Do you think the Bible is 'real'?

[Tiger Lily]

ow, you're elbowing me!

A book for those interested in the Bible's "realness"...

THE BROOK KERITH

A Syrian story

By George Moore Copyright 1916​

The foreword:

A DEDICATION

My dear Mary Hunter. It appears that you wished to give me a book for Christmas, but were in doubt what book to give me as I seemed to have little taste for reading, so in your embarrassment you gave me a bible. It lies on my table now with the date 1898 on the fly-leaf - my constant companion and chief literary interest for the last eighteen years. Itself a literature, it has led me into many various literatures and into the society of scholars. I owe so much to your Bible that I cannot let pass the publication of "The Brook Kerith" without thanking you for it again.

Yours always;

George Moore​

So he went and did according unto the word of the Lord: for he went and dwelt by the brook Kerith, that is before Jordan. And the ravens brought him bread and flesh in the morning, and bread and flesh in the evening; and he drank of the brook. - 1 Kings xvii. 5,6.

Hi TL! EP

OK, back on topic then . . . and back to your post. . .

what? :confused2:



. . . .


OK back from Google now. EP you are one of the most well-read people I know. . . I don't know how many things I've had to look up because of your references. . . . thanks for the latest lesson in literary culture!! :wink2:

So then, the Bible IS real?

TL

 

[knn]

First of all: Thank you for taking your time to go through my post. Very appreciated!

Or during gestation which is most effective.

Yes, forgot that one.

HOWEVER: It's not enough that SOME CELL mutates during gestation. It must be accidentally a sex cell (germ cell) which then will be used to procreate.

Indeed. But the sheer number of transcription errors (mutations) guarantees that this will occasionally succeed. Even in your own body you have cells with variations of your own DNA.

But it must be accidentally a sex cell that will make the future offspring.

Naturally. This feels like a list filler though.

It's not. Since mutations occur by poisons and copy errors the poisons and copy errors must be strong enough to cause an effect but not strong enough to destroy sex cells or embryos.

Not necessarily. Blue eyes are for example recessive, however I have blue eyes.

Blue eyes appeared merely 6000 years ago and they ARE vanishing.

No, it just needs to be no worse at this than the current set.

OK, true, I meant "better or not worse". Thank you for pointing it out.

Say a woman starts excreting a growth hormone in her mammaries that make her offspring grow up faster and therefore gets a competitive advantage.

OK, maybe my example wasn't the best. But take any other example where a sender wouldn't make sense if there isn't also a receiver at the same time.

Again you are thinking too complete. Take small changes at a time that can give a competitive advantage. The advantage can even be completely unrelated to what we see today. Feather could for example initially have developed as a display (think peacock). Then through small incremental changes they became good enough for gliding, then for flying, then birds started maintaining their feathers, then worn or damaged feathers were replaced. It doesn't all need to happen at once.

Yeah so? Did I claim anywhere that mutations cause large changes?

The opposite is true: Because mutations (in the current theory) usually cause very minor changes the millions of years is not enough to explain the vast amount of life forms and body functions.

I think more than anything your list demonstrates that you haven't really understood how evolution works, nor understand how genetics works.

Huh? Did you actually disprove anything I wrote? Except for minor correction I don't see anything.

All I am pointing out that RANDOM mutations can not be 100% accounted for evolution. In other words: Some scientific fact is missing.

If you would claim: Large chunks of DNA are transferred (by viruses or so) from one species to another to speed up evolution THEN THIS IS A THEORY TO BE LOOKED AT. But that evolution occurs mainly by chance and by some DNA molecule change here and there doesn't stick with me.

So far the best explanation I found is by LRH: Animals DECIDE to change. Maybe the GE is actively using viruses to alter DNA.

 

[knn]

First of all, to you too: Thank you for taking your time to go through my post. Very appreciated!

The whole point is that humans didn't develop by chance. There was something directing their evolution called environmental pressures. That's why it's called natural selection.

Natural selection doesn't create new body features. It only KILLS bad ones. New body features are only created (as per current theory) by DNA changes. Only some MINOR body features are created by selection, like larger ears, different color etc. But selection (as per current theory) would not develop eyes.

Selection must have something to select from.

Radiation is not the only mechanism by which mutations occur. Sometimes, the error correction mechanisms themselves mess up and cause mutations. Mutations happen often during mitosis and meiosis, when DNA is duplicated.

Yes, I wrote that: Poisons (chemicals, radioactivity, viruses etc) and copy errors.

Yes, for many multicellular organisms, this is true. But when we're talking about the development of the cellular machinery, this happened in single-cell organisms without this requirement.

I didn't make myself clear enough maybe: I was talking about higher multi-cellular organisms (= birds, apes, dogs etc).

I didn't concentrate on bacteria etc since they have a completely different survival strategy: To multiply like mad and to mutate. It's their survival strategy to MUTATE.

What? Define compatible, please. Why would a mutation make the DNA "incompatible"? I simply don't understand this.

If the genes would be too messed up then the DNA of the sperm cell would not unite with the egg cell. Basically why ducks and goose won't get offspring.

Could you explain further?

There are letsay 1 million humans. 1 of them has a mutation. How in the world would this mutation ever change mankind if it doesn't have a SUPERIOR POSTIVE and DOMINANT effect? It will vanish after a few generations because this mutation is completely outnumbered.

See it from the other perspective: Let us call the mutated man "The original man" and let us call the others "Mutants". Who do you think will shape mankind? The 999'999 mutants of course.

Mutants have only good chances if they are separated from non-mutants.

And also, the dominant/recessive thing is only one of many ways that genes interact.

Yes, the dominant/recessive thing is not the only way how genes interact.

Bad mutations can also survive food scarcities and catastrophes if the other attributes of the organism are enough to make up for it.

Sure. But this is merely luck: Let's say two mutated one-eyed humans happened accidentally to be a fast runners. Then by freaking selection they could be the only ones who survived some catastrophe. Yes, this can happen but this is a very unlikely event and mere chance.

And (see sickle cell anemia) mutations aren't often only good or only bad.

Sickle cells are a good mutation for those in specific African regions. Let me also point out that humans (as opposed to animals) can chose their breeding partners by intellectual qualities. Thus the normal evolutionary selection does not apply 100% for humans, since you can have an attractive mind despite of repellent (anti-survival) body features. Thus you can expect mankind's gene defects to last longer than with animals.

This statement is supported by the thousands of gene defects of humans whereas animals have only few.

What if a mutation is beneficial precisely because it disrupts body functions?

I formulated it bad: Of course every mutation "disrupts" in some way or another body functions. I meant that it should not disrupt TOO MUCH the existing BENEFICIAL body functions. It should ALIGN with exiting body functions. For example if you grow stronger muscles (= good) but that would make your eyes unfocus (= bad) or make you breathe harder then it's a "good" mutation that disrupts other functions.

What if some body functions are no longer useful, but, in fact, detrimental?

Then it's a good mutation overall.

If there were some sort of selection mechanism whereby every bit that resembled DOS were kept and it was left to run for a few hundred million years, then, yes, you could see something like DOS appearing. I would call it the brain.

Your best argument.

Finally, with your cosmic rays and the sea thing: again, radiation is not the only mechanism for mutation.

Cosmic rays are considered to be the main reason ("leading cause") for evolution. And even if not main then "significant".

Unstable particles (they exist) could cause chance mutations.

Unstable particles?

A whole host of things could cause chance mutations.

Yes, they are called poisons. Everything that is a mutagen is a poison. Many copy errors are due to poisoning.

There is a whole *host* of ideas and hypotheses to explain things that Darwin couldn't that *do* fit within the general framework outlined by his ideas. The classic example is genetic drift.

Genetic drift supports my view, since minorities (= mutants) are selected away pretty fast (except if cut off from the minority).

 

[justaguy]

Must... resist... replying... must... resist... cannot...

I know! I'll stay on topic! I don't believe the bible is real. Sorry. Wish I could, but I can't.

Okay. I'm done. For real. No more talking about evolution. Really. I mean it. Fo shizzle.

Um, maybe if I keep it short.

Unstable particles include radioactive atoms that spontaneously turn into other atoms. If that happens inside DNA you can get a mutation. Some radioactive atoms have long half-lives and might feasibly end up in DNA.

The eye, in fact, is very well studied from an evolutionary standpoint. There's good theory behind its development and the evidence seems to back it up. There's a wikipedia article on it. I don't know how good it is (haven't read it) but it might be a good starting point if you're interested. Otherwise I'm sure there's others. In the interest of keeping it short I'll leave it at that.

Re: Tigerlily
I must say that after writing everything, I found a nice short blurb from wikipedia while looking for strange/funny statements of the 2nd law of thermodynamics that says all my points in a much shorter way than I did. Even used the same refrigerator example .

This is very different, however, from the claim made by many creationists that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. Evidence indicates that biological systems and evolution of those systems conform to the second law, since although biological systems may become more ordered, the net change in entropy for the entire universe is still positive as a result of evolution.

Furthermore, the second law is only true of closed systems. It is easy to decrease entropy, with an energy source. For example, a refrigerator separates warm and cold air, but only when it is plugged in. Since all biology requires an external energy source, the Sun, there's nothing unusual (thermodynamically) with it growing more complex with time.

Here lies what I wrote before I found that:
The important thing is that the earth is not a closed system*. The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that in a closed system, entropy will increase as much as it can. Morever, energy will decrease as much as it can (the concepts are directly related.) Another way of saying it (there are hundreds) is to say that energy can be converted completely to entropy, but entropy can't be completely converted to energy. Another way of saying it is that to decrease entropy energy must enter or leave the system (depending on the particulars), or in other words, the system can't be closed. Anyhoo.

This is the principle behind refrigerators (and some really nifty super low temperature cooling techniques, but that involves quantum physics and I won't go there). If you input energy into the refrigerator system by plugging it into the wall, you can transfer entropy (in the form of heat) from the inside of the refrigerator to the outside. This is a direct application of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (like I said, I'm not getting too technical. If you're interested though, I have taken thermodynamics though and can explain the nitty-gritty to you. Just give me a little bit because it's been a few years since I took it. Also, you might need to learn calculus).

While the earth as a whole doesn't work the same way (i don't think), organisms (life) do. The reason you have to eat everyday is to input energy into your body. Without this energy, your body would tend towards maximum entropy (for example, it would decompose or dissolve or something). The 2nd law of dynamics isn't violated, however, because the heat that you generate in order to keep from falling apart is transmitted to the outside environment, and thus the entropy of the air (or your blankie! ) around you increases.

I'm not familiar with all the details, but a similar argument applies for evolution. Yes, the evolution of complex structures involves a certain decrease in entropy in one sense. If the earth were a closed system, it would be difficult or impossible. However, the earth is *not* a closed system. There's a constant source of large amounts of energy being constantly inputted into the earth, called the sun.

This is where my simplifications start making me hard to believe, and my analogies start to break down, but the essence of the argument is that the sun has put in enough energy into the earth so that evolution doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics. As if evolution were a refrigerator with the sun as the wall plug. Or something.

For more information, see the field of study known as biological thermodynamics.

Also, there are several examples of seemingly irreducibly complex structures which turn out not be necessarily that way. Snake fangs are an example I've read, but I'm going to say no more because I told myself I was not going to reply again and then I told myself I was gonna keep this short and now look at me.

I would like to end my presentation with this picture of a kangaroo.


Toodles!


--------------------------------------------------------------
*A closed system is a chunk of space where no energy (or entropy) goes in (or out). As far as we know, the only closed system is the universe, but there are good approximations, like a thermos or any other thing where its hard to warm up or cool down the inside from the outside.

P.S. This board needs a snuggle smiley. Here's another kangaroo.

 

[justaguy]

Quick post separate from the one above me because that one is a monster.

Natural selection doesn't create new body features. It only KILLS bad ones. New body features are only created (as per current theory) by DNA changes. Only some MINOR body features are created by selection, like larger ears, different color etc. But selection (as per current theory) would not develop eyes.

Have you ever heard of the studies done on fruit flies where they mutate one gene and the fly that develops grows an extra body section complete with an extra set of wings? To elaborate on the eye thing slightly more than above, the idea is to start with simple photosensitive chemicals and work your way up from there through a series logical evolutionary steps. I.e. the first step is to detect light at all. The next steps involve detecting from what sort of direction the light is coming from. It's fascinating stuff if you wanna take a read.

 

[justaguy]

Quick post separate from the one above me because that one is a monster.

Have you ever heard of the studies done on fruit flies where they mutate one gene and the fly that develops grows an extra body section complete with an extra set of wings?

To elaborate on the eye thing slightly more than above, the idea is to start with simple photosensitive chemicals and work your way up from there through a series logical evolutionary steps. I.e. the first step is to detect light at all. The next steps involve detecting from what sort of direction the light is coming from. It's fascinating stuff if you wanna take a read.

And to one of your later points, population bottlenecks (wherein a population size is reduced for some reason or another), which are a subset of what's called the founder effect, play a fairly important role in evolutionary theory. The smaller the population, the more likely an individual mutation is to spread to the rest of the population. And, neatly enough, if some environmental change kills off a large portion of the population, you could be left with a small population and an allele (a mutation even) that was previously infrequent could rapidly increase in frequency, especially if it was selected for.

 

[Tiger Lily]

Justaguy you are hilarious!

Maybe evolution needs its own thread.

Good points. And it's a leap of faith anyway. At some point you have to decide to believe or not to believe. Before Scientology I was where you were. Carl Sagan was my hero. Something happened to me in Scientology -- I call it an "awakening" -- maybe it was enkephalins and endorphins released by the electrical flow from the e-meter. . .who knows. But since then I have been on a spiritual quest, for whatever that's worth; in any case, I'm different now than I was then. But of course that's my world view now so that is my bias.

But at this point, I still feel intuitively that at the very basic level -- back in the "primordial soup" that the ocean supposedly was before life on this planet. . . the energy of the sun would cause those atoms to vibrate more quickly, facilitating more disorder, not bonding and forming of new stable combinations.

The only way the energy of the sun (or any energy infused into a system, like electricity) is useful in perpetuating complexity is when the systems are already in place to convert that thermal and light energy into forms of energy that are useful in that system. . . In your refrigerator example, that works only if the refrigerator is already there. You can't simply put electricity through a pile of steel and plastic and freon and have it fortuitously form a refrigerator.

And as a side note; if one tiny system in that refrigerator breaks down . . .it no longer works. And no amount of energy pumped in the system will fix it unless you get someone who knows how a refrigerator works to come in and diagnose the problem and address that problem directly in order to repair it.

I really think that there has to be a plan in order to make something as complex as a refrigerator, let alone a virus, let alone a cell, let alone a conglomeration of cells that would produce an eye or something. . . and then to have other conglomerations that make membranes and locomotion systems, and respiratory and digestive systems, and then to put them together to synchronize perfectly into an organism where they function together . . .. and then to have a blueprint keyed into the whole thing that codes for the making of a new organism . . .,. the chemical processes are so astoundingly complex it's mind boggling.

TL

 

[Tiger Lily]

Quick post separate from the one above me because that one is a monster.

Have you ever heard of the studies done on fruit flies where they mutate one gene and the fly that develops grows an extra body section complete with an extra set of wings?

To elaborate on the eye thing slightly more than above, the idea is to start with simple photosensitive chemicals and work your way up from there through a series logical evolutionary steps. I.e. the first step is to detect light at all. The next steps involve detecting from what sort of direction the light is coming from. It's fascinating stuff if you wanna take a read.

And to one of your later points, population bottlenecks (wherein a population size is reduced for some reason or another), which are a subset of what's called the founder effect, play a fairly important role in evolutionary theory. The smaller the population, the more likely an individual mutation is to spread to the rest of the population. And, neatly enough, if some environmental change kills off a large portion of the population, you could be left with a small population and an allele (a mutation even) that was previously infrequent could rapidly increase in frequency, especially if it was selected for.

Justaguy maybe we're talking about 2 different things. I'm talking about a prime mover -- something that would have gotten the whole thing started - way back in the beginning. I totally understand that once it's going, mutations can use the information codified in the DNA to produce different combinations of such, and changes over time. I wouldn't argue that with you at all. . . in fact I studied fruit flies and mutations for 4 years in college. Fascinating stuff.

-TL

 

[knn]

Must... resist... replying... must... resist... cannot...

(star wars) Good, I can feel your urge. I am defenseless. Take your keyboard. Strike me down with all of your knowledge and your journey towards the KNN side will be complete!

Unstable particles include radioactive atoms that spontaneously turn into other atoms. If that happens inside DNA you can get a mutation. Some radioactive atoms have long half-lives and might feasibly end up in DNA.

Yes, I sub-summed this under radioactivity. Because it is.

The eye, in fact, is very well studied from an evolutionary standpoint. There's good theory behind its development and the evidence seems to back it up.

I don't doubt that eyes have evolved. I merely doubt that random mutations (by poisons/copy errors) are the driving force.

 

[knn]

Have you ever heard of the studies done on fruit flies where they mutate one gene and the fly that develops grows an extra body section complete with an extra set of wings?

Sure, if you alter some regulatory gene then something like doubling, deleting, melting, misplacing of body parts will happen. But it has to be there first to be doubled.

Moreover I completely have no doubt that messing around with single genes can cripple a body. I have yet to wait for gene alteration (in the way poisons would do it) that 1) is beneficial 2) survives combining (mating) with an unmutated animal 3) is so beneficial that non-mutants vanish.

By LRH's theory evolutionary body advancements would happen rapidly and maybe throughout the whole population in a few years only (hence no "missing links"). In other words: If it would be necessary then dogs around the world would develop, letsay, short tails and possibly without even altering the DNA, since the DNA is merely used to produce needed biochemicals. The GE itself would decide whether to use the same chemicals to grow a longer tail or a shorter tail.

To elaborate on the eye thing slightly more than above, the idea is to start with simple photosensitive chemicals and work your way up from there through a series logical evolutionary steps. I.e. the first step is to detect light at all. The next steps involve detecting from what sort of direction the light is coming from. It's fascinating stuff if you wanna take a read.

Yes, this is how animals do it per LRH. They evolve by developing new chemicals and functions.

 

[justaguy]

Now I see where both of you are coming from, it's not where most of the people who want creationism taught in the science class are coming from, and that's what always irked me the most. As an aside, I'd not heard much about Carl Sagan, but after reading a bit of what he writes Carl Sagan is my homeboy.

Re:Tigerlily
As to how life began... who knows? I'm pretty sure that's an open question. There's plenty of stuff on what happened *after* life began, but the begginings are rough stuff. It's like the big bang. Before the big bang, the laws of physics, by definition, break down. Makes it kinda hard to say what came before because before isn't defined in a scientific way, even though we can imagine it.

From my point of view, the idea that such complex chemical processes could've come about by "chance" (or, to be more precise, without a prime mover) makes them even more awesomesauce. And, this is a very personal thing and nothing to do with the science, the idea that something as beautiful as love could've evolved makes it even more beautiful to me. For a lot of people the idea that things like love are a bunch of chemical reactions cheapens it, but to me that makes it even more amazing than it already was to begin with.

Yeah, I'm weird.

As to knn, something tells me that the way you see things and the more traditional scientific perspective could be reconciled somehow (that is, what you think and what they think is somehow orthogonal), but I just woke up and that takes way more brain power then I have right now.

I wholeheartedly agree that any further discussion on evolution should go in its own thread, probably in off topic.

Edit!
I forgot to clarify where I'm really coming from. As always, my overlords are the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Xenu, his most loyal servant. May you be touched by His noodly appendage.

 

[Tiger Lily]

Now I see where both of you are coming from, it's not where most of the people who want creationism taught in the science class are coming from, and that's what always irked me the most. As an aside, I'd not heard much about Carl Sagan, but after reading a bit of what he writes Carl Sagan is my homeboy.

I still really like Sagan (pagan though he is :wink2: ) Here's a quote I had in my classroom when I taught High School Sciences. I thought it was beautiful then and I still do:

Carl Sagan in Cosmos(1980)

The size and age of the Cosmos are beyond ordinary human understanding. Lost somewhere between immensity and eternity is our tiny planetary home. In a cosmic perspective, most human concerns seem insignificant, even petty. And yet our species is young and curious and brave and shows much promise. In the last few millennia we have made the most astonishing and unexpected discoveries about the Cosmos and our place within it, explorations that are exhilarating to consider. They remind us that humans have evolved to wonder, that understanding is a joy, that knowledge is prerequisite to survival. I believe our future depends on how well we know this Cosmos in which we float like a mote of dust in the morning sky.

Re:Tigerlily
As to how life began... who knows? I'm pretty sure that's an open question. There's plenty of stuff on what happened *after* life began, but the begginings are rough stuff. It's like the big bang. Before the big bang, the laws of physics, by definition, break down. Makes it kinda hard to say what came before because before isn't defined in a scientific way, even though we can imagine it.

Yep -- you just gotta go with your gut on that one, and agree that you can't ever know for sure. It's really fun to ponder it though.

From my point of view, the idea that such complex chemical processes could've come about by "chance" (or, to be more precise, without a prime mover) makes them even more awesomesauce. And, this is a very personal thing and nothing to do with the science, the idea that something as beautiful as love could've evolved makes it even more beautiful to me. For a lot of people the idea that things like love are a bunch of chemical reactions cheapens it, but to me that makes it even more amazing than it already was to begin with.

Yeah, I'm weird.

No, you're not. Love is an incredible thing no matter how it came about!

TL

 

[justaguy]

I believe our future depends on how well we know this Cosmos in which we float like a mote of dust in the morning sky.

Ooooooooh. Puuuuurty. I luuuurvve that image.

And thanks for the sentiment about what I said. I've thought about it, and the idea that the so-called uncaring laws of nature produced something like love makes me all happy inside.

 

[Rmack]

The eye, in fact, is very well studied from an evolutionary standpoint. There's good theory behind its development and the evidence seems to back it up. There's a wikipedia article on it. I don't know how good it is (haven't read it) but it might be a good starting point if you're interested. Otherwise I'm sure there's others. In the interest of keeping it short I'll leave it at that.

I refer you to one of my posts, page 18.

Here is a quote of it;

None of the complex evolutionary theories satisfy me because none of them explain how the first cells got here.

I've listened to long elaborate explanations of how a light sensitive spot on a cell wall goes on to mutate into an eyeball. Un-credible enough already, but it doesn't address the fact that if any of this mutated information is going to be passed down, a whole elaborate very complicated miniature city of machines has to be in place. Otherwise aint no processes taking place, let alone evolution.

I just can't see how a step by step gradual development would ever work, because every system in the cell depends on every other system to do anything. The obvious conclusion is they had to all be there from the first growth.

Just look at this image of a cell.

and read this link, not too long.


http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/cell-structure.htm


Here are some highlights;


"Each microscopic cell is as functionally complex as a small city. When magnified 50,000 times through electron micrographs, we see that a cell is made up of multiple complex structures, each with a different role in the cell's operation. Using the city comparison, here's a simple chart that reveals the awesome intricacy and design of a typical cell:"


"As we delve further into the cellular world, technology is revealing black boxes within previous black boxes. As science advances, more of these black boxes are being opened, exposing an "unanticipated Lilliputian world" of enormous complexity that has pushed the theory of evolution to a breaking point. 2

Wow! That's at the cellular level. If the cell is that complex, what about the simplest organisms made up of these cellular structures? Is there really such a thing as "simple," now that we can view organisms using the latest in microbiological and biochemical technology?"





Watch this video on the bombardier beetle and explain to me how this organized bit by bit;

http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/evolutionism-video.htm


.

 

[knn]

Watch this video on the bombardier beetle and explain to me how this organized bit by bit;

http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/evolutionism-video.htm

First: You don't have to go as far as the bomb bug. Just think about our digestion. If scientists were to develop a self-regulating bio system that creates digestive juices from SALT without digesting itself they would completely fail. Add to it that the digestive juices are then re-used, excreted only when needed and that the human body usually knows what nutrient is lacking (= if you lack vitamin A you have an urge to drink milk).

There is no chance that scientists could develop a bio-system like that, but we are expected that it developed by CHANCE.

Here is a video that might interest you
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41_Ne5mS2ls
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIwu5MevZyg

HOWEVER, let me point the mistakes that are made regarding this bomb bug.

1. The scientist's conclusion is that bomb bugs could not have evolved slowly. THIS IS WRONG. It can very well be that millions of years ago the bomb bug was a stink bug and then by accident an explosive mix got developed.
2. Even if you claim that bomb bugs have evolved SUDDENLY then the possible correct conclusions are
   1. We don't know yet was causes sudden evolutionary jumps
   2. There is god OR GODS
   3. There are aliens
   4. The animal plans its own body (LRH's explanation, the body is the reactive mind of the animal).
3. Now if you conclude that there is GOD, then you can not under any circumstances deduct that the bible is correct or that ANY OTHER BOOK is correct.

 

[Rmack]

The scientist's conclusion is that bomb bugs could not have evolved slowly. THIS IS WRONG. It can very well be that millions of years ago the bomb bug was a stink bug and then by accident an explosive mix got developed.

And the asbestos like lined chambers? The valves that release the chemicals? The aiming mechanism? Which one developed first, and how did the bug survive without the other parts?

Great vids, though

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Towards a Moderation of Views

http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/god-talk/?ref=opinion


Mark A. Baker

 

[Rmack]

Those fabulous vids posted by knn believe it or not only show a larger version of even more complex and smaller machines.

Do you wonder how these globs of color move around? There is the one that has a 'scillia' or something like that. It is amazing! It's a few thousand molecule electric motor! It has a drive shaft, several bearings, armatures, a case, it even has a little spiral propeller to translate the very rapid rpm of this little engine to motive power. Astonishing!

Now, how did this ONE SINGLE cell feature develop step by step? without the drive shaft, the bearings, the armatures, not to mention the friggin' propeller, just how did that promote survival? and if it couldn't, what motivated the next little part being 'evolved'?

It seems glaringly plain that this had to have been designed. But, I'm accused of being somehow mentally deficient to not see how it just happened accidentally.

Go figure.

 

[knn]

Now, how did this ONE SINGLE cell feature develop step by step? without the drive shaft, the bearings, the armatures, not to mention the friggin' propeller, just how did that promote survival?

Not only that.

To produce the needed biochemicals (= to decode/replicate the DNA) you need to read the DNA. In other words: A hen-egg problem.

 

[knn]

And the asbestos like lined chambers? The valves that release the chemicals? The aiming mechanism? Which one developed first, and how did the bug survive without the other parts?

1. First some stink mix develops, so that bugs are eaten but the preditor notices a bad taste (= it doesn't save the bug but it saves other stink bugs, since preditors learn)
2. Then an aiming mechanism evolves.
3. The multiple-explosions are good because the stink mix disperses better that in 1 single explosion (sprinkler system)
4. Then the mix is slightly changed to be more, letsay, acidy which then causes those bugs to survive that have an additional protection to protect themselves against their own acid.
5. Then the mix is changed to cause explosions
6. Since the explosions cause the back part of the bug to suffer a bit some more protections develop.

As a general tip: If I were you I wouldn't rely too much on "single examples". Because it's just a matter of time until some other scientists shows that they indeed could have developed step by step.