Why did God make it so animals need to eat in order to survive?

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Non-living, energy producing chemicals, geared especially for that organism to survive and in sufficient quantities---from where, what was it, where is it?

Have you heard about the ocean smokers that sustain life with the chemical energy they spew out?

The Deep Sea - "Black Smokers"

From the site:

Life is possible at the hydrothermal vent systems because of a unique type of bacteria that forms the basis of the food chain there. The bacteria harness energy not from the rays of the sun -- no sunlight reaches these great depths -- but by metabolizing the large amounts of sulfur in the hot springs.

Clearly, God's ability to create a world that could originate life and evolve life to its present complexity exceeds your expectations.

 

[mmksparbud]

Have you heard about the ocean smokers that sustain life with the chemical energy they spew out?

The Deep Sea - "Black Smokers"

From the site:



Clearly, God's ability to create a world that could originate life and evolve life to its present complexity exceeds your expectations.

Yes--in an ocean chock full of all sorts of creatures, each spewing out all sorts of stuff that produce bacteria and so on and on--
My God exceeds my expectations by leaps and bounds--there are creatures in the deep that dwell in temperatures no other life can endure. My God created this galaxy without breaking a sweat and set certain life chains in action that ended up producing a huge variety of creatures--and He didn't need millions of years. Your God apparently can only function within certain limits of "scientific knowledge."---Providing there was first this "magical poof" of some sort of life out of nothing and millions and millions of years. The only thing that was here for millions of years, was the core of this earth. He set it in place endless eons ago and when He determined the time was right, He came back and spoke this world into existence in 6 days. The bible says the earth was "void, and without form" before He started creation week. Whatever that core was, was without life until He created it. Which apparently exceeds your expectations.

 

[LionL]

Seriously people, animals are animals. Meaning they are made for humans.

People actually believe this?!?!?!
No wonder the environment is in such a bad state. No wonder extinction rates are so high. Such arrogance!

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Yes--in an ocean chock full of all sorts of creatures, each spewing out all sorts of stuff that produce bacteria and so on and on--
My God exceeds my expectations by leaps and bounds--there are creatures in the deep that dwell in temperatures no other life can endure. My God created this galaxy without breaking a sweat and set certain life chains in action that ended up producing a huge variety of creatures--and He didn't need millions of years. Your God apparently can only function within certain limits of "scientific knowledge."---Providing there was first this "magical poof" of some sort of life out of nothing and millions and millions of years. The only thing that was here for millions of years, was the core of this earth. He set it in place endless eons ago and when He determined the time was right, He came back and spoke this world into existence in 6 days. The bible says the earth was "void, and without form" before He started creation week. Whatever that core was, was without life until He created it. Which apparently exceeds your expectations.

There's a lot of speculation there about what I think and what God did, but it all ignores the evidence in the stars, the rocks, and the genomes.

Your speculations are not hindered by evidence.

 

[Davian]

Well, we know it's something. DNA would be the reason for constructs like instruction/learning though, wouldn't it?

I can see DNA providing for the growth of some grey matter in the skull of an organism that might provide for the abilities of awareness and memory, that would facilitate instruction and learning.

I simply asked a question.

No, you proposed a false dichotomy.

If it's not DNA driven, what would it be?

It may be a combination of DNA, reasoning (as applicable to the animal), conditioning, empathy, instruction/learning, or things I have not considered.

 

[SkyWriting]

Since we are equally able to assert the other is wrong, I propose that we use evidence to decide between us when we differ.

What say you, while you have a coccyx and useless ear wiggling muscles and a little muscle for lifting each hair attached to it and a broken vitamin c gene shared with other primates and having had a weak, useless grasping reflex once as an infant, and having the weird loop in the nerve that goes from the brain to the larynx, taking a detour all the way down to the heart and back up again?

Paul of Eugene

Is it your policy to ignore your own request?
Did we not want to talk about human vestigial structures?

 

[SkyWriting]

Your speculations are not hindered by evidence.

Are ya'all ready to respond to the evidence? No?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Paul of Eugene

Is it your policy to ignore your own request?
Did we not want to talk about human vestigial structures?

Sure, we can talk about human vestigial structures. Lets consider the ear wiggling muscles. I can actually wiggle my ears a little bit, most people cannot, even though we all have those ear wiggling muscles.

But we need to keep our ears stationary on our heads, because we have a sophisticated phase analysis interpretation system built right into our brains that analyzes the sounds coming into our two ears, compares the phases of the two sounds, and supplies us instant information about the direction the sound is coming from.

So evolution suppressed the working of the muscles that move our ears.

But the muscles remain, as a mute testimony to a previous species that was ancestral to ours and could actually move its ears to enhance the reception of sound.

That's the evolutionary explanation for the presence of the ear wiggling muscles. What do you think of that explanation? What is your alternate explanation for their presence, if you have any?

 

[SkyWriting]

Sure, we can talk about human vestigial structures. Lets consider the ear wiggling muscles. I can actually wiggle my ears a little bit, most people cannot, even though we all have those ear wiggling muscles.

But we need to keep our ears stationary on our heads, because we have a sophisticated phase analysis interpretation system built right into our brains that analyzes the sounds coming into our two ears, compares the phases of the two sounds, and supplies us instant information about the direction the sound is coming from.

So evolution suppressed the working of the muscles that move our ears.

But the muscles remain, as a mute testimony to a previous species that was ancestral to ours and could actually move its ears to enhance the reception of sound.

That's the evolutionary explanation for the presence of the ear wiggling muscles. What do you think of that explanation? What is your alternate explanation for their presence, if you have any?

Muscles cover much of the head and keep it warm. Shivering of the muscles is used when needed.
The design of the muscles around the ear are no different than those around the eyebrows, and
we don't twirl our eyebrows to find food.

Now, can you find published paper in a professional Journal on how worthless these muscles are?
I couldn't. Your list seems to have come from a online rag magazine rather than a legitimate
published journal.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Muscles cover much of the head and keep it warm. Shivering of the muscles is used when needed.
The design of the muscles around the ear are no different than those around the eyebrows, and
we don't twirl our eyebrows to find food.

Now, can you find published paper in a professional Journal on how worthless these muscles are?
I couldn't. Your list seems to have come from a online rag magazine rather than a legitimate
published journal.

Lol you just enjoy making stuff up. Ear wiggling muscles don't shiver when you are cold, what shivers are muscles in the core area of the trunk.

Are you attempting to make our eyebrow wiggling muscles also vestigial? That's an odd tactic to take, and besides, moving our eyebrows is one of the ways we communicate with each other. I'm not going to claim eyebrow wiggling muscles as vestigial.

Truth is, other than making stuff up, you have not come up with any use for the ear wiggling muscles, and you won't. They are truly useless. Unless, of course, wiggling them as part of a demonstration how evolution is true counts as "use".

I don't claim that a piece of anatomy has to be utterly useless to be vestigial; but in the case of ear wiggling muscles, they manage to do that.

 

[bhsmte]

Muscles cover much of the head and keep it warm. Shivering of the muscles is used when needed.
The design of the muscles around the ear are no different than those around the eyebrows, and
we don't twirl our eyebrows to find food.

Now, can you find published paper in a professional Journal on how worthless these muscles are?
I couldn't. Your list seems to have come from a online rag magazine rather than a legitimate
published journal.

If the function for head muscles was to retain heat, that is a very flawed way of design.

Why? Fat is a much better insulator and retainer of heat and it would have been a better design to utilize fat, not muscle

Ever wonder why the people that swim the English channel all have a good deal of fat on them? Well, the fat keeps them from suffering hypothermia and if they were very lean, they would not have this protection and would never make it across the channel.