Thursday, December 6, 2012

Biomimetics: Learning From Biology

You Won’t Believe These Designs

What happens when engineers look at biology? Unlike evolutionists, they see designs for all kinds of useful applications. “Biomimicry,” explains one article, “is an incredibly productive technique.”

There are the butterflies whose colorful wings arise from fine scales and ridges creating optical interference, a technology used in low-power video displays. And there is the mosquito's proboscis—its needle that we can barely feel because it is highly serrated. Now we have serrated hypodermic needles that are much less painful.

Termites build mounds that have incredible temperature control. They maintain 87 degrees with a system of vents, drawing air from the ground, which the termites open and close as needed. Now architects are using the same principles for better building designs.

The lotus plant is self-cleaning. Water rolls off its waxy leaves due to its tiny bumps which leave no room for droplets to accumulate. Dirt is picked up by the water rather than sticking to the leaf, a design now used in self-cleaning materials including windows and high-voltage power equipment.

Humpback whales have bumps on their flippers which would seem to create more drag but they actually work better, with a third less drag than smooth versions. Now you can see bumps on turbine and fan blades that are 20 percent more efficient.

The list goes on and on. The skin of sea cucumbers, which can rapidly stiffen, inspired a plastic that can switch from a stiff to a pliable state in seconds. The odd shape of the boxfish is surprisingly efficient and inspired a new automobile design. Rodents self-sharpening teeth inspired a new blade design that is self-sharpening. The amazing gecko feet, which provide strong adhesion via the weakest of forces (the van der Waals forces) inspired the Ghecko Tape and Geckskin, which can hold up 700 pound objects.

Biomimicry works not only because nature is chocked full of incredibly effective and efficient designs, but because so many of these designs are clever and non intuitive. We never would have thought of these designs. The sheer creativity evident in biology is far more striking than its incredible high functionality. Meanwhile evolutionists still can’t figure out why their theory keeps failing.

91 comments:

  1. Gee. Nature has had over 600 million years and trillions of individuals to work out 'trial and error' optimization of solutions to the physics problems animals face.

    Humans have had a few hundred years.

    Humans haven't yet discovered all the subtle solutions nature has, therefore everything in nature was created by GAWD!

    Meanwhile, Creationist propagandists can’t figure out why their lame attempts to discredit science keep failing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Umm evolutionism isn't science. And taht is why it is easy to discredit.

      Delete
    2. Says the man who never had a paper published in a scientific journal.

      Delete
    3. Chubby Joe G

      Umm evolutionism isn't science


      Evolutionism:

      In modern times, the term evolution is widely used, but the terms evolutionism and evolutionist are seldom used in the scientific community to refer to the biological discipline as the term is considered both redundant and anachronistic, though it has been used by creationists in discussing the creation-evolution controversy.

      The Institute for Creation Research, in order to treat evolution as a category of religions, including atheism, fascism, humanism and occultism, commonly uses the words evolutionism and evolutionist to describe the consensus of mainstream science and the scientists subscribing to it, thus implying through language that the issue is a matter of religious belief. The basis of this argument is to establish that the creation-evolution controversy is essentially one of interpretation of evidence, without any overwhelming proof (beyond current scientific theories) on either side.

      The BioLogos Foundation, an organization that promotes the idea of theistic evolution, uses the term "evolutionism" to describe "the atheistic worldview that so often accompanies the acceptance of biological evolution in public discourse." It views this as a subset of scientism.


      Yep, the term "evolutionism" as used by the lying Creationists doesn't refer to science.

      Delete
    4. Jeffrey Shallit:
      Says the man who never had a paper published in a scientific journal.

      Says the man who never passes a donut shop.

      Whatever Jeffrey- and unfortunately there isn't anything in peer-reviewed journals that support blind and undirected processes constructing new systems.

      Delete
    5. thorton, evolutionism is the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.

      And there isn't any way to test that. So shut up already you ignorant equivocator.

      Delete
    6. Chubby Joe G

      thorton, evolutionism is the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.


      That's pretty funny Chubs. That paragraph comes from your own blog as a definition of evolution, not "evolutionism"

      You can't keep your lies straight even when they come from your own crappy blog!

      Delete
    7. LoL! I know where it came from. And I know that every time I say "evolutionism" THAT ais what I am referring to. That is what all of us who use that are referring to. I have made that very clear for many years so don't blame me for your willful ignorance.

      I told you to get that syphillis taken care of and you didn't. Now it is obvious that whatever you had for a brain, is gone.

      Delete
  2. Thorton:

    Evolutionists use arguments from bad design to assert that life had no designer. "God wouldn't do it that way" the argument runs. But if bad design implies no designer, why doesn't really, really good design mean there was a designer?

    And if evolution doesn't require really, really good designs, just good enough designs, how did these really, really good designs evolve?

    ReplyDelete
  3. natschuster

    Evolutionists use arguments from bad design to assert that life had no designer. "God wouldn't do it that way" the argument runs. But if bad design implies no designer, why doesn't really, really good design mean there was a designer?


    Bad design doesn't imply no designer. Bad design implies if there was a designer he was a bumbling incompetent klutz, not an omnipotent God.

    Is your God a bumbling incompetent klutz nat?

    And if evolution doesn't require really, really good designs, just good enough designs, how did these really, really good designs evolve?

    Please provide your evidence that these "designs" are really really good and not just good enough.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thorton,

      Bad design doesn't imply no designer. Bad design implies if there was a designer he was a bumbling incompetent klutz, not an omnipotent God.

      Not necessarily.Bad design could be choice of the designer for his inscrutable reasons, or bad design could be the result of a bet the designer had with another designer, like "Trading Places".

      Delete
    2. Or a bad design can be the result of blind and undirected processes- ie Darwinism degenerating the once very good design.

      Delete
    3. velikovskys

      Not necessarily.Bad design could be choice of the designer for his inscrutable reasons, or bad design could be the result of a bet the designer had with another designer, like "Trading Places".


      True, the Designer could also be a sadistic hateful monster who like to see pain and suffering, like the parasitic wasps whose larvae eat other insects from the inside out.

      I was just giving Nat's Big Guy the benefit of the doubt.

      Delete
    4. Joe,
      Or a bad design can be the result of blind and undirected processes- ie Darwinism degenerating the once very good design

      Good design ,logically, have some error correction. If the goal was to maintain the design in the face of outside forces

      Delete
    5. Joe,

      Or since you believe the designer created nature, simply create nature in a way that one's designs didn't degrade. Problem solved

      Delete
    6. Nice strawman. Did you make it all by yourself?

      But anyway-

      In a universe designed for (scientific) discovery, that type of universe would be adverse to ceratin classes of discoveries.

      Delete
    7. Joe,
      Nice strawman. Did you make it all by yourself

      How so,Joe? The designer had no choice in creating the laws of nature,or the designer is incapable of creating non degradable designs or the designer doesn't refresh his designs like human designer?

      In a universe designed for (scientific) discovery, that type of universe would be adverse to ceratin classes of discoveries

      Now that is interesting, is one of those classes, non scientific discoveries?

      Delete
    8. vel- no one knows if one can simply create nature in a way that one's designs didn't degrade- don't know if it would be simple and don't know if it is possible.

      Now that is interesting, is one of those classes, non scientific discoveries?

      Could be, but that ain't whay I was referring to.

      I was referring to discoveries made due to a degrading universe.

      Delete
    9. Hey vel- when any of you clowns can design better organisms, have at it.

      Delete
    10. Chubby Joe G

      Hey vel- when any of you clowns can design better organisms, have at it.


      Hey Chubs, why do so many people need to have their wisdom teeth removed?

      Was having them in there a good design? Or are humans just "degraded" from the original design?

      Delete
    11. dancing queen:
      why do so many people need to have their wisdom teeth removed?

      I don't know. Why?

      Was having them in there a good design?

      Better than you could ever do.

      Or are humans just "degraded" from the original design?

      Most likely

      Delete
    12. Chubby Joe G

      T: why do so many people need to have their wisdom teeth removed?

      CJG: I don't know. Why?


      Because they're vestigial remnants of a time when distant human ancestors had much larger, stronger jaws, and when they erupt they can cause grave damage to ones other teeth.

      T: Was having them in there a good design?

      CJG: Better than you could ever do.


      If they're such a good design why do they cause nothing but problems?

      T: Or are humans just "degraded" from the original design?

      CJG: Most likely


      What are humans degraded from Joe? I thought we were all created as is in your GAWD's image. Over what time frame did this degradation take place?

      Delete
    13. dancing queen:
      Because they're vestigial remnants of a time when distant human ancestors had much larger, stronger jaws, and when they erupt they can cause grave damage to ones other teeth.

      Or they were/ are replacements for teeth that rot out and due to better dental hygiene and degradation of the human jaw, some people have issues with them now.

      If they're such a good design why do they cause nothing but problems?

      They don't. There is no evidence that all wisdom teeth cause problems.

      What are humans degraded from Joe?

      The original humans, duh.

      Do you think that just because you can ask ignorant questions that it refutes what i say? Really?

      Delete
    14. Chubby Joe G

      T: What are humans degraded from Joe?

      CJG: The original humans, duh.


      So Chubs thinks the original humans looked like this:

      australopithecus

      Is that what your God looks like Chubs? The original humans were made in His image, right?

      Delete
    15. LoL! How we can we test that claim, dancing queen?

      How many mutations did it take to go from that to us? Can't say, ain't science- gotta be able to measure it and you can't so you loser.

      You are the ultimate loser's loser.

      Delete
  4. Natschuster, good point. It's another example of where evolutionists want to be on all sides of an argument. But, even their arguments from bad design are clueless and shallow and invariably turn out to be completely wrong. They do not possess a single argument for bad design that has stood the test of analysis.

    Furthermore, when evolutionists site billions or hundreds of millions of years for evolution to work its wonders, they are inaccurate. The incredible designs do not follow from a long line of incremental improvements. That's why we see incredible complexity even within the fossil record of the earliest fossils. The Trilobite, for example and the complexity of its eye.

    Furthermore, it's not like the mosquito's proboscis, for example, has been getting better over the last billion or half a billion years. Mosquito's haven't even been around that long (even using evolutionists timelines).

    So, evolutionists say that solutions are optimized over hundreds of millions of years by evolution, but then turn around and say that ToE has no expectation that optimization should happen.

    ReplyDelete
  5. How do you define bad design? Maybe the bad designs are good enough. They still work.

    I guess you could define good design as the opposite of bad design, once you've defined bad design.

    or we can try a different definition. Good enough means the organism will still survive and function without it. The bumps on a humpback whale's flippers aren't necessary for survival. We know that because other whales don't have them. So how did they evolve, if they weren't necessary? Bumps are a really, really good design because they help a whale fucntion better. And most flowers don't have a self cleaning surface, so how did that evolve? A normal surface is good enough. And other lizards don't have a gecko's feet, so it isn't necessary.

    Or we can define a really. really good design as something an engineer would like to copy because it functions so much better than other, good enough designs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You didn't answer the question nat.

      Is your God a bumbling incompetent klutz?

      Please provide your evidence that these "designs" are really really good and not just good enough.

      Delete
    2. Omnipotence and Perfection include the ability to be imperfect. God can choose to be less than perfect.


      And I don't recall you defining bad design. As soon as you do, I will just take the opposite and call that really good design.

      Or maybe, I'll save you the trouble. A bad design is something that an engineer would day is a bad design. A good design is a design that an engineer would say is a good design.

      I already said that a really, really, good design could be something that isn't necessary for survival so it isn't likely to have evolved, like the bumps on a humpback's fins. A humpback doesn't need them. They just make his life easier. A lotus doesn't need a self cleaning surface.

      Or else really, really good design something that an engineer would say is a good design, like the bumps on a humback's fins.

      Delete
    3. Nat,
      Omnipotence and Perfection include the ability to be imperfect. God can choose to be less than perfect.

      I don't about that, God's nature is perfection, God cannot be less than His nature, just as God can't chose to lie

      Delete
    4. Why can't God choose to be less than his nature? Omnipotence and perfection mean He can do anything. Anything includes doing less than perfect stuff.

      Delete
    5. I don't think that is standard theology,it is His Nature. He Is Perfection. Omnipotence is the ability to do anything logically possible. God can't logically go against His nature, He is the embodiment of it

      Delete
    6. Function and efficiency within nature can't be looked at one dimensionally or with a narrow focus. As an example, squirrels bury a lot more nuts and acorns than they need. Many nuts are not retrieved, so it seems to be inefficient. However, this behavior is very good for the ecosystem because the unretrieved nuts and acrons sprouting in the spring grow into trees and provide for the long range needs of the whole system.

      Delete
    7. Now maybe there is wiggle room if God wished to perfectly create an imperfect thing, though that seems like lawyer talk

      Delete
    8. Maybe God isn't bound by logic. Didn't Godel prove even logic isn't bound by logic?

      Delete
    9. Neal,
      >Many nuts are not retrieved, so it seems to be inefficient. However, this behavior is very good for the ecosystem because the unretrieved nuts and acrons sprouting in the spring grow into trees and provide for the long range needs of the whole system

      As opposed to if the squirrels retrieved none,there would be even more trees.

      Any thought on whether God can be less than perfect in His actions?

      Delete
    10. Nat,
      Maybe God isn't bound by logic. Didn't Godel prove even logic isn't bound by logic?

      Not sure about Godel, but lthe standard example is God cannot create a rock too heavy for Him to lift. Omnipotence has logical parameters. And if you allow God the ability to violate His nature,you undermine the whole rationale of objective good

      Delete
    11. My understanding is that Godel demonstrated that in any system of logic something can be shown to be true and not true at the same time. And doesn't Quantum mechanics hold that a particle is both a wave and a particle at the same time? Logic and the physical world contain contradictions. Why should God be bound by logic to be consistent when logic and physics aren't consistent. I always of a Transcendent God as transcending logic as well.

      Delete
    12. natschuster

      I already said that a really, really, good design could be something that isn't necessary for survival so it isn't likely to have evolved, like the bumps on a humpback's fins. A humpback doesn't need them. They just make his life easier. A lotus doesn't need a self cleaning surface.


      Then demonstrate it, don't just assert it.

      Demonstrate that a humpback with no bumps on its fins has the identical survival/reproduction chances as one with bumps.

      Delete
    13. LoL! dancing queen's position can't demonstrate anything and he demands it of natschuster...

      Delete
    14. Thorton:

      Other whales survive just fine without bumps. Other flowers don't have self cleaning surfaces. Other lizards don't have feet like the Gecko. o all thesethings aren't necessary.

      Delete
    15. natschuster

      Other whales survive just fine without bumps. Other flowers don't have self cleaning surfaces.


      Those animals are all in different populations with different environmental pressures. You need to show that animals in the same species and same population competing for the same resources will have no disadvantage if they lose those special features.

      If you can't demonstrate that, then you need to shut up about it.

      Delete
    16. Don't all the baleen whales live in the same oceans? Don't other lizards besides geckos live in trees and eat insects? Don't other flowers grow in the same environment as lotus?

      And I'm still waiting for a definition of bad design.

      Delete
    17. Vel, the squirrels bury the nuts and acorns as food storage for the winter, so they need some to survive, particularly during hard winters. So, there is a balance in nature here between using some for food storage, yet leaving others to replant the forest. Wouldn't you agree that it works out rather nicely?

      What this demonstrates is that narrow measures of efficiency will often miss the big picture when evaluating design. How does the design impact the ecosystem? What about design criteria that has to take into account animal development from conception to maturity? Design criteria that is based on contingency issues. These are things that can be analyzed scientifically. But there can be other things.

      Furthermore, design criteria can be influenced by artistic values also. Shakespeare and Lincoln's Gettysburg Address can be made more grammar and word count efficient by running them through Microsoft grammer checker, but their value is more than checking on word count and getting them to read like a USA Today newspaper.

      Delete
    18. natschuster

      Don't all the baleen whales live in the same oceans?


      No

      Don't other lizards besides geckos live in trees and eat insects?

      No. Not the same trees and not the same insects.

      Don't other flowers grow in the same environment as lotus?

      No. Not the same environment.

      Nice to see you're still as ignorant and as willing to troll as ever. Honest you're not but at least you're consistent.

      And I'm still waiting for a definition of bad design.

      A supposedly 'new' design that retains vestigial features which cost energy, don't help reproductive fitness one iota, and in worst case scenarios can kill you. Things like impacted wisdom teeth.

      Delete
    19. Natchuster, what is your definition of logic?

      Delete
    20. Neal,

      Furthermore, design criteria can be influenced by artistic values also. Shakespeare and Lincoln's Gettysburg Address can be made more grammar and word count efficient by running them through Microsoft grammer checker, but their value is more than checking on word count and getting them to read like a USA Today newspaper.

      True, design emcompasses many criteria. What was the Intelligent Designer's goal and how do you know it?

      Delete
    21. Thorton:

      Don't humpback whales and right whales live in the Atlantic?

      And what other trees do other lizards live in? And what other insects? And why does a gecko need different feet?

      Delete
    22. Neal:

      I'm confused because evolutionists seem to want to have it both ways. Bad design is proof that God that there was no designer, but really good design is not proof that there was.

      Delete
    23. Thorton's approach is to say that there is no really good design.

      Delete
    24. And aren't there other water plants like the lily, that live in the same environment as the lotus?

      Delete
    25. natschuster

      Don't humpback whales and right whales live in the Atlantic?


      Sorry idiot, but if you're going to claim a particular feature in a population adds no survival advantage you need to test the members of that specific population with and without the feature under identical conditions.

      You can't do it, so you need to shut up about it.

      Bad design is proof that God that there was no designer

      I've already corrected you on this lie once. Please stop the lying for Jesus. It's ugly.

      I notice you have nothing to say about my definition of 'bad design'. Do you think wisdom teeth in humans was a 'good design'?

      Delete
    26. RE: Wisdom Teeth

      According to this:

      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/003042209190457N

      impacted wisdom teeth is the result of modern diet. It's physiological, not evolutionary.

      And, if impacted wisdom teeth are the result of evolution, why hasn't natural selection eliminated people who get impacted wisdom teeth from the gene pool? I'm just wondering.

      Delete
    27. According to this:

      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/003042209190457N

      impacted wisdom teeth is the result of modern diet. It's physiological, not evolutionary.


      The article doesn't say that at all you liar. It say the timing of the eruption of the teeth (earlier rather than later) can be affected by diet.

      Don't you ever get tired of lying for Jesus?

      And, if impacted wisdom teeth are the result of evolution, why hasn't natural selection eliminated people who get impacted wisdom teeth from the gene pool? I'm just wondering.

      It's been trying. How many lives do you think have been prolonged due to modern dentistry than can fix the problems and allow people to continue eating?

      You still haven't told me if you think wisdom teeth is a good design. Why the stalling?

      Delete
    28. How about this?

      http://www.naturalnews.com/029224_wisdom_teeth_nutrition.html

      Why didn't the impacted wisdom teeth gene become extinct before modern dentistry could save all those people? How come it didn't become extinct in populations that don't have modern dentistry?

      And maybe it isn't designed. It might be a mutation that occured after humans were created. Or it may be due to poor diet.

      Delete
    29. And the article you had problems with does say that the earlier eruption inrural Kenyan youth is due to more Trigone space. Isn't the lack of trigone space what cause impaction in the first place. More trigone space, less impaction.

      Delete
    30. And maybe impaction of wisdom teeth was brought into the world as a result of original sin, like all death and disease. I don't really know, I'm not a theologian.

      Delete
    31. Thorton:

      "natschuster

      Don't humpback whales and right whales live in the Atlantic?

      Sorry idiot, but if you're going to claim a particular feature in a population adds no survival advantage you need to test the members of that specific population with and without the feature under identical conditions.

      You can't do it, so you need to shut up about it."


      "Bad design is proof that God that there was no designer

      I've already corrected you on this lie once. Please stop the lying for Jesus. It's ugly."

      But the conclusion that evolutionist always come to is that there was no designer.


      Delete
    32. I have all my wisdom teeth and have never had any problems with them. For me, they work great and have only been a blessing. In fact, I have never had a problem with any of my teeth. So, the problem is not universal. From my point of view, people tend to have too many cavities in general. Somewhere along the line a good portion of the human population inherited a genetic problem with being able to maintain a strong set of choppers. Rather than blowing off wisdom teeth as vestigal nonsense, lets research the genetics behind those that have great teeth and maybe that can be applied to helping everyone maintain good dental health.

      The vestigal appendix nonsense was another falsehood promoted by evolutionists. Now, the trend is the treat and save the appendix if possible because it does serve useful purposes.

      Does everyone see the trend here...

      It is not the way evolutionists have pointed - towards viewing life as simple, junky, and cobbled together misfits.

      It is towards biomimicry - improving human designs by copying nature.

      It is not the way of evolutionists to surgically remove so called vestigal organs.

      It is towards saving the organs if possible and repairing the genes. Not useless, but in need of repair.

      It is towards discovery of function in the genome rather than blowing 90% of the it off as JUNK.

      Delete
  6. CH,

    Unlike evolutionists, they(engineers)see designs for all kinds of useful applications. “Biomimicry,” explains one article, “is an incredibly productive

    Since everyone that accepts evolution is an "evolutionist"( per you) ,and many engineers accept evolution, this statement is false.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Tedford

    That's why we see incredible complexity even within the fossil record of the earliest fossils. The Trilobite, for example and the complexity of its eye.


    The earliest know single celled fossils date to 3.4 billion years ago.

    The earliest known multi-celled fossils date to over 600 million years ago, with trace fossil evidence of multi-celluarity extending back to almost 2 billion years ago.

    The earliest know trilobite fossils date to 521 million years ago.

    You'd think these idiot Creationists would do at least a tiny bit of fact-checking before vomiting out their nonsense. But no.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thorton:

    The earliest know single celled fossils date to 3.4 billion years ago.

    The earliest known multi-celled fossils date to over 600 million years ago, with trace fossil evidence of multi-celluarity extending back to almost 2 billion years ago.

    The earliest know trilobite fossils date to 521 million years ago.


    Where do you come up with this stuff, Thorton?

    Stromatolites are known from around 2 bya. But stromatolites are very suspect. There's very good evidence that we're dealing simply with some type of chemical reaction, and that the structures we see have nothing to do with organic life.

    And trilobites are right there in the Cambrian, which is dated to around 545 mya.

    So, I suggest you look this stuff up and state things as they exist; i.e., as highly dubious. IOW, it's "possible" that life began around 2 bya., etc.... And, trilobites are found "possibly" as late as 521 mya. . .



    Now, let's just concede your numbers so that we can look at your reasoning.

    It takes "life" (RV+NS) 2.8 billion years to go from "uni"-cellular to "multi"-cellular, but it only took 80 MILLION years to go from simple "multicelluarity" to the trilobite eye.

    Is this supposed to make any kind of sense at all? 2.8 billion years for something rather simple, but only 1/35th of that amount of time to come up with something extraordinarily complex? Only Darwinists can swallow that one!

    Likewise, where are the intermediate forms leading up to the trilobite? You know, gradualism. You know, all those forms that Darwin fully expected to be around. Where are they?

    You strain gnats, and swallow Pakicetae.










    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PaV Lino

      So, I suggest you look this stuff up and state things as they exist


      I did PaV. Why didn't you?

      The Fossil Record of Cyanobacteria
      Schopf
      Ecology of Cyanobacteria II
      2012, pp 15-36

      "Fossil evidence of cyanobacteria, represented in the geological record by microbially laminated stromatolites, cyanobacterial and cyanobacterium-like microscopic fossils, and carbon isotopic data consistent with the presence of Rubisco-mediated CO2-fixation, extends back to ∼3,500 million years ago."

      Tracing the trilobite tree from the root to the tips: A model marriage of fossils and phylogeny
      Liebermana, Karimb
      Arthropod Structure & Development
      Volume 39, Issues 2–3, March–May 2010, Pages 111–123

      "The oldest trilobites are found in Lower Cambrian rocks roughly
      525–530 million years old."

      Is this supposed to make any kind of sense at all? 2.8 billion years for something rather simple, but only 1/35th of that amount of time to come up with something extraordinarily complex? Only Darwinists can swallow that one!

      Some poor ignoramus has never heard of exponential functions or exponential growth I see.

      Likewise, where are the intermediate forms leading up to the trilobite? You know, gradualism. You know, all those forms that Darwin fully expected to be around. Where are they?

      Why they're right here PaV

      The origin and evolution of arthropods
      Budd, Telford
      Nature 457, 812-817 (12 February 2009)

      "The past two decades have witnessed profound changes in our understanding of the evolution of arthropods. Many of these insights derive from the adoption of molecular methods by systematists and developmental biologists, prompting a radical reordering of the relationships among extant arthropod classes and their closest non-arthropod relatives, and shedding light on the developmental basis for the origins of key characteristics. A complementary source of data is the discovery of fossils from several spectacular Cambrian faunas. These fossils form well-characterized groupings, making the broad pattern of Cambrian arthropod systematics increasingly consensual."

      Like I said, all the info is in the primary scientific literature, the last place you IDiots ever look.

      Delete
    2. Thorton:

      As to stromatolites, here's what a recent review said:

      Stromatolites and wrinkle structures are often taken to be an important indicator for early life. While both may be shaped by microbial mat growth, this can be open to doubt, so that the contribution of abiotic processes in their construction always needs to be established (Grotzinger & Knoll, 1999). We here report laboratory spray deposition experiments that can generate stromatolites and wrinkle structures in the absence of microbes.

      [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1472-4669.2007.00141.x/abstract]

      As to trilobite age:

      You include a quote that shows trilobites present in the fossil record at 530 mya. At wikipedia, the most ancient forms are somewhere between "540 and 521" mya.

      As to trilobite "evolution", wikipedia has this to say:

      "Early trilobites show all of the features of the trilobite group as a whole; there do not seem to be any transitional or ancestral forms showing or combining the features of trilobites with other groups (e.g. early arthropods)."

      Where's the intermediates?

      And then this:

      Lino:Is this supposed to make any kind of sense at all? 2.8 billion years for something rather simple, but only 1/35th of that amount of time to come up with something extraordinarily complex? Only Darwinists can swallow that one!

      Thorton:

      Some poor ignoramus has never heard of exponential functions or exponential growth I see.

      Possibly the most idiotic retort in the entire history of the blogosphere.

      Stromatolites are related to cyanobacteria, and last I looked, bacteria experience exponential growth.

      You strain gnats, and swallow Pakicetae.

      Delete
    3. PaV Lino

      As to stromatolites, here's what a recent review said:


      There's no date or age listed for the samples. PaV FAIL

      As to trilobite "evolution", wikipedia has this to say:

      BWAHAHAHAHA!! "Wikipedia" vs. the published primary scientific literature. Hmmmm...who to trust? Bigger PaV FAIL

      Where's the intermediates?

      They're outlined in the Nature article I linked to. Not my problem you're too lazy to read. Even bigger PaV FAIL

      Possibly the most idiotic retort in the entire history of the blogosphere.

      It doesn't top the stupidity of "80 million years isn't enough time for a lineage to evolve eyes". HUGE PaV FAIL

      Stromatolites are related to cyanobacteria, and last I looked, bacteria experience exponential growth.

      What does that have to do with evolving eyes in 80 million years? BIGGEST MOST IDIOTIC PAV FAIL OF ALL

      You may be even more stupid now than the last time you bumbled through.

      Delete
    4. Oh, and another thing PaV. You use Wiki as you source

      As to trilobite "evolution", wikipedia has this to say:

      "Early trilobites show all of the features of the trilobite group as a whole; there do not seem to be any transitional or ancestral forms showing or combining the features of trilobites with other groups (e.g. early arthropods)."


      Why did you cut out this part?

      However, it is still reasonable to assume that the trilobites share a common ancestor with other arthropods prior to the Ediacaran-Cambrian boundary. Evidence suggests significant diversification had already occurred prior to the preservation of trilobites in the fossil record, easily allowing for the "sudden" appearance of diverse trilobite groups with complex, derived characteristics (e.g. eyes).

      So you're not only more stupid than you were before, you're also more dishonest.

      Delete
    5. LoL! It is NOT reasonable to assume that trilobites share a common ancestor with other arthropods- there isn't any way to test the claim- it ain't scientific.

      Delete
    6. Thorton:

      Lino:
      As to stromatolites, here's what a recent review said:

      There's no date or age listed for the samples. PaV FAIL


      But, Thorton, I thought you "read" primary literature. If you looked through the paper--whose citation is given--you would see that they said the biogenic origin of any fossil over 1 billion years or older is suspect.

      Why don't you bother to read?

      However, it is still reasonable to assume that the trilobites share a common ancestor with other arthropods prior to the Ediacaran-Cambrian boundary. Evidence suggests significant diversification had already occurred prior to the preservation of trilobites in the fossil record, easily allowing for the "sudden" appearance of diverse trilobite groups with complex, derived characteristics (e.g. eyes).

      Fudge words that simply amount to another Darwinian "just-so" story. Darwinists just can't help themselves.


      I've come to the conclusion (for about the third time), Thorton, that you're not smart enough to see how stupid you sound.

      Henceforth, I will no longer respond to your nonsense unless absolutely needed. Have a good life.

      Delete
    7. PaV Lino

      But, Thorton, I thought you "read" primary literature. If you looked through the paper--whose citation is given--you would see that they said the biogenic origin of any fossil over 1 billion years or older is suspect.


      You're a liar PaV. Go ahead and post the paper, bold the whole quote with surrounding context that says that.

      Henceforth, I will no longer respond to your nonsense unless absolutely needed. Have a good life.

      Another ignorant Creationist caught in his bluffing and lies, runs crying for the door.

      Delete
    8. Two recent studies:

      (1) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/paper_lays_to067271.html

      Here we find out that "Veranimicula", the proposed "bilaterian" ancestor of the Cambrian fossils is, in fact, a hoax.

      and

      (2) http://phys.org/news/2012-12-limbs-tree-life-ancient-australian.html

      Over here we find that the Ediacaran fossils very likely were all 'land-based', further proof that there is no ancestral relationship between the Ediacaran and the Cambrian.

      I wonder if our "true believer" will amend his views?

      Nah, that's not possible.

      Delete
  9. PaV Lino

    Where do you come up with this stuff, Thorton?


    The primary scientific literature. The last place you IDiots would ever think to look.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, Thorton. IDists don't "selectively" look through 'primary scientific literature.'

      Delete
    2. PaV Lino

      No, Thorton. IDists don't "selectively" look through 'primary scientific literature.'


      I Know PaV. IDiots don't look through the primary scientific literature AT ALL.

      That's why they stay IDiots.

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

      Delete
  10. We never would have thought of these designs.

    Intelligence would never have thought of it?

    ReplyDelete
  11. 'I don't think that is standard theology,it is His Nature. He Is Perfection. Omnipotence is the ability to do anything logically possible. God can't logically go against His nature, He is the embodiment of it.'

    velikovsky, why are you predicating the Judaeo-Christian God as the only true god?

    And why must you adhere so religiously to standard Judaeo-Christian theology?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Paul,
      velikovsky, why are you predicating the Judaeo-Christian God as the only true god?

      Because that is the God that Nat believes in and was referring to. I believe I couched it in terms of standard theology,not the Truth

      And why must you adhere so religiously to standard Judaeo-Christian theology?

      I don't ,but that doesn't mean I don't know the reasoning behind it

      Delete
  12. Also, the Judaeo-Christian God can do some things that are not logically possible. Indeed, he has devolved this power to us in some regards.

    I'm thinking of the ability to decide the course of some kind of subatomic particle (perhaps a photon - bornagain77 describes the experiment) anachronistically.

    Besides which, as one might expect from the increasing opacity of modern physics, with its endless proliferation of paradoxes, the closer one comes to a consideration of the triune nature of the Most holy Trinity, the more our faith/understanding meets with absolute paradoxes (is there any other kind?). Or, as we are not ashamed to call them: 'mysteries'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Paul,

      Also, the Judaeo-Christian God can do some things that are not logically possible

      Interesting, some? if so why not all?

      . Indeed, he has devolved this power to us in some regards.

      Would you mind expanding this a bit?

      I'm thinking of the ability to decide the course of some kind of subatomic particle (perhaps a photon - bornagain77 describes the experiment) anachronistically

      An eternal being is outside time.


      understanding meets with absolute paradoxes (is there any other kind?). Or, as we are not ashamed to call them: 'mysteries'

      There is a difference between a mystery and logical impossibilty, though there may be some overlap.

      Delete
  13. Paul, what do you mean "not logically possible"?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Well, Neal, I know we can't have two mountains without a valley in between, but to the best of my understanding there are two kinds: 'oxymorons' and potential oxymorons, which however happen to be true, i.e. paradoxes, mysteries beyond the capacity of our analytical intelligence to understand, but nevertheless, not just reall, but invariably partaking of deeper truths. Niels Bohr seems to been tickled to bits by it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. But I brought that up as part of the quote from velikovsky.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @ velikovsky

    ''He Is Perfection''

    I would like to see you substantiate that claim with a bible verse

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Paul,


      I would like to see you substantiate that claim with a bible verse


      Catholic theologians moved far past biblical verse for justification,
      God is described as " that than which nothing greater can be conceived",
      which would emcompass perfection. Omnipotent, omniscient ,omnibenevolent are all standard adjectives applied to God. Do you disagree?

      Delete
    2. @ velikovsky

      "God is described as " ... ... are all standard adjectives applied to God.''

      The attributes of God are described in the bible.

      So, give me a bibleverse that supports the claim ''He is perfection''


      And by the way, before Adam sinned, all nature was perfect.







      Delete
    3. 112234455
      The attributes of God are described in the bible

      For instance? Is it possible that God is an imperfect Being? Not the ultimate but just really really good?

      Delete
    4. No, you are right. The God of the Bible is perfect. Matthew 5:48 "You therefore must be perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect."

      It's pretty clear that none of us measure up to God's standards and therefore truly do need a Savior!

      "She will bear a son and you shall call his name Jesus for he will save his people from their sins."

      Merry Christmas!

      Delete
    5. Thanks Jim for the verse info, funny how does a Perfect Creator ends up with such an imperfect creation. Even God might have a bad case of the Mondays

      Delete
  17. ''Catholic theologians moved far past biblical verse for justification,''


    Out of a biblical point of view, catholiscism should be considered as a heresy


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Except to Catholics who believe all others are heresy. Go figure.

      Delete
    2. Dear 0812681:

      Let's examine your logic.

      The Bible exists only because the Catholic Church preserved it.

      According to the Bible preserved by Catholics, Catholicism should be considered a heresy.

      So the source of the Bible is heretical, as can be seen by the Bible itself.

      These are nonsensical conclusions.

      Delete