"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Bannasidhe wrote: »

...

You know what I meant, stop making trouble.

I was referring to those who don't make a particular effort to educate themselves on the subject.

doctoremma wrote: »

To follow on from this...
I think those not easily able to "look underneath the skin" (they don't study biology, they don't read any academic texts, etc) simply cannot understand how anyone could say "a fin is basically a wing is basically an arm" with a straight face.

This reminds me of the 'Conspiracy Road Trip' with Andrew Maxwell. He took a bunch of creationists to the States to meet scientific experts. Having a man (Northie Phil) who has studied a 2,000 year old book, argue with a biologist or paleontologist is silly, and sums up the whole debate right here.

Creationist: "I know nothing about anything, but I feel , in my mind, that there must have been a creator. I have no real reason other than I read it in a very old book from the Middle East and I really don't want to change my mind".

Biologist/ Archaeologist/ Geologist/ Paleontologist rolls eyes, lets out a sigh, and thinks; "what's the bloody point?"

seamus wrote: »

If God did create the world in six days, I don't think he could have kept a straight face considering what a balls he made of it.
"

Indeed. The amount of incompetent design present in living things makes the idea that they were each, intelligently, designed and created from scratch ridiculous.

mickrock wrote: »

I've already justified it by pointing out that Darwinian evolution is illogical and the evidence is flimsy.

It's illogical because you cannot, for example, create a new organ (which needs many integrated parts to work) in a gradual, stepwise fashion. Each of the many intermediate stages would have to be fully functional and have come about as a result of random variation, which isn't a reasonable or plausible proposition.

I can't think of any evidence for Darwinian evolution. Lenski's E.coli that adapted to metabolise citrate under aerobic condition (which they could already do anaerobically) is often offered as the best evidence of evolution in action. Very underwhelming, to say the least.

No, mickrock you haven't justified any of your views. You have not at any point explained why natural selection is wrong, all you've done is state that it is. That is not a justification.

Now as for your claim about organs. First of all, the phrasing of your claim shows again that you don't have the first clue how evolution actually works or what natural selection is. Secondly, and more importantly, you're wrong.

And here's why.

You obviously haven't read back through this thread because if you did you would have found this post I made about the evolution of the eye and how it was achieved incrementally with each step conferring an advantage on its possessor.

And then there's this:

The Bombardier Beetle

The bombardier beetle, for a while, was the poster insect of the ID cause. For those out there who may not know, the bombardier beetle is a family of about 500 species whose defense mechanism is a foul-smelling, boiling liquid which is ejected from a special nozzle at the beetle's rear. The liquid is created by mixing two chemicals (hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone) which are secreted by separate glands in the abdomen. The two liquids are then mixed in a reaction chamber with some catalysts which acts to vapourise some of the mixture (about 20%) which then provides the propellant necessary to expel the now heated liquid.
One of the components of the ID argument against the bombardier beetle states that hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone explode when mixed and so this combination of chemicals could not have evolved. This argument is just plain wrong. Anyone interested can try it for themselves. Hydroquinone is the primary constituent in photo developer and hydrogen peroxide is cosmetic bleach. Mix them for yourselves, they don't explode.
The other component of the argument is that the beetle is too complex to have evolved incrementally. On the contrary, a step-by-step evolutionary pathway has been well documented for the beetle.

1. Quinones are produced by epidermal cells for tanning the cuticle. This is a common feature of arthropods.

2. Some of the quinones don't get used up, but sit on the epidermis, making the arthropod distasteful. (Quinones are used as defensive secretions in a variety of modern arthropods, from beetles to millipedes.

3. Small gaps or invaginations develop in the epidermis between sclerites (plates of cuticle). By wiggling, the insect can squeeze more quinones onto its surface when they're needed.

4. The invaginations deepen. Muscles are moved around slightly, allowing them to help expel the quinones from some of them. (Many ants have glands similar to this near the end of their abdomen.

5. A couple invaginations (now reservoirs) become so deep that the others are inconsequential by comparison. Those gradually revert to the original epidermis.

6. In various insects, different defensive chemicals besides quinones appear. This helps those insects defend against predators which have evolved resistance to quinones. One of the new defensive chemicals is hydroquinone.

7. Cells that secrete the hydroquinones develop in multiple layers over part of the reservoir, allowing more hydroquinones to be produced. Channels between cells allow hydroquinones from all layers to reach the reservior.

8. The channels become a duct, specialized for transporting the chemicals. The secretory cells withdraw from the reservoir surface, ultimately becoming a separate organ.
This stage -- secretory glands connected by ducts to reservoirs -- exists in many beetles. The particular configuration of glands and reservoirs that bombardier beetles have is common to the other beetles in their suborder.

9. Muscles adapt which close off the reservior, thus preventing the chemicals from leaking out when they're not needed.

10. Hydrogen peroxide, which is a common by-product of cellular metabolism, becomes mixed with the hydroquinones. The two react slowly, so a mixture of quinones and hydroquinones get used for defense.

11. Cells secreting a small amount of catalases and peroxidases appear along the output passage of the reservoir, outside the valve which closes it off from the outside. These ensure that more quinones appear in the defensive secretions. Catalases exist in almost all cells, and peroxidases are also common in plants, animals, and bacteria, so those chemicals needn't be developed from scratch but merely concentrated in one location.

12. More catalases and peroxidases are produced, so the discharge is warmer and is expelled faster by the oxygen generated by the reaction. The beetle Metrius contractus provides an example of a bombardier beetle which produces a foamy discharge, not jets, from its reaction chambers. The bubbling of the foam produces a fine mist.

13. The walls of that part of the output passage become firmer, allowing them to better withstand the heat and pressure generated by the reaction.

14. Still more catalases and peroxidases are produced, and the walls toughen and shape into a reaction chamber. Gradually they become the mechanism of today's bombardier beetles.

15. The tip of the beetle's abdomen becomes somewhat elongated and more flexible, allowing the beetle to aim its discharge in various directions.

And if you so choose, here is some of the research to support this mechanism. Sorry I'm a bit stuck for time so I don't have time to include hyperlinks.

• Dean, Jeffrey, D.J. Aneshansley, H.E. Edgerton, T. Eisner, 1990. Defensive spray of the bombardier beetle: a biological pulse jet. Science 248: 1219-1221.
  
• Dettner, Konrad, 1987. Chemosystematics and evolution of beetle chemical defenses. Annual Review of Entomology 32: 17-48.
  
• Eisner, Thomas, 1958. The protective role of the spray mechanism of the bombardier beetle, Brachynus ballistarius Lec. Journal of Insect Physiology 2: 215-220.
  
• Eisner, Thomas, 1970. Chemical defense against predation in arthropods. In Sondheimer, E. & J. B. Simeone, Chemical Ecology, Academic Press, NY, pp. 157-217.
  
• Eisner, Thomas, T.H. Jones, D.J. Aneshansley, W.R. Tschinkel, R.E. Silberglied, J. Meinwald, 1977. Chemistry of defensive secretions of bombardier beetles (Brachinini, Metriini, Ozaenini, Paussini). J. Insect Physiol. 23: 1382-1386.
  
• Eisner, Thomas & Daniel J. Aneshansley, 1982. Spray aiming in bombardier beetles: jet deflection by the Coanda effect. Science 215: 83-85.
  
• Eisner, Thomas, D.J. Aneshansley, M. Eisner, A.B. Attygalle, D.W. Alsop, J. Meinwald, 2000. Spray mechanism of the most primitive bombardier beetle (Metrius contractus). Journal of Experimental Biology 203: 1265-1275.
  
• Eisner, Thomas, George E. Ball, Braden Roach, Daniel J. Aneshansley, Maria Eisner, Curtis L. Blankespoor, & Jerrold Meinwald, 1989. Chemical defense of an Ozaenine bombardier beetle from New Guinea. Psyche 96: 153-160.
  
• Erwin, Terry L., 1967. Bombardier beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) of North America: Part II. Biology and behavior of Brachinus pallidus Erwin in California. Coleopterists' Bulletin 21: 41-55
  
• Erwin, Terry Lee, 1970. A reclassification of bombardier beetles and a taxonomic revision of the North and Middle American species (Carabidae: Brachinida). Quaestiones Entomologicae 6: 4-215.
  
• Forsyth, D.J., 1970. The structure of the defence glands of the Cicindelidae, Amphizoidae, and Hygrobiidae (Insecta: Coleoptera). J. Zool. Lond., 160: 51-69.

mickrock wrote: »

It unlikely that any organ could have developed in a piecemeal fashion.

Please nominate your organ of choice. Someone here will be able to break it down for you.

doctoremma wrote: »

You know what I meant, stop making trouble.

I was referring to those who don't make a particular effort to educate themselves on the subject.

Ah yes, the Willfully Ignorant* as I like to call them.






*Not to be confused with the Hard-of-Thinking although it is possible to be both Willfully Ignorant and Hard-of-Thinking.

mickrock wrote: »

It unlikely that any organ could have developed in a piecemeal fashion.

Why??

Again, you offer nothing other than a single line containing personal opinion.

What leads you to believe this to be the case?
Is there anything out there to support your point of view?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

P'shaw to your empirical research.

I have based this entirely on personal observation and I know in my heart it is true.

Damn. I understand fully. *Bad scientific methodologist!*

endacl wrote: »

Damn. I understand fully. *Bad scientific methodologist!*

Bet I could find enough historical evidence to prove my thesis...

I'll review your findings. I'm one of the top ten findings-reviewers on boards.

endacl wrote: »

I may be able to contribute. Co-author?

Now, where could we find some peers to review our findings...?

Shall we make it a cross-disciplinary opus on the evidence of human Willful Ignorance and/or stupidity Hard-of-Thinking?

Peer review shouldn't be a problem...

doctoremma wrote: »

However, if you repeatedly draw and discount those that don't lead to the numbers 1/2/3/4/5/6, you will eventually achieve an end result of 1/2/3/4/5/6.

And of course if you continue to do this even for 1,000 years, you will then have a table full of draws which resulted in 1/2/3/4/5/6 and that result will appear mundane, common even.

Beruthiel wrote: »

It is inconceivable to me that someone would want to remain in that state.

Said the first amphibian...