Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
How Religion Drives Science and Why it Matters
Cornelius Hunter
Blog Archive
-
▼
2011
(148)
-
▼
August
(7)
- A Journalist Gets it Right
- The Indonesian Mimic Octopus
- Octopus Swims Like a Flounder
- Incredible Examples of Camouflage: Octopus Perfect...
- Peacefulness, in a Grown Man, That is Not a Good Sign
- The Cod’s Unlikely Immune System and Evolutionary ...
- Of and About TEs: How Evolutionists Interpret Tran...
-
▼
August
(7)
Cornelius hunter said...
ReplyDeleteMore random mutations at work (no, selection doesn't help, it just kills off the failed designs).
Ah, you mean the failed 'designs' with mutations for less mimicry ability that didn't get to reproduce, against the 'designs' with mutations for more mimicry ability that did reproduce, allowing the mimicry ability genes to accumulate.
Glad to see you finally acceping evolution.
When you remove the 'failed designs', what does that then leave you with, Mr Hunter?
ReplyDeleteWouldn't mimicry fall under microevolution anyway? It is still an octopus.
ReplyDeleteNow if you have one that looks like a rusty beer can, that might be hard to explain.
ReplyDeleteActually these two comments go hand in hand. No real need for further comment.
ReplyDeleteRitchie:
"When you remove the 'failed designs', what does that then leave you with, Mr Hunter?"
Velikovskys:
"Wouldn't mimicry fall under microevolution anyway? It is still an octopus."
Eocene -
ReplyDeleteApparently you're seeing something I'm not. Do you think the two quoted posts answer each other? Contradict each other? Cancel out each other?
Ritchie:
ReplyDelete"Eocene -
Apparently you're seeing something I'm not. Do you think the two quoted posts answer each other? Contradict each other? Cancel out each other?"
====
Why don't you answer Velikovskys question and we'll further find out ??? *wink*
Eocene -
ReplyDeleteUmmm, very well if you think it would help:
Velikovsky: I wouldn't say so. There are many species of octopus, only some of which have mimicry and camouflage abilities.
Eocene: Happy now? Where do we go from here? What exactly did that have to do with MY question to Cornelius?
*wink*
Interpretation for the Cabal of Critics: Here Dr. Hunter is saying, "Mutation and Natural Selection realistically do not have enough power, time or space to create this amazing creature." Or "Here is another example of purposeful design by an intelligent agent".
ReplyDeleteRed -
ReplyDeleteThanks, but Cornelius is SHOWING neither. If that is indeed what he is getting at (and honestly I'm quite sure it is), then he needs to come up with something more tangible than merely appealing to our incredulity.
Thank you Red, that's what I thought the post was about. My timing was just off.
ReplyDeleteRed:
Here Dr. Hunter is saying, "Mutation and Natural Selection realistically do not have enough power, time or space to create this amazing creature."
"Wouldn't mimicry fall under microevolution anyway? It is still an octopus."
Red:
Or "Here is another example of purposeful design by an intelligent agent".
Now if you have one that looks like a rusty beer can, that might be hard to explain.
That indeed has the appearance of design.
Eocene -
ReplyDeleteUmmm, very well if you think it would help:
Velikovsky: I wouldn't say so. There are many species of octopus, only some of which have mimicry and camouflage abilities.
Eocene: Happy now? Where do we go from here? What exactly did that have to do with MY question to Cornelius?
*wink*
====
Well Ritchie, it's just an Octopus no matter how different this particualr one is from others. You, me, Cornelius, and the others of both sides have no clue as to how this particular creature came about with it's unique camouflage and strategies. I guess that is what speculation and assumptions with a little bias thyrown in for spice is all about.
Eocene -
ReplyDelete"Well Ritchie, it's just an Octopus no matter how different this particualr one is from others."
Eocene, the term 'octopus' encompases an entire order, made up of about 300 species. Other Orders include 'rodent' and 'primate'. Yet someone speaking about a 'rodent' could be referring to anything from a squirrel to a beaver to a porcupine.
"You, me, Cornelius, and the others of both sides have no clue as to how this particular creature came about with it's unique camouflage and strategies."
No clue? That'll come as a shock to geneticists.
"I guess that is what speculation and assumptions with a little bias thyrown in for spice is all about."
The difference is the Creationists/ID-ers have nothing BUT assumptions, speculation and religious bias.
The scientists make the assumption that miracles DON'T happen, and then everything else that follows has to be checked, tested and verified, which frankly makes for a productive and reliable mechanism.
Ritchie:
ReplyDelete"No clue? That'll come as a shock to geneticists."
====
Ah yes I forgot, Geneticist have the uncanny ability to read tea leaves the same way Paleontologists and anthorpologists can channel the dead spirirts of fossils and create a fantastic fable. Keep pimping and spinning Ritchie, the Lurkers are out there watching if you know what's healthy for you.
----
Ritchie:
"Eocene, the term 'octopus' encompases an entire order, made up of about 300 species. Other Orders include 'rodent' and 'primate'. Yet someone speaking about a 'rodent' could be referring to anything from a squirrel to a beaver to a porcupine."
====
Go for it Ritchie, tell us precisely in your own soothsaying words the mystic step by step fable of just exactly how that particular creature in question in the video acquired it's amazing abilities through luck, magic and chance without purpose or intent.
----
Ritchie:
"The difference is the Creationists/ID-ers have nothing BUT assumptions, speculation and religious bias."
====
You left out the third failed componant "Evolutionists" with that lot. All three are presently running neck and neck in the "Piled Higher & Deeper" (Phd)Derby and no matter who wins, the world of mankind and nature still loses.
----
Ritchie:
"The scientists make the assumption that miracles DON'T happen, and then everything else that follows has to be checked, tested and verified, which frankly makes for a productive and reliable mechanism."
====
Except in the REAL WORLD that is not how it actually works. Lying, cheating, stealing, fudging the truth, embellishing, exagerating, personal attacks, insults, etc, etc, etc is how science gets thing done today Ritchie. Never actually watched that secular video documentary "Home" did you ???
Eocene -
ReplyDelete"Ah yes I forgot, Geneticist have the uncanny ability to read tea leaves the same way Paleontologists and anthorpologists can channel the dead spirirts of fossils and create a fantastic fable."
These fields are all valuable areas of study and powerful sources of information. That you choose to mock them just because you have absolutely no understanding of them whatsoever and they yield results which you don't like says far more about you than it does about them.
"Go for it Ritchie, tell us precisely in your own soothsaying words the mystic step by step fable of just exactly how that particular creature in question in the video acquired it's amazing abilities through luck, magic and chance without purpose or intent."
I don't know. I'm not a marine biologist. Why don't you try asking one of them?
"You left out the third failed componant "Evolutionists" with that lot."
'Evolutionists' do not belong in with that lot. Evolution is neither religion nor religious mandate. It is fact - it has been directly observed. Its processes and mechanisms have been identified and studied. Comparing it to Creationism is like comparing germ theory with the idea that illness is caused through demonic possession. One is science. The other is not.
"Except in the REAL WORLD that is not how it actually works. Lying, cheating, stealing, fudging the truth, embellishing, exagerating, personal attacks, insults, etc, etc, etc is how science gets thing done today Ritchie. Never actually watched that secular video documentary "Home" did you ???"
Your concerns are justified - the planet is in deep and critical ecological trouble. But you simply have the wrong villain! To put the entire blame of the state of the planet onto the backs of scientists is absolutely idiotic.
The planet is in peril because we as a species are overpopulated and still growing, and we are vastly overconsuming our resources. The solution, put simply, is for everyone to consume less - less oil, less power, less meat, and above all to keep families small.
Science is a tool, and you cannot blame the tool-maker when people misuse a tool. If there was a spree of stabbings in a city somewhere, would you say it is solely the fault of the knife manufacturers?
The theory of evolution, like any scientific theory, simply seeks to explain what IS. It seeks to explain how life develops. It can no more be shown to be FACTUALLY INCORRECT just because we face biological peril than the theory of planetary motion could be shown to be FACTUALLY INCORRECT if we faced dangers from space.
Your position is a complete muddled heap of nonsense: "We face ecological danger, so find someone to blame! The scientists! They'll do. They're EEEEEEEVIL and all their theories are LIES (except the ones I'm happy to accept)!!!!"