Wednesday, May 6, 2015

There Comes a Time

Live By the Sword, Die By the Sword




It happened this morning at 9:13 AM, a moment I shall never forget. The historians had always told us this day would come, but it just seemed impossible. Yes spontaneous origins seems absurd, they agreed, but the inexorable march of science will find it out. It always does. Don’t get in the way of science they warned, and now they have turned out right. And we are too loyal pupils of inductive philosophy to resist any conclusion by reason of its strangeness. Newton’s patient philosophy taught him to find in the falling apple the law which governs the silent movements of the stars in their courses. And if evolutionists can with the same correctness of reasoning demonstrate Epicureanism to be true, we shall dismiss our objections, and admit, with the characteristic humility of philosophy, our failed intuition that something does not come from nothing. All this ran through my mind as I read through Cynthia Moss’s new paper on bat evolution. It all seemed so contrived, but nonetheless, there it was:
Our observations demonstrate that the evolutionary progression that gave rise to the bat wing membrane has resulted in atypical somatosensory inputs, which have been co-opted to enhance flight control.

Evolutionists finally had hard facts to back up their claims. They now had scientific observations demonstrating the evolution of components of the bat wing. In fact, these are fantastically efficient and complex sensors detecting airflow over the wing and transmitting that information along the central nervous system as part of an incredible biological flight control system. As Moss explains in the above video, “Biology has done an exquisite job in creating these animals that can maneuver so agilely.” The paper further explained that “Bats achieve remarkable agility with modified forelimbs that serve as airfoils while retaining capacity for object manipulation.” Or as the press release put it, “Bats fly with breathtaking precision because their wings are equipped with highly sensitive touch sensors, cells that respond to even slight changes in airflow.” Such biological designs could even help engineers design air vehicles that better negotiate obstacles by sensing and adjusting to air turbulence.

It seems so amazing, yet now we know it all is nothing more than the product of blind mutations. In fact Moss’s paper had many more cogent observations. For example, the paper explains that the bat’s specialized airflow sensors evolved in order “to guide motor behaviors.” Also, the paper does not simply limit itself to bat evolution, but brilliantly concludes that vertebrate nervous systems, in general, “have flexibly adapted to accommodate anatomical specializations for flight.”

Needless to say all of this left me stunned. But I quickly began to see the truth of evolution. I simply had never conceived of the idea that things like sensors evolved in order to guide motor behaviors, or that entire nervous systems evolved in order to accommodate capabilities such as flight.

But once you shed your anti science bias, evolution provides these sorts of amazing explanations. Of course nervous systems evolved. They evolved to produce flight. How could I have ever doubted such obvious truths? It just goes to show how dangerous those science deniers are.

26 comments:

  1. You really don't have any idea how intellectually bankrupt it makes one look to hand wave away solid scientific research with snarky sarcasm, do you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What exactly is it about the claim that vertebrate nervous systems “have flexibly adapted to accommodate anatomical specializations for flight,” that makes for "solid scientific research"?

      Delete
    2. What exactly is it about the claim that vertebrate nervous systems “have flexibly adapted to accommodate anatomical specializations for flight,” that makes for "solid scientific research"?

      Delete
    3. The paper that you are unprofessionally snarking over is solid scientific research. The conclusion that vertebrate nervous systems “have flexibly adapted to accommodate anatomical specializations for flight,” is drawn from both this work and from the other hundreds of scientific papers on vertebrate nervous systems, many of which are referenced in the notes.

      The paper is open source. You may want to read it first before knee-jerk dismissing it.


      Delete
    4. You may want to read it first before knee-jerk dismissing it.

      I did read it.

      The conclusion that vertebrate nervous systems “have flexibly adapted to accommodate anatomical specializations for flight,” is drawn from both this work and from the other hundreds of scientific papers on vertebrate nervous systems.

      I didn't know that. Can you tell us what sort of previous research indicates that the vertebrate nervous system evolved to accommodate something (such as anatomical specializations for flight)?

      Delete
    5. I did read it.

      If you did read the whole thing you either didn't understand it or you're deliberately misrepresenting the work. Either way doesn't cast you in a very favorable light.

      The paper didn't say "entire nervous systems evolved in order to accommodate capabilities such as flight" as you claimed in your OP. It merely showed one more example of how the existing vertebrate nervous system could evolve specialized adaptations to assist specialized functions like Chiropteran flight. This is not anything new. Science has plenty of other examples of vertebrate nervous system adaptations such as vibrissae (whiskers) on some mammalian species and infrared sensors on pit vipers

      Can you tell us what sort of previous research indicates that the vertebrate nervous system evolved to accommodate something (such as anatomical specializations for flight)?

      If you were seriously interested in the topic you'd read some of the several dozen other papers referenced in the Moss work.

      Delete
    6. It merely showed one more example of how the existing vertebrate nervous system could evolve specialized adaptations to assist specialized functions like Chiropteran flight.

      Actually the paper showed no such thing. The findings helped to reveal how the airflow sensors and nervous system are wired up to assist in the incredibly complex bat flight. The paper certainly did not show how these things could evolve, or how they could evolve “to assist” in anything.


      Science has plenty of other examples of vertebrate nervous system adaptations such as vibrissae (whiskers) on some mammalian species and infrared sensors on pit vipers.

      No, science has no such thing. You’re conflating metaphysics with science, as evolutionists often do. What *science* has are examples of nervous systems (period), “such as vibrissae (whiskers) on some mammalian species and infrared sensors on pit vipers.” But that’s science, not evolution.


      Me: Can you tell us what sort of previous research indicates that the vertebrate nervous system evolved to accommodate something (such as anatomical specializations for flight)?

      You: If you were seriously interested in the topic you'd read some of the several dozen other papers referenced in the Moss work.


      Translation from evolution-ese to English: “No.”

      Delete
    7. Translation from evolution-ese to English: “No.”

      Translation from paid Creationist shill to English: “No, I'm not interested in the actual science, just pushing Creationist propaganda."

      Delete
    8. On the contrary, the sequelae of the vacuity of the atheist premise absolutely brooks no reaction other than satire. It demands it. That Cornelius does it so ironically is ROFL material of a high order. It ridicules itself, so it's like getting blood out of a stone; which he does with consummate skill.

      Indeed, it does arguably defy ridicule, since the most flawless logic will ineluctably lead the atheist author to conclusions urgently necessitating a visit by the men in white coats in the yellow van with red wheels... being so riotously mad as to be 'not even wrong'.

      Delete
    9. Translation from paid Creationist shill ...

      We knew the ad hominem lies were coming. It's just a matter of time.

      Delete
    10. We knew the ad hominem lies were coming. It's just a matter of time.

      Sorry Dr. Hunter but your mangling and misrepresentation of actual biological research is well known in web scientific discussion circles. This hack job by you on the Moss paper is just the latest in a long sordid history of such disreputable behavior.

      Delete
    11. You call it a hack job not for any scientific reason (I merely pointed out the metaphysics) but because you believe the species arose spontaneously, so any criticism of that doctrine must be a "hack job."

      Delete
    12. No, I call it a hack job because you purposely misrepresented what the paper says and how the results fit in with all the other papers on adaptations to the vertebrate nervous system.

      Pity that someone with an advanced science degree now lets his religious fervor lead him into such unprofessional and duplicitous conduct.

      Delete
    13. you purposely misrepresented what the paper says

      Actually I used direct quotes from the paper.

      lets his religious fervor lead him into such unprofessional and duplicitous conduct.

      How is it "religious fervor" and "duplicitous" to point out metaphysical claims in a paper that otherwise represents itself as science? The paper makes metaphysical claims that it does not back up, and cannot back up from science. And yet when I point that out you put the blame on me. You seem to be unable to detach yourself, and you resort to ad hominems and fallacious criticisms.

      Delete
    14. Actually I used direct quotes from the paper.

      You mean you quote-mined the paper then made the ridiculous claim it said:

      "entire nervous systems evolved in order to accommodate capabilities such as flight."

      Most people call that lying.

      That's OK Dr. Hunter. This is your website and if you think lying for your religion is a good thing then that's your call. Of course you'll get the respect from the real scientific community that you deserve and we both know how much that is.

      Delete
    15. Still waiting for you to tell us what sort of previous research indicates that the vertebrate nervous system evolved to accommodate something (such as anatomical specializations for flight)? That would be very interesting to see.

      Delete
  2. I guess when you have a process that has no goals then every achievement deserves a trophy on the mantle.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But apparently it does have goals: "to accommodate anatomical specializations for flight."

      Delete
    2. Absolutely, but their standards are so stratospheric that they ignore the merely quotidian miracles.

      No need to be so picky, Cornelius. Remember always be kind, since everyone is carrying a heavy burden.

      Delete
  3. "sensors evolved in order to guide motor behaviors"

    They mean control system evolved? No chance, control systems can only be engineered.

    An Introduction To Control Systems

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There you go again, you Creationists, with your niminy-piminy pedantry ! For shame !

      Delete
  4. "The Third Way of Evolution" scientists have at least stopped believing that "evolution" is a miracle worker:

    "...Neo-Darwinism, which is clearly naturalistic science but ignores much contemporary molecular evidence and invokes a set of unsupported assumptions about the accidental nature of hereditary variation. Neo-Darwinism ignores important rapid evolutionary processes such as symbiogenesis, horizontal DNA transfer, action of mobile DNA and epigenetic modifications. Moreover, some Neo-Darwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis."
    (http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Cornelius, you fergetted, '“Biology has done an exquisite job in creating these animals ....'

    That's some God, that Biology ! A magic-making god of the most transcendental order.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ignore Adapa. He's Thorton with a new face. Same-o, same-o.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That was becoming obvious, but Darwin's God always gives folks a fair chance.

      Delete
  7. Adapa...
    "...your [work] is well known in web scientific discussion circles."

    I love it!!!!

    ReplyDelete