Evos, please explain

[AirPo]

Darwin [1868, 206] answered this claim in 1868

So not only is this a PRATT, it was refuted over 100 years ago. I think we need a new acronym.

 

[llDayo]

They say the giraffe neck evolved, not piecemeal, but simultaneously? Very unlikely.

Why? If they developed separately the giraffe would die because there would be no balance to the blood flow. They'd HAVE to evolve at the same time!

As to the bombardier beetle, they made a mistake. What they didn't realize, and I didn't until I looked at Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution, was that, instead of shooting off a single puff of chemicals, they shoot the chemicals in a stream. Here's the absurdity of the Evolution of the bombardier beetle.

A beetle gets a chemical. Now, since it only has one chemical, it has to use this chemical to get a bunch of other chemicals. Now, once he does this, he realizes he forgot something... the inhibitor. Now it's too late. However, even if he did have the inhibitor, he can't use the mixture. Now he has to use the same chemicals to develop an antiinhibitor. Now if a preditor attacks him, he can foil their attack... by blowing himself to smitherines. Oh, yes. He forgot the tubes. So now he waits millions of years until he evolves the tubes he needs to actually use the chemicals. He also can turn the tubes. Coincidence and chance? Doubtful.

You didn't read that link. It explains step by step how the beetle could have easily evolved into its current state. Your second paragraph makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It uses a chemical to get a bunch of other chemicals? Antiinhibitor? What tubes?

And there's no problem with the beetle blowing itself up: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB310.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB310_1.html
I also remember Gish being confronted with evidence of this claim (he's the one who originally made it, IIRC) a year after. He made the claim that the beetle couldn't survive the chemical reaction without an inhibitor back in 1978, arguing it showed irreducible complexity. In 1979, two scientists (I forget their names and can't find a link to the experiment off-hand) combined the two chemicals and it didn't explode. Gish was using the beetle example up through 1991 (again, IIRC) before he finally dropped it, yet, 26 years after it was shown to be a false argument, creationist non-thinkers keep repeating the same bull without looking it up.

 

[Ryal Kane]

No, because they have to get the valve just right, they have to get the amount of blood pumped just right (too much will kill the giraffe, too little will kill him as well)., etc.

I don't see how anyone can walk a mile. I mean, it's totally stupid. If have on foot here and one foot a mile away I'll be ripped in half. It just can't happen.

A left foot and right foot are just like blood control and neck length. Changing one step at a time.

Ryal Kane

 

[Loke]

Evolutionists, please explain how the valve to a giraffe's head evolved. Please tell me how a dolphin's sonar evolved. Please tell me how the bombardier beetle evolved.

Not knowing the answer to these questions doesnt discredit evolution. And unanswered questions doesnt prove creation. So, what would be the point asking?

Loke

 

[Tomk80]

So not only is this a PRATT, it was refuted over 100 years ago. I think we need a new acronym.

Take your pick:

PRAHYO: Point refuted a hundred years ago
PRATT AHOYA: Point refuted a thousand times, a hundred odd years ago.

 

[Jet Black]

Take your pick:

PRAHYO: Point refuted a hundred years ago
PRATT AHOYA: Point refuted a thousand times, a hundred odd years ago.

the last one sounds like a kind of carribean fruit.

 

[Data]

It also kinda sounds like 'PRATT AHOY', which is cool because I like pirates.

 

[Jet Black]

what's your avatar from btw?

 

[h2whoa]

It also kinda sounds like 'PRATT AHOY', which is cool because I like pirates.

They are nowhere near as sweet as ninjas.

h2

 

[Data]

what's your avatar from btw?

I've been asked that before.

It's off a windows2000 anime wallpaper. Weird, I know, but It was awesome, and I can't find it anymore.

 

[Data]

They are nowhere near as sweet as ninjas.

h2

Well, ninjas are totally sweet, but I wouldn't go that far.

 

[Jet Black]

I've been asked that before.

It's off a windows2000 anime wallpaper. Weird, I know, but It was awesome, and I can't find it anymore.

heh, shame. I like to keep changiny my avatar lately. dunno why.

 

[Tomk80]

It also kinda sounds like 'PRATT AHOY', which is cool because I like pirates.

I am still trying to come up with a good one for that. Although I like carribean fruit, I actually wanted to go for the pirate thing. However, I really need that last 'A'.

 

[AirPo]

the last one sounds like a kind of carribean fruit.

 

[Novaknight1]

Why? If they developed separately the giraffe would die because there would be no balance to the blood flow. They'd HAVE to evolve at the same time!


You didn't read that link. It explains step by step how the beetle could have easily evolved into its current state. Your second paragraph makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It uses a chemical to get a bunch of other chemicals? Antiinhibitor? What tubes?

And there's no problem with the beetle blowing itself up: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB310.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB310_1.html
I also remember Gish being confronted with evidence of this claim (he's the one who originally made it, IIRC) a year after. He made the claim that the beetle couldn't survive the chemical reaction without an inhibitor back in 1978, arguing it showed irreducible complexity. In 1979, two scientists (I forget their names and can't find a link to the experiment off-hand) combined the two chemicals and it didn't explode. Gish was using the beetle example up through 1991 (again, IIRC) before he finally dropped it, yet, 26 years after it was shown to be a false argument, creationist non-thinkers keep repeating the same bull without looking it up.

If it Evolved at the same time, that would be something very unlikely. Beneficial mutations only help one thing at a time.

As to the chemical, getting different chemicals, how does it evolve so he can get more chemicals?

As to the beetle, how does it Evolve the chemicals when it has to recieve a chemical to start? That's chemical evolution, which we never observe today.

Another species that defies Evolution is the porpose. It has a certain skin that reduces drag. Even scientists can't create the skin, yet it came by chance?

Evos, sorry your theory doesn't explain the hawk's eye, which is DESIGNED to spot a little movement a mile away. Need a hug?

 

[The Lady Kate]

If it Evolved at the same time, that would be something very unlikely. Beneficial mutations only help one thing at a time.

says who?

Another species that defies Evolution is the porpose. It has a certain skin that reduces drag. Even scientists can't create the skin, yet it came by chance?

It came by chance + natural selection.

Evos, sorry your theory doesn't explain the hawk's eye, which is DESIGNED to spot a little movement a mile away. Need a hug?

You've probably had this refuted 15,265 times already, so keep your hands to yourself...

 

[Novaknight1]

"says who?"

Why else would Evolution require billions of years?

"It came by chance + natural selection."

Natural selection only selects and removes bad genes. It does nothing to add them. Besides, not even our most brilliant scientists can come up with a synthetic version of porpoise skin. So to believe this came by chance is ridiculous.

You've probably had this refuted 15,265 times already, so keep your hands to yourself...

How could it have been refuted 15,265 times when I had not put it onto the refutation table yet?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

"It came by chance + natural selection."

Natural selection only selects and removes bad genes. It does nothing to add them. Besides, not even our most brilliant scientists can come up with a synthetic version of porpoise skin. So to believe this came by chance is ridiculous.

1. Give us a reference that the porpoise skin is unreproducable.
2. Give us evidence that the genetic sequence that codes for it is impossible to come up with by modification from other similar sequences.
3. No-one said natural selection adds new genes. That's what chance mutations do.

 

[Tomk80]

If it Evolved at the same time, that would be something very unlikely. Beneficial mutations only help one thing at a time.

Oh puhleaze, don't be that disingenuous. Do we really have to spell it out for you, are you really that dense. Or are you just not thinking? Whether your brain evolved or not, you are still allowed to use it, you know. But, although I know it is in vain, I'll spell it out for you anyway.
Ancient creatures neck gets a little bit longer. Subsequently, the blood vessels in it's head become a little more accomodated to the slight increase in necklength. Then the neck increases in length a little again. Then the blood vessel follow. Rinse, repeat. Come on man, you should have been able to come up with that yourself.

As to the chemical, getting different chemicals, how does it evolve so he can get more chemicals?

duplication mutation followed by point mutation is one of the possibilities.

As to the beetle, how does it Evolve the chemicals when it has to recieve a chemical to start? That's chemical evolution, which we never observe today.

Bacteria have been seen to evolve the possibility to digest nylon. For that, you need chemicals. In other words, chemical evolution has been observed. Your statement is silly in the first place. Every mutation that is not neutral causes a change in protein assimilation. It's all chemicals. Please try to get at least some basis in genetics before making such idiotic statements again.

Another species that defies Evolution is the porpose. It has a certain skin that reduces drag. Even scientists can't create the skin, yet it came by chance?

Evos, sorry your theory doesn't explain the hawk's eye, which is DESIGNED to spot a little movement a mile away. Need a hug?

Come on man, all you show us here is specialization of an already existing organ. That is just as special as dogs diversificating. Please, please, I beg of you. For once in your time here, start thinking for a minute before conjuring up such incredible nonsense statements. Really, you don't have to be afraid, it won't hurt if you do it.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

If it Evolved at the same time, that would be something very unlikely.

Argument from incredulity, sorry that's not worth a been.

Beneficial mutations only help one thing at a time.

Total fantasy, what on earth makes you think that?

Evos, sorry your theory doesn't explain the hawk's eye, which is DESIGNED to spot a little movement a mile away.

Yes actually it explains it quite well, but given you think the theory involves spontaneously animating rocks and 10% dogs 90% horses it is fairly obvious you don’t know much about the theory.

Need a hug?

No because we aren't emotionally attached to the theory of evolution. It could be disproved tomorrow (presumably by the observation of a 10% dog 90% horse being born or by witnessing a Crocodile springing from a rock - either of those would falsify evolution) and no one is going to be emotionally traumatised by it.

Ghost