Tuesday, July 3, 2012

Smallest Fly Discovered: Practically Invisible Yet it Has Wings, Eyes and Complete Organ Systems. And One More Thing …

Scientists and engineers building miniaturized airborne vehicles might want to look to nature for their next breakthrough. At 0.40 mm Euryplatea nanaknihali is a technological wonder that dwarfs even the closest man-made competition.

But if this marvel has you doubting the validity of that old story of random mutations, and other lucky events, creating the birds and the bees (and everything else for that matter), then think again.

The newly discovered micro fly is yet another proof of evolution for it is a vicious parasite. It lays its eggs in the heads of ants which the larvae will consume from the inside. Eventually the ant dies and its head falls off. It is indeed, as Tennyson put it, a world “red in tooth and claw.” Surely it must have evolved. As Darwin explained to a friend in 1860:

I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the [parasitic wasp] with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or the cat should play with mice.

This is the power of evolutionary thought. We have no idea how the world could have arisen spontaneously, but it must have.

33 comments:

  1. Wow! I'm speechless. Darwin was such a deep thinker.

    ReplyDelete
  2. As Darwin explained to a friend in 1860...

    And the friend replied,

    "If it turns out that there is a God, I don't think that he's evil. But the worst that you can say about him is that basically he's an underachiever."

    ReplyDelete
  3. Perhaps the ant's "antcestors" disobeyed the designer. Or it might be the result of the Designer's experiment with a shrink ray. Or he had leftovers from creating full size flys.Or the designer might be a fan of slapstick comedy,after all,he created the banana peel. Headless ants,hilarious.

    That is what is great about design, it is only limited by one's imagination.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The gods too are fond of a joke.

      --- Aristotle

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. That's the only thing about Creationism that makes me a bit jealous.

      While we in the scientific community are constrained by empirical reality, Creationists have free reign to make up their stories as they go

      Delete
    4. That is what is great about design, it is only limited by one's imagination.

      velikovskys, you're neither funny nor clever. The only limits that are acceptable are the ones that the designers set for themselves at the time of the design and these are evident in the designed organisms that can be observed.

      When we observed an ant, we don't need to speculate that the designers wanted to design a bicycle instead. We leave brain-dead speculations to brain-dead evolutionists.

      Delete
    5. Thorn:

      While we in the scientific community are constrained by empirical reality, Creationists have free reign to make up their stories as they go

      Personally, I like the made up stories of how cows evolved into whales better. And they did it just because evolutionists claim that they did it. The science is intense. LOL.

      Delete
    6. Louis Savain July 4, 2012 10:32 AM

      [...]

      When we observed an ant, we don't need to speculate that the designers wanted to design a bicycle instead. We leave brain-dead speculations to brain-dead evolutionists.


      Hey, that makes things so much easier, doesn't it?

      Miniscule fly lays its eggs in an ant's head where the eat it from the inside out? Fascinating example of design!

      A 13-year-old child dies from progeria - accelerated aging syndrome? The designer must have had his or her reasons.

      Around 50% of concepta abort spontaneously, often before the woman is even aware she is pregnant? The system was designed that way. Nothing to see here, folks, just move along.

      You know, it's just mind-boggling to imagine the state of human advancement if everybody had that attitude.

      Delete
    7. What is your point, Spedding?

      Delete
    8. "neither funny nor clever"

      Pearls before swine.

      "the only limits are the one's that the Designer's set for themselves at the time of design and these are evident( in the designs"

      So each scenario is equally possible according to your definition? Or are you privy to the designers intent? Just curious ,when did these designs take place,ballpark guesstimate?

      Delete
    9. Or are you privy to the designers intent?

      Well, since I posit intelligent design, it's obvious to me that they intended to design the organisms that do exist or are revealed in the fossil record. Maybe, there are other worlds where the lifeforms are completely different. So what?

      Just curious ,when did these designs take place,ballpark guesstimate?

      As far as we can ascertain, they took place over hundreds of millions of years. What's your point?

      Delete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This is the power of theistic thought. We have no idea how the world could have been created from nothing, but it must have been.

    ...so forget about it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You forgot selection again, Cornelius.

    Why do IDists always forget selection?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because they are always committing the Fallacy of Selective Attention?

      Delete
    2. I think it's merely because their tiny closed Fundy minds can't hold more than one concept at a time.

      Delete
    3. You are assuming that it is unintentional .

      Delete
  7. If I had to select between a Mercedes in my driveway and a rust bucket, I'd select the Mercedes. The question is, how did it get in the drive-way for me to select it? Selection is trivial.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Selection is not "trivial", for the simple reason that it is cumulative.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think it's merely because their tiny closed Fundy minds can't hold more than one concept at a time.

    Kind of like when I asked for an example of azimuth computation in human audition that was deselected in favor of cross-correlation. As for the so so sophisticated evolutionary "landscape", I'm waiting for its mapping out in the analog computational domain for azimuth, with that correctly located peak, you know the one that makes all the undergraduates go gaga at all the brilliance. You know, Dawkins and all that.

    Or perhaps cross-correlation is one concept too many for thornton to hold in mind? How long we have to wait for an answer?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gee, Mr. "LOOK AT ME I'M A SMART SMART ENGINEER!!!" crawled out from under his rock for his weekly cowardly drive-by.

      You still own us a couple of dozen answers from all the questions you cowardly ran from Mr Genius Engineer. Why don't you start by giving us your Design explanation for the spatial and temporal patterns of fossils in the fossil record.

      The door's that way. I'm sure you'll be running for it again.

      Delete
    2. Now is anyone surprised by taunting vituperative response? The last thread by CH I try to joke a little, weak or not, and the guy comes back with the "moron" epithet. Imagine that in response to a joke! Gives a window into a state of mind from someone who is checking these threads every ten minutes. I'm hoping philosophy students are watching, this kind of behavior doesn't come from people debating science, it comes out of people who have a psychological stake in being right in their personal choice of worldview and psycho-spiritual state. And that worldview is being demolished right here, hence the irrational spewing of the extreme verbiage and the constant monitoring of the threads by this type.

      Then we have the mock anti-intellectual "LOOK AT ME I'M A SMART SMART ENGINEER!!!" which does nothing. Here is a guy who tried to expose me as a phony when I referred to my academic background, lost that gamble and now in response to a challenge from me, comes the amazingly school-boyish ...crawled out from under his rock for his weekly cowardly drive-by

      In other words these kind of people are really hurting. And all about a failing world-view.

      Now I would address the gentle thornton: No door in view sir, I'm not a paleontologist so I have nothing to say about fossils. And fossils have nothing to say about the intricacies of human audition I might add. Sir, is a discussion of the azimuth computation landscape one that is beyond your conceptualization ?

      Delete
    3. MSEE

      (snip the usual sanctimonious self-aggrandizing)


      As expected, when asked to discuss the actual scientific data Mr. Self-Proclaimed Genius Engineer runs for the door.

      What a surprise.

      See you in a week when you crawl out from the rock again to feed that bloated ego.

      Delete
  10. (snip the usual sanctimonious self-aggrandizing)

    As expected, when asked to discuss the actual scientific data Mr. Self-Proclaimed Genius Engineer runs for the door.

    What a surprise.

    See you in a week when you crawl out from the rock again to feed that bloated ego.


    Hey am I correct in saying you are a 47 year old male, give or take a year or so? I mean I'm not guessing based on your behavior obviously, but you first came on to this blog a few years ago, and your associates knew you were doing it, and you thought you were going to come on to here and really blow us away and show us how stupid we are. Then you would be a hero in the eyes of all your young associates. Didn't quite work out now did it? Otherwise you wouldn't be checking this blog every ten minutes; you're coming across as desperate and obviously obsessed and I'm glad it's out in the open for everyone to see, especially the young folks.

    Now here's the deal, for you and your friends. I can't debate you in the terms of your specialization. But the problem for you is that your fantastic extrapolation SAYS that anything I bring up in the functional realm came into being as a result of RMNS. So that means that based on why you started your obsession with this blog, you can accept any challenge I throw at you and answer in good ole Darwinian terms, and then be successful in your goal of showing up the stupid folks. BUT YOU CAN'T TAKE UP ANY OF MY CHALLENGES! And the latest one is this stupendous neural computational model I've been discussing, you cannot propose a fitness landscape for it, so you lose. In front of your friends.

    Your inevitable vituperative and insulting response will be a welcome additional exhibit to my point. So come at me, have at it, go crazy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MSEE

      (snip still more sophomoric bleating)


      Keep running for the door MSEE. Keep telling yourself how you're such a genius and single-handedly crumbled the whole scientific community's world view.

      BTW, you might want to stop using the thesaurus Mommy and Daddy gave you for your graduation present. In your childish attempts to sound more 'adult' you come across as a clueless college boy faux intellectual wannabe.

      Delete
    2. Oh, and by the way MSEE, go read a biology or science textbook. Your 'one trick pony' routine is making you look like a real fool.

      So you studied one teeny weeny thing in engineering school - aural processing - that has a teeny weeny connection to evolutionary theory. BIG WHUP. Now you demand that science explain every last mutational step and every last selection pressure in the evolution of hearing or else...what? All of evolutionary theory crumbles and ID takes its place because MSEE's childish demands aren't met? Grow up.

      You IDiots bray and bleat but you can't even begin to describe a testable hypothesis for ID, let alone provide any specifics such as a mechanism or a timeline.

      You want to be an adult and do science? Then act like an adult and provide positive evidence to support your claims. Or go sit in the back with the rest of the ignorant Creationists.

      Delete
    3. @Thorton:
      Go read a philosophy book, and you'll see your stupid scientism/naturalism is self-defeated from a long time ago.

      Delete
    4. juan ara

      @Thorton:
      Go read a philosophy book, and you'll see your stupid scientism/naturalism is self-defeated from a long time ago


      Let me know when your philosophizing can develop a new vaccine, or find the underlying cause of a genetic disease, or explain the fossil and genetic matching phylogenetic trees.

      Delete
  11. Oh, and by the way MSEE, go read a biology or science textbook. Your 'one trick pony' routine is making you look like a real fool.

    Well I stay away for more than half a day but you know how it is with a train wreck, it's hard not to look. But it seems our 47 year old came back within 15 minutes of my last visit; full crises mode here, this is no longer about science it seems obvious. Independence Day apparently didn't slow him down a bit. I do appreciate the apparent passing grade on my compositional style, but the part about the thesaurus he got wrong as I haven't been employing any sophisticated wording or anything. I will bring up though, that the 'contributor' needed to mention a 'one trick pony' without admitting that he can't discuss it or even give the pony a name. But boy, our 47 year old can really come up with some insulting humdingers. Eye-popping really.


    Yes, what we have is a guy in full defense of a personal world view which is being threatened. Its like an animal cornered, but it is the ego cornered, and all of the ego's psychological weaponry, mainly materialism, Darwinism included, is being undermined here on CH's blog, hence the appearance of a train wreck, or crackup if you will.

    Now I have some advice for thornton. You can take spirit-opening advantage of the mental confusion. Obtain a supply of psilocybe cubensis. The strains being cultivated in your region are right at about 1g/25kg body weight dosage in their effectiveness. Now don't be tempted to hang with your materialist friends doing this, but go into the woods at night alone, dose, crawl into a sleeping bag and let her rip. It is best to keep sensory input to a minimum, but at first it might help to build a fire as a sensory focal point, later sessions, not so much.

    I recommend you do the above at least 40 times. It will be admittedly painful for you to watch your mind through this, as it dawns on you that you have been defending what you consider 'yourself' for 47 years. But you will will at many times laugh at it all, maybe interspersed with ritual vomiting. And one of the biggest laughs will be the realization that you thought science has to have the last word on what does and does not exist. And has the answers to all "underlying cause(s)"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MSEE,

      Wow, advocating the repeated use of a illegal hallucinogen as a means to "see" the truth of ID. That might cause a surge in popularity of study of ID.

      Delete
    2. MSEE

      I will bring up though, that the 'contributor' needed to mention a 'one trick pony' without admitting that he can't discuss it or even give the pony a name.


      I see our immature little boy engineer got tired of flogging his one trick pony and decided to flat out lie to save time.

      Let's see what I "won't give a name":

      T: "So you studied one teeny weeny thing in engineering school - aural processing - that has a teeny weeny connection to evolutionary theory."

      T: "Now you demand that science explain every last mutational step and every last selection pressure in the evolution of hearing or else...what?"

      Creationists always resort to lies when their nonsense is exposed. it never fails.

      Delete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete