Saturday, June 6, 2015

Forget the Micro Flies, See These Micro Frogs

Impossible Miniaturization


Remember those micro flies which are practically invisible? Well perhaps even more amazing are the micro frogs from the island of New Guinea which at their largest are about three-quarters of a centimeter. There are about two and half centimeters per inch. So these micro frogs are not much more than a quarter inch long.
Posted by at
Labels:

36 comments:

  1. CalamityJune 7, 2015 at 8:18 AM

    Impossible miniaturization ?

    It is well known by the scientific community that species living in an island are usually smaller than their continental counterparts. It's called insular dwarfism.

    It's mainly due to the limited amount of ressources in the island that tend to select against big animals.
    It can happen quite fast.

    Here is an excellent article on the tiger snake :
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15792242


    Not a very convincing article Mr Hunter !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cornelius HunterJune 7, 2015 at 8:49 AM

      Calamity:

      It can happen quite fast.

      What is strange is the opinion that this somehow resolves the issue. With evolution we must believe that, first, it somehow creates these species, and then second, that they just happened to be scalable--easily capable of shifting to gigantic or dwarf forms. As though that is a easy undertaking.

      Delete
    2. CalamityJune 8, 2015 at 3:11 AM

      Look at dog breeds. Chihuaha comes from all dogs common ancestor, somekind of wolf.

      It all happened in a few thousand years to go from wolf-size dog to chihuaha.

      It's not a difficult undertaking to think that with enough selective pressure towards little size you could end up miniaturizing species.

      Delete
    3. Joe GJune 8, 2015 at 3:17 AM

      Natural selection could never produce the dog breeds. So what is your point?

      Delete
    4. CalamityJune 8, 2015 at 3:25 AM

      My point is that humans create different dog breed by crossing dogs selected for specific caracteristics (eg little size). IN the end you end up with chihuaha.

      Then you could imagine that in those little island, a little size gives you a better chance of survival, then increasing you fitness.

      One generation after the other you could end up with smaller and smaller individuals, until a threshold is reached.

      That's basic population genetics. You shoudl read on it.
      Here is a 101 on evolution for you :
      http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

      and one of pop gen :

      http://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/~mcclean/plsc431/overheads/popgen/popgen1.htm

      Enjoy

      Delete
    5. Joe GJune 8, 2015 at 4:19 AM

      LoL! I have read that Berkley site- no evidence just rhetoric. If imagination is all you have then you don't have science.

      Delete
    6. CalamityJune 8, 2015 at 4:34 AM

      If Joe G did not find any reedeeming evidences for evoluton even if provided by the University of Berkeley, then for sure, there is no science of evolution.

      You are fighting a lost cause. Evolution is teached in all europe and the Americas, people are making a living out of it.
      What you need is transform ID into a real science, find evidences of the designer and find who she/he is.

      You won't shake the field of biology because of your ignorance and unability to learn complicated concepts.

      Delete
    7. Joe GJune 8, 2015 at 5:55 AM

      I did NOT ask for evidence for evolution. Obviously you have other issues.

      Intelligent Design is not anti-evolution. You are clueless.

      Delete
  2. MarcusJune 7, 2015 at 10:05 AM

    I think the obvious answer to why that frog is so small is God made the little guy that way. He was made precisely suited to operate in the environment where he's found.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CalamityJune 8, 2015 at 3:13 AM

      It's obvious if you are a firm believer in the god of the bible and are okay with miracles.

      Then it doesn't help the creation of knowledge if for every odd phenomenon you brush it off with a "god did it, no need to think about it".

      Delete
    2. Joe GJune 8, 2015 at 3:18 AM

      Evolutionism requires millions of miracles. Yours doesn't even have a mechanism capable of getting beyond populations of prokaryotes and that is given starting populations of prokaryotes.

      Delete
    3. CalamityJune 8, 2015 at 4:27 AM

      Na, it's ID thats needs a millions of miracles since you are expecting an all mighty being doing all the changes.
      Evolution merely needs random mutations with selection.

      Delete
    4. Joe GJune 8, 2015 at 5:55 AM

      Wrong- ID does not need a designer to do the changes.

      Delete
    5. MarcusJune 8, 2015 at 9:43 AM

      I didn't brush it off without thinking about it. Which changes are random?

      Delete
    6. CalamityJune 8, 2015 at 10:31 AM

      Wrong- ID does not need a designer to do the changes.
      Then what do ID uses ? This hidden program ?

      Delete
    7. Cornelius HunterJune 8, 2015 at 12:00 PM

      Calamity:

      and are okay with miracles. Then it doesn't help the creation of knowledge if for every odd phenomenon you brush it off with a "god did it, no need to think about it".

      So miracles are not allowed?

      Delete
    8. CalamityJune 9, 2015 at 2:53 AM

      Yes. Miracles are not science Mr Hunter.

      Believing in miracles doesn't help you making good science.

      Delete
    9. Cornelius HunterJune 9, 2015 at 10:12 AM

      Yes. Miracles are not science

      So when evolutionists say evolution is a scientific fact, then that is because they have ruled out miracles a priori? Or is it just a coincidence?

      Delete
    10. CalamityJune 10, 2015 at 4:41 AM

      You don't rule out miracles a priori.
      You rule them out de facto because they are by definition attributed to a divine entity.

      Science is concerned about what follows the law of nature.

      Moreover, miracles are just scams.
      Would you believe somebody who say he was ressucitated ? Would you believe somebody who say he can transform water into wine ?
      Do you trust the catholic church when she recognizes contemporary miracles ?


      The fact that you seems to think that miracles are acceptable as a scientific fact baffles me.

      Maybe you got you PhD by miracle ?

      Delete
    11. Cornelius HunterJune 10, 2015 at 10:47 AM

      Calamity:

      You don't rule out miracles a priori.
      You rule them out de facto because they are by definition attributed to a divine entity.

      Science is concerned about what follows the law of nature.

      Moreover, miracles are just scams.

      OK, de facto. Miracles are not only unscientific, they also are scams.

      Is this why evolution is a fact, or does the biological empirical evidence make evolution a fact?

      Delete
    12. CalamityJune 10, 2015 at 1:38 PM

      I am happy that you agree with me on the non-scientific nature of miracles.

      For the rest, yes, there is enough empirical evidences to say that all people working in evolutionary biology are not all dumb idiots and that evolution is a fact.

      Delete
    13. Cornelius HunterJune 10, 2015 at 1:52 PM

      Calamity:

      I am happy that you agree with me on the non-scientific nature of miracles.

      I was merely stating your position, for clarity.

      For the rest, yes, there is enough empirical evidences to say that all people working in evolutionary biology are not all dumb idiots and that evolution is a fact.

      OK, good. So your position is:

      1. Miracles are unscientific and so must be excluded from science.
      2. Plus miracles are a scam.
      3. And it just so happens that not only is the strictly naturalistic explanation (i.e., evolution) required by science (because miracles must be excluded), but the scientific evidence just so happens to show evolution if a fact.

      That's quite a coincidence.

      With few exceptions, this is the evolutionary position. It reveals at least one of the reasons why evolutionists lower the bar so far for their theory. It has to be true. It explains why, even though the evidence reveals evolution to be unlikely, it is magically transformed into "compelling" evidence.

      Delete
  3. Alethinon61June 8, 2015 at 3:48 AM

    "Evolutionism requires millions of miracles."

    Yeah, in fact those who argue that unguided natural processes can account for the vast diversity of life on this planet are arguing for the granddaddy of all miracles!

    ReplyDelete
  4. BlasJune 8, 2015 at 4:43 PM

    There is any biological explanation about what and how determines the size of a body?

    ReplyDelete
  5. PhillyMikeJune 9, 2015 at 7:32 AM

    Here we have Calamity showing the crux of the entire problem.
    "You are fighting a lost cause. Evolution is teached in all europe and the Americas, people are making a living out of it."
    If they recognize ID it would mean no more grants etc for the evolutionists. The religion of Mammon is behind it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CalamityJune 10, 2015 at 3:15 AM

      Why would scientists recognize ID ? There is no empirical evidences nor an enonciated scientific theory for ID.
      You can't even do predictions with ID, so as a scientist you can't work with it.

      What predictions can you do with ID? It's gonna be more complex ? Hopefully a miracle will happen ?

      Delete
    2. Joe GJune 11, 2015 at 3:07 AM

      There is plenty of empirical evidence for ID. It's claims can be tested and either conformed or falsified.

      OTOH we cannot test the claim that natural selection and/ or drift can produce something like ATP synthase.

      Delete
  6. natschusterJune 10, 2015 at 6:01 AM

    ID predicts that organisms will have characteristics of designed things, like irreducible complexity, highly specified complexity, and functional integration of parts. And we see that. In fact the theory of evolution by natural selection is an attempt to explain the appearance of design without coming on to design.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CalamityJune 10, 2015 at 8:29 AM

      Just some simple example to show that ID does not help at all to understand some practical questions in biology :
      Funny ones :

      Why is wombat poop square ?
      Why are seals raping penguins ?


      More serious one :

      How can you predict the fate of an invading species ?
      How can you preserve the genetic pool of an endangered species ?
      How is evolving the general mutation load of the human species ?

      ID can't help with those issues, since it only talk about how well designed are things and how everything is so complex.




      Delete
    2. PhillyMikeJune 10, 2015 at 8:44 AM

      You have such a straw arguments against ID.
      And you never answer questions with any science.

      Delete
    3. CalamityJune 10, 2015 at 1:10 PM

      It's not my fault. The theory of evolution is a fully fledge one, with textbooks, scientific journals and thousands of people making a living out of it.
      The burden of proof is not on evolutionists, but on ID people.

      I would actually be glad if one of you guys could explain me one natural phenomenon through the lense of ID theory.

      For example, the textbook example of sickle cell anemia and malaria in West Africa. What could bring ID to help understand better this phenomenon ?

      Delete
    4. Joe GJune 11, 2015 at 3:05 AM

      There isn't any theory of evolution.

      Delete
  7. natschusterJune 10, 2015 at 9:34 AM

    Calamity

    #1, What is the evolutionary explanation for the questions you asked? Why can't they work for ID as well?

    #2. We know from the way people design things that not all things are well designed. Or sometimes design requires compromises. It's just it is really hard to explain an example of really good design without coming on to design?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CalamityJune 10, 2015 at 1:41 PM

      Short answer :

      #1 You can google the topics for infos. I'm not an ID scpecialist, it's your turn to show me what kind of framework ID offers to analyze nature.

      #But should we really expect bad design from the designer? Who created the universe ?

      Delete
  8. UnknownJune 10, 2015 at 4:44 PM

    Says Calamity who sites evolution.Berkeley as a source. i think you could do a little better than that IMO. Understand both sides of the argument before posting such critical yet uniformed arguments. It is wildly clear you do not understand evolution or what ID proposss. It is one thing to not know, but to be so sure of yourself is beyond me. DO BETTER!
    P.S. Trying to discredit DR. Hunter's credentials just shows your level of incompetence. Ad hominems never work, it just shows you have nothing to offer... oh wait, besides reciting a few bullet points from evolution.Berkeley.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. UnknownJune 10, 2015 at 4:46 PM

      Uninformed not uniform. I definitely did not mean uniformed arguments!

      Delete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)