or something along those lines, but for those who claim there was some
sort of intelligent design behind nature, it's a real poser.
They would have us believe that the god of the Bible deliberately
created crickets with the rather inelegant (some would argue
fingernails-on-a-chalkboard-annoying) design whereby they have to
scrape their wings to lure mates. This is divine design?
But it gets worse:"The mutation occurred, the researchers conclude, to
protect male crickets from a deadly parasitic fly (Ormia ochracea) that
uses the cricket song to locate crickets as hosts. Upon finding a male
cricket, the fly deposits larvae onto it; these then burrow into the
cricket, develop inside, and subsequently kill the cricket when they
emerge from its body."
To clarify this for pedantic morons (Pastor Dave comes immediately to
mind), the mutation most certainly did *not* occur "...to protect male
crickets from a deadly parasitic fly...". The mutation occurred and
*coincidentally* protected the males from the parasite.
In short, it's strong evidence that evolution is happenstance rather
than deliberate design. Unless you want to try to make the case that
this is the deliberate design of a perfect, loving deity who saw that
his creative work was good. I'd be very interested in hearing
supported argument along *those* lines.
But the very existence of parasites all proves there is no such
designer.
Budikka
.
|
|
| User: "Ironweed" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There's No Design Item #3 |
30 Sep 2006 09:37:48 AM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1159616215.533227.159600@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
But the very existence of parasites all proves there is no such
designer.
I'm still waiting for the answer from the JWs as to why their "loving
father" created the disease bearing parasites and disease itself. It's been
a long wait...........
--
IW.....
http://silentlambs.org
http://www.cultwatch.com/jw.html
www.freeminds.org
http://dbhome.dk/carlo/ secret Elder's Manual
Reality check: http://www1.tip.nl/~t661020/wtcitaten/part1.htm
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
========================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill M" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There's No Design Item #3 |
01 Oct 2006 04:19:46 PM |
|
|
Good question. Why did this all loving god create 12,000 diseases that
punish and kill mankind?
"Ironweed" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:451e813e@news.henrynet.se...
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1159616215.533227.159600@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
But the very existence of parasites all proves there is no such
designer.
I'm still waiting for the answer from the JWs as to why their "loving
father" created the disease bearing parasites and disease itself. It's
been a long wait...........
--
IW.....
http://silentlambs.org
http://www.cultwatch.com/jw.html
www.freeminds.org
http://dbhome.dk/carlo/ secret Elder's Manual
Reality check: http://www1.tip.nl/~t661020/wtcitaten/part1.htm
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
========================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ironweed" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There's No Design Item #3 |
01 Oct 2006 07:56:58 PM |
|
|
"Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:jmWTg.25114$8s6.7305@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
Good question. Why did this all loving god create 12,000 diseases that
punish and kill mankind?
Don't hold your breath waiting for a reply. If any do reply they'll blubber
about it being the mythical Eve's fault....... then tell you in another
breath only god can create things.
--
SA......
Numbers 31:17-18 God commands Moses to kill all the Medianite people
(genocide)
including children and women. To top it off he commands that the virgins be
saved for later sexual abuse (concubinage & forced marriage) by Moses'
soldiers.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ironweed" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There's No Design Item #3 |
02 Oct 2006 08:24:31 PM |
|
|
"Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:jmWTg.25114$8s6.7305@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
Good question. Why did this all loving god create 12,000 diseases that
punish and kill mankind?
Not only THAT but look at the poor design of woman's reproductive tract.
Many women DIE giving birth, especially in 3rd nations. Many die of
childbed fever and rips and tears in the birth canal. Sometimes the uterus
ruptures. Some die from tubal pregnancies. Some get life destroying tears
into the bladder and bowel. If some god designed this system he did a
horrible job. But the fundies will find some warped reason to blame it all
on poor old Eve.
--
IW.........
Examples of FINE SPIRITUAL FOOD AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME FROM "THE SLAVE":
"We need not here repeat the evidences that the 'seventh trump' began its
sounding in A.D. 1840, and will continue until the end of the time of
trouble" {WT Nov 1880 p1}; "masturbation is no mere innocent pastime but
rather a practice that can lead to homosexual acts" {WT May 15 1970 p315;
also WT Oct 1 1970 p604}; "If heaven were made the receptacle of the
heathen, savages, barbarians, the idiotic, simple, insane and INFANTS, it
would cease to be heaven to a considerable extent, and become a pandemonium
.. billions of ignorant, imbecile and degraded .. never formed characters
[not] fit companions for saints" {WT Oct 15 1896 p245} Fine JW Wisdom!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There's No Design Item #3 |
02 Oct 2006 04:53:41 PM |
|
|
Bill M wrote:
Good question. Why did this all loving god create 12,000 diseases that
punish and kill mankind?
That's an easy one: 1,000 for each of the tribes of Israel. You're
going to have to do better than that to stump me, Bill!
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vance Liscomb" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There's No Design Item #3 |
30 Sep 2006 09:17:09 AM |
|
|
In article <1159616215.533227.159600@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Budikka666
says...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060923105230.htm
reports that: "In only a few generations, the male cricket on Kauai,
one of the Hawaiian Islands, underwent a mutation -- a sudden heritable
change in its genetic material -- that rendered it incapable of using
song, its sexual signal, to attract female crickets, according to a new
study by UC Riverside evolutionary biologists.
"In addition, the researchers found that although the new male
crickets' wings lack the file and scraper apparatus required for
producing sound, the males are able to mate successfully with females,
thus ensuring evolutionary success. They accomplish this by simply
altering their behavior in an ingenious manner, suggesting that
behavior can help what may seem like a harmful mutation spread."
The mutated males altered their behavior by congregating around male crickets
that had not yet mutated. What do you suppose will happen when all the male
crickets become mutated and are thus unable to attract the females?
This thread could quite equally have been titled "evolution in action"
or something along those lines, but for those who claim there was some
sort of intelligent design behind nature, it's a real poser.
A harmful mutation that may eventually be the demise of a species is not exactly
evolution in action.
They would have us believe that the god of the Bible deliberately
created crickets with the rather inelegant (some would argue
fingernails-on-a-chalkboard-annoying) design whereby they have to
scrape their wings to lure mates. This is divine design?
But it gets worse:"The mutation occurred, the researchers conclude, to
protect male crickets from a deadly parasitic fly (Ormia ochracea) that
uses the cricket song to locate crickets as hosts. Upon finding a male
cricket, the fly deposits larvae onto it; these then burrow into the
cricket, develop inside, and subsequently kill the cricket when they
emerge from its body."
So, if this continues then all the unmutated crickets will eventually die and
then there will be no more male crickets capable of attracting female crickets =
no more reproduction = extinction of a species.
To clarify this for pedantic morons (Pastor Dave comes immediately to
mind), the mutation most certainly did *not* occur "...to protect male
crickets from a deadly parasitic fly...". The mutation occurred and
*coincidentally* protected the males from the parasite.
Then either the article is wrong and you are right or you are wrong and the
article is right. If the article is wrong then it does not need clarification -
it needs to be corrected. If the article is right then you are just projecting
your opinion.
In short, it's strong evidence that evolution is happenstance rather
than deliberate design. Unless you want to try to make the case that
this is the deliberate design of a perfect, loving deity who saw that
his creative work was good. I'd be very interested in hearing
supported argument along *those* lines.
But the very existence of parasites all proves there is no such
designer.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Stahl" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There's No Design Item #3 |
30 Sep 2006 01:37:37 PM |
|
|
"Vance Liscomb" <Vance_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:eflu950rm4@drn.newsguy.com...
In article <1159616215.533227.159600@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Budikka666
says...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060923105230.htm
reports that: "In only a few generations, the male cricket on Kauai,
one of the Hawaiian Islands, underwent a mutation -- a sudden heritable
change in its genetic material -- that rendered it incapable of using
song, its sexual signal, to attract female crickets, according to a new
study by UC Riverside evolutionary biologists.
"In addition, the researchers found that although the new male
crickets' wings lack the file and scraper apparatus required for
producing sound, the males are able to mate successfully with females,
thus ensuring evolutionary success. They accomplish this by simply
altering their behavior in an ingenious manner, suggesting that
behavior can help what may seem like a harmful mutation spread."
The mutated males altered their behavior by congregating around male
crickets
that had not yet mutated. What do you suppose will happen when all the
male
crickets become mutated and are thus unable to attract the females?
That may or may not happen, but presumably another trait will be selected
for.
This thread could quite equally have been titled "evolution in action"
or something along those lines, but for those who claim there was some
sort of intelligent design behind nature, it's a real poser.
A harmful mutation that may eventually be the demise of a species is not
exactly
evolution in action.
Wrong. First of all, the mutation is not "harmful"; in this context it is
clearly beneficial. Secondly, the extinction of species that have not
adapted to their environment is definitely evolution in action. Apparently,
you don't know what evolution is.
They would have us believe that the god of the Bible deliberately
created crickets with the rather inelegant (some would argue
fingernails-on-a-chalkboard-annoying) design whereby they have to
scrape their wings to lure mates. This is divine design?
But it gets worse:"The mutation occurred, the researchers conclude, to
protect male crickets from a deadly parasitic fly (Ormia ochracea) that
uses the cricket song to locate crickets as hosts. Upon finding a male
cricket, the fly deposits larvae onto it; these then burrow into the
cricket, develop inside, and subsequently kill the cricket when they
emerge from its body."
So, if this continues then all the unmutated crickets will eventually die
and
then there will be no more male crickets capable of attracting female
crickets =
no more reproduction = extinction of a species.
Possibly. That would be evolution.
More likely another trait will be selected for, though, such as the females
finding the partners some other way. Maybe by smell, who knows? Eventually
these crickets may become so different from the 'scraping-type' crickets
that they cannot breed with them any longer, and yet another new species
will be created.
Or the parasite infection will subside and the crickets that are capable of
making the sound will pass their genes along more effectively and there will
be scraping-crickets again (though descended from a particular few, and,
thus, different from before). Or many other things, all of which are
examples of evolution in action.
To clarify this for pedantic morons (Pastor Dave comes immediately to
mind), the mutation most certainly did *not* occur "...to protect male
crickets from a deadly parasitic fly...". The mutation occurred and
*coincidentally* protected the males from the parasite.
Then either the article is wrong and you are right or you are wrong and
the
article is right. If the article is wrong then it does not need
clarification -
it needs to be corrected. If the article is right then you are just
projecting
your opinion.
The article needs slight clarification. The reason the mutation became
widespread is that it protects from the parasites (which is actually what is
stated in the paper). This is just a matter of common usage; the author of
the piece assumes that the readers understand evolution, which is apparently
too generous for some people.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There's No Design Item #3 |
30 Sep 2006 10:42:09 AM |
|
|
Vance Liscomb wrote:
In article <1159616215.533227.159600@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Budikka666
says...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060923105230.htm
reports that: "In only a few generations, the male cricket on Kauai,
one of the Hawaiian Islands, underwent a mutation -- a sudden heritable
change in its genetic material -- that rendered it incapable of using
song, its sexual signal, to attract female crickets, according to a new
study by UC Riverside evolutionary biologists.
"In addition, the researchers found that although the new male
crickets' wings lack the file and scraper apparatus required for
producing sound, the males are able to mate successfully with females,
thus ensuring evolutionary success. They accomplish this by simply
altering their behavior in an ingenious manner, suggesting that
behavior can help what may seem like a harmful mutation spread."
The mutated males altered their behavior by congregating around male crickets
that had not yet mutated. What do you suppose will happen when all the male
crickets become mutated and are thus unable to attract the females?
We'll have to see, won't we? It's "evolution in action", not
"evolution completed".
This thread could quite equally have been titled "evolution in action"
or something along those lines, but for those who claim there was some
sort of intelligent design behind nature, it's a real poser.
A harmful mutation that may eventually be the demise of a species is not exactly
evolution in action.
When you actually *understand* what evolution is, then we can discuss
it.
They would have us believe that the god of the Bible deliberately
created crickets with the rather inelegant (some would argue
fingernails-on-a-chalkboard-annoying) design whereby they have to
scrape their wings to lure mates. This is divine design?
But it gets worse:"The mutation occurred, the researchers conclude, to
protect male crickets from a deadly parasitic fly (Ormia ochracea) that
uses the cricket song to locate crickets as hosts. Upon finding a male
cricket, the fly deposits larvae onto it; these then burrow into the
cricket, develop inside, and subsequently kill the cricket when they
emerge from its body."
So, if this continues then all the unmutated crickets will eventually die and
then there will be no more male crickets capable of attracting female crickets =
no more reproduction = extinction of a species.
That's definitely a possibility. But since it's "evolution in action"
we won't know for some time, and unless the crickets in Hawaii are
actually a distinct species, it won't be extinction since other members
of the species elsewhere will survive.
To clarify this for pedantic morons (Pastor Dave comes immediately to
mind), the mutation most certainly did *not* occur "...to protect male
crickets from a deadly parasitic fly...". The mutation occurred and
*coincidentally* protected the males from the parasite.
Then either the article is wrong and you are right or you are wrong and the
article is right.
The article is using journalese. Don't confuse that with the language
of a science paper.
If the article is wrong then it does not need clarification -
it needs to be corrected.
I *did* correct the article, right here.
If the article is right then you are just projecting
your opinion.
Well you'd be the expert there, wouldn't you, since that's *all* you're
doing here.
If you want to argue that I'm lying or misrepresenting, you're going to
have to do better than that; however, you've already proven yourself
quite incapable of doing so at your present level of education on this
topic.
In short, it's strong evidence that evolution is happenstance rather
than deliberate design. Unless you want to try to make the case that
this is the deliberate design of a perfect, loving deity who saw that
his creative work was good. I'd be very interested in hearing
supported argument along *those* lines.
But the very existence of parasites all proves there is no such
designer.
Budikka
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vance Liscomb" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There's No Design Item #3 |
30 Sep 2006 01:21:33 PM |
|
|
In article <1159630929.550721.288100@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Budikka666
says...
Vance Liscomb wrote:
In article <1159616215.533227.159600@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Budikka666
says...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060923105230.htm
reports that: "In only a few generations, the male cricket on Kauai,
one of the Hawaiian Islands, underwent a mutation -- a sudden heritable
change in its genetic material -- that rendered it incapable of using
song, its sexual signal, to attract female crickets, according to a new
study by UC Riverside evolutionary biologists.
"In addition, the researchers found that although the new male
crickets' wings lack the file and scraper apparatus required for
producing sound, the males are able to mate successfully with females,
thus ensuring evolutionary success. They accomplish this by simply
altering their behavior in an ingenious manner, suggesting that
behavior can help what may seem like a harmful mutation spread."
The mutated males altered their behavior by congregating around male crickets
that had not yet mutated. What do you suppose will happen when all the male
crickets become mutated and are thus unable to attract the females?
We'll have to see, won't we? It's "evolution in action", not
"evolution completed".
This thread could quite equally have been titled "evolution in action"
or something along those lines, but for those who claim there was some
sort of intelligent design behind nature, it's a real poser.
A harmful mutation that may eventually be the demise of a species is not exactly
evolution in action.
When you actually *understand* what evolution is, then we can discuss
it.
They would have us believe that the god of the Bible deliberately
created crickets with the rather inelegant (some would argue
fingernails-on-a-chalkboard-annoying) design whereby they have to
scrape their wings to lure mates. This is divine design?
But it gets worse:"The mutation occurred, the researchers conclude, to
protect male crickets from a deadly parasitic fly (Ormia ochracea) that
uses the cricket song to locate crickets as hosts. Upon finding a male
cricket, the fly deposits larvae onto it; these then burrow into the
cricket, develop inside, and subsequently kill the cricket when they
emerge from its body."
So, if this continues then all the unmutated crickets will eventually die and
then there will be no more male crickets capable of attracting female crickets =
no more reproduction = extinction of a species.
That's definitely a possibility. But since it's "evolution in action"
we won't know for some time, and unless the crickets in Hawaii are
actually a distinct species, it won't be extinction since other members
of the species elsewhere will survive.
To clarify this for pedantic morons (Pastor Dave comes immediately to
mind), the mutation most certainly did *not* occur "...to protect male
crickets from a deadly parasitic fly...". The mutation occurred and
*coincidentally* protected the males from the parasite.
Then either the article is wrong and you are right or you are wrong and the
article is right.
The article is using journalese. Don't confuse that with the language
of a science paper.
If the article is wrong then it does not need clarification -
it needs to be corrected.
I *did* correct the article, right here.
If the article is right then you are just projecting
your opinion.
Well you'd be the expert there, wouldn't you, since that's *all* you're
doing here.
If you want to argue that I'm lying or misrepresenting, you're going to
have to do better than that; however, you've already proven yourself
quite incapable of doing so at your present level of education on this
topic.
I'm not arguing or calling you a liar. I was just pointing out some
inconsistencies in the article. In fact I'm agreeing with your subject header.
There is no design in mutations.
In short, it's strong evidence that evolution is happenstance rather
than deliberate design. Unless you want to try to make the case that
this is the deliberate design of a perfect, loving deity who saw that
his creative work was good. I'd be very interested in hearing
supported argument along *those* lines.
But the very existence of parasites all proves there is no such
designer.
Budikka
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There's No Design Item #3 |
30 Sep 2006 09:14:06 PM |
|
|
Vance Liscomb wrote:
In article <1159616215.533227.159600@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Budikka666
says...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060923105230.htm
reports that: "In only a few generations, the male cricket on Kauai,
one of the Hawaiian Islands, underwent a mutation -- a sudden heritable
change in its genetic material -- that rendered it incapable of using
song, its sexual signal, to attract female crickets, according to a new
study by UC Riverside evolutionary biologists.
"In addition, the researchers found that although the new male
crickets' wings lack the file and scraper apparatus required for
producing sound, the males are able to mate successfully with females,
thus ensuring evolutionary success. They accomplish this by simply
altering their behavior in an ingenious manner, suggesting that
behavior can help what may seem like a harmful mutation spread."
The mutated males altered their behavior by congregating around male crickets
that had not yet mutated. What do you suppose will happen when all the male
crickets become mutated and are thus unable to attract the females?
This thread could quite equally have been titled "evolution in action"
or something along those lines, but for those who claim there was some
sort of intelligent design behind nature, it's a real poser.
A harmful mutation that may eventually be the demise of a species is not exactly
evolution in action.
Sure it is. Mutations are chance-driven. The adaptation to the
change by the organisms is what drives evolution. In this case, the
situation requires that they adapt or die out. No different conceptually
than habitat destruction. The mutation incurred both a selection
advantage (increased survival) and a disadvantage (less attractive to
mates). They have to work with both.
They would have us believe that the god of the Bible deliberately
created crickets with the rather inelegant (some would argue
fingernails-on-a-chalkboard-annoying) design whereby they have to
scrape their wings to lure mates. This is divine design?
But it gets worse:"The mutation occurred, the researchers conclude, to
protect male crickets from a deadly parasitic fly (Ormia ochracea) that
uses the cricket song to locate crickets as hosts. Upon finding a male
cricket, the fly deposits larvae onto it; these then burrow into the
cricket, develop inside, and subsequently kill the cricket when they
emerge from its body."
So, if this continues then all the unmutated crickets will eventually die and
then there will be no more male crickets capable of attracting female crickets =
no more reproduction = extinction of a species.
To clarify this for pedantic morons (Pastor Dave comes immediately to
mind), the mutation most certainly did *not* occur "...to protect male
crickets from a deadly parasitic fly...". The mutation occurred and
*coincidentally* protected the males from the parasite.
Then either the article is wrong and you are right or you are wrong and the
article is right. If the article is wrong then it does not need clarification -
it needs to be corrected. If the article is right then you are just projecting
your opinion.
In short, it's strong evidence that evolution is happenstance rather
than deliberate design. Unless you want to try to make the case that
this is the deliberate design of a perfect, loving deity who saw that
his creative work was good. I'd be very interested in hearing
supported argument along *those* lines.
But the very existence of parasites all proves there is no such
designer.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
