Hp’s Comments (group member since Apr 15, 2010)

Hp’s comments from the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design group.

Richard wrote: "Greetings!
Looks like another week has elapsed - with nothing more than wishful speculations.

Looks like another week has elapsed - no answers to our questions yet from Richard...

Richard wrote: "Looks like a week went by and no one can answer the question how is the neo-Darwin theory of evolution is compatible with the caterpillar, cacoon, and butterfly forms - without corres..."

Ok, Richard, what is your answer to the question you have posed? You must surely know the answer to so glibly ignore reasoned models.

As you can't be arsed to investigate I have entered some information below (from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/...

"Four insect groups comprising beetles, bees and ants, moths and butterflies, and flies and mosquitoes make up nearly 60 percent of the more than 1 million known animal species. They are so prolific and exhibit great diversity because of metamorphosis, a process in which larval, pupal and adult stages differ greatly, allowing each to occupy a different habitat and consume different food sources.

Now two University of Washington zoology professors are proposing a novel hypothesis for how metamorphosis evolved. Their proposition suggests that a change in hormonal function during embryonic development led to the evolution of a unique larval stage, an innovation that allowed a virtual population explosion among these species in the last 250 million years.

"Metamorphosis really opened up niches that weren't available to insects before that," said UW zoologist James Truman, who along with UW zoologist Lynn Riddiford published their findings in the Sept. 30 issue of Nature.

The earliest insects, which strongly resembled today's silverfish, lacked metamorphosis and their juveniles looked very much like adults except that they didn't have functioning genitalia. After the evolution of flight, more advanced species, such as cockroaches and grasshoppers, developed incomplete metamorphosis. Their immature stages, called nymphs, still resembled the adults except that they lacked genitalia and bore wing buds that only transformed into functional wings during the molt to the adult stage. In both cases, the insects molt, or shed their external skeletons, several times as they grow to adults.

The higher insects, species with complete metamorphosis, spend their juvenile life as larvae that bear no resemblance to the adults. What allows the change from, say, a caterpillar into a butterfly is the way a group of insect hormones, juvenile hormones (JH) and ecdysteroids, interact during embryonic, larval and pupal stages, the researchers said.

Juvenile hormones suppress the development of adult structures. In insects with partial or no metamorphosis, the absence of JH during embryo formation and development allows the embryo to become a miniature version of the adult. In embryos of insects with complete metamorphosis, Truman and Riddiford said, there is an early appearance of JH that suppresses some of the adult-directed growth and promotes formation of the larval stage. Juvenile hormones remain as the larva grows, then disappear to allow growth of imaginal discs, which will give rise to specific adult structures. A complex interplay between JH and ecdysteroids then allows the larva to progress to a pupa, and finally ecdysteroids alone drive the transformation to adult.

Juvenile hormones play such an important role in the embryonic and larval development of metamorphosing insects that they have been used as the basis for insecticides. For instance, JH mimics are used to treat ponds where mosquitoes breed, thereby blocking their metamorphosis. Such treatment also prevents eggs from hatching.

The four major insect groups with complete metamorphosis all are thought to descend from a common ancestor, so it appears the development of metamorphosis in the insect world has occurred only once. There are indications that another group, called thrips, has evolved toward complete metamorphosis but so far has fallen short, Truman and Riddiford said.

In insects with complete metamorphosis, the lack of competition between juveniles and adults for food is a major factor in their success and diversification, the husband-wife team said. Adults can feed on one source, such as nectar or blood, and only lay eggs when there is appropriate food for their young, such as dung, carcasses, fruit and other relatively temporary sources.

"The key to different types of development is timing, when certain kinds of proteins are made, how long they're present, and so on," Truman said. He believes metamorphosis will provide a valuable model for researchers to understand the molecular basis for how shifts in the timing of protein production can lead to the creation of different body forms. That, in turn, could shed greater light on how life patterns have evolved.

"Any innovation that helps you generate species that account for more than half of all living animals is not a trivial innovation," he said."

Don wrote: "This ought to be good for some more wailing and gnashihg"

And what is the point of quoting (badly - I love "gnashihg" ) some drivel from a "jewish gold plate" found in the Americas by a known fraudster? Don't say you actually believe that someone talked to angels and translated gold plates now magically removed from this Earth. Oh dear.

I think rgb's introduction of the bicameral mind applies to you as well as good old Mr Smith.

Logan wrote: "I seem to be the only person in this group willing to hold a real debate with you."

But Richard isn't debating in any way, shape or form.
If he presents some debatable ideas then I'm all for it.

Richard wrote: "Could anyone explain how the theory of evolution is compatiable with the evidence in the butterfly..."

Why do we have to show you how to do an internet search every time you ask a stupid question? I found loads of information regarding evolutionary explanation of metamorphosis with a simple search. Try "evolution and metamorphosis" in google and then peruse (or in your case ignore) the results.

Also: you're speeling iis giong funy again – time to take one of those yellow tablets by the side of your bed…

Girl4beluga wrote: "most of those people people you talk about have there own evidence for their beliefs it just isn't scientific."

I should have said objective evidence. It's just in their heads.

Logan wrote:That's unfair."

Why unfair? The religious base their whole philosophy on something with NO evidence.

Logan wrote: "Hp wrote: "Nathan wrote: "My favorite book of the Bible is....oh wait, I hate the Bible. It isn't really good fiction. Most of the books are poorly written and starring undeveloped, one dimension..."

Whoa... the bible is considered by most people to be god given truth. It is not. Job is a terrible story - what a sick god to torment a man just to prove he is pious. Horrid.
The human wisdom of Jesus? Please elucidate. He speaks in parables so that only a few will understand. He gets shirty and throws the money lenders out of the temple. More like a bit of a jerk to me.

The bible is used as a tool to control fools. It terrifies me.

wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady...

"in the robe's fold, what appear to be sketch lines, suggesting that the artist roughed out the figure before painting it"

So god needs a preliminary sketch or two as well.

Dragonrider wrote: "Nope not really."

Facts never worry the religious.

Dragonrider wrote: "Just wondering, have any of you guys heard about the Tilma of guadalupe. Sorry the text is so small.

http://www.motherofallpeoples.com/ind..."

Rubbish. See: http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/miracul...

Nathan wrote: "My favorite book of the Bible is....oh wait, I hate the Bible. It isn't really good fiction. Most of the books are poorly written and starring undeveloped, one dimensional characters."

Totally agree. And where is this "wisdom" logan has mentioned? I can't think of any original wisdom anywhere in the bible,

Girl4beluga wrote: "I've always wanted to go to the creation museum"

You could do with a good laugh could you?

Logan wrote: "I think this is a bit odd: Richard is actually starting to get angry with people. I am appalled at your inability to find any reasonable logical refutation for others' arguments, Richard. It is not..."

Logan, you have me all excited here! What are these compelling logical refutations? I have never seen any logical refutation of the theory of evolution. As many have stated here there is overwhelming evidence that evolution is correct. As to "well-considered answers to all of these basic arguments this group has" - I look forward to these as well. I have recently read "God: The Failed Hypothesis" by Victor Stenger and have yet to find ANY valid arguments against his findings that the universe looks just as a universe would look without an abrahamic type god.

Randyw wrote: "Jesus Lives" - yes, I believe Jesus would use the word "creator" not evolution but Genesis was written long before Jesus was made known to the world.

Christians are a people of "faith""

That's a big problem with christians - they always believe they know what jesus thinks.

How do you know (or have the faintest idea) what word jesus would use?

Richard wrote: "Greetings!
You have presented very strong and "lavish" arguments for old-age Universe via radiometric dating. Since dating an object requires the measurement of time, assumptions must be made ab..."

Oh dear. Perhaps "Why a Horse is not a Fly" by Sermonti was not a good choice: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/...

The tree of life is not such an easy project as you imagine - the fossil record is incomplete by the very nature of fossil creation conditions – yet this tree is well on the way: http://www.tolweb.org/tree/

You ask "The question is, what genetic mutations known today give humans a survival advantage?". Well the mutations which give us an advantage are the mutations which increase our chances of survival when they are exposed to real life survival conditions. Mutations which are detrimental do not help and would usually lead to the death of their inhabitants, were it not for the wonders of modern medical science which allows many with genetic mutations to survive longer than nature would have them. I should imagine man is not the ideal animal to examine now as we have devised many non-evolutionary aids to survival. If anything, we are driving our evolution in a completely different direction than nature intended. We can survive in many environments previously unsuitable for human life: cold via heating, shelter and clothing; heat from shelter and refrigeration; disease with antibiotics, controlled diet and quarantine; hunger with greatly improved crop yields, use of pesticides and herbicides - the list goes on. These are all mutations but not mutations of our genetic makeup but of our memetics.

A fine example of beneficial mutations to life is found in Richard Lenski’s well documented E. Coli experiments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_...
“In 2008, Lenski and his collaborators reported on a particularly important adaptation that occurred in one of the twelve populations: the bacteria evolved the ability to utilize citrate as a source of energy.”

You mention ”the known evidence actually contradicts the theory of evolution - e.g., Cambrian explosion, mutations are beneficial, etc”. Wherever did you get the idea that these contradict evolution? The Cambrian explosion took place over many millions of years – it didn’t just happen overnight. There are many possible explanations for the rapid diversity of life during this period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian...) - all that was needed was an evolutionary change which gave a greater than usual advantage and, poof, off we go…

You state “The evidence discovered during the last 20 years, however, has destroyed the Central Dogma of evolution that emerged following the re-discovery of Mendelian genetics early in the twentieth century.” – What evidence is this? I would love to know.

The vast (and I mean vast) majority of scientists today support evolutionary theory, well summed up in Andrea Bottaro’s review of your quoted book "Why a Horse is not a Fly" (http://www.amazon.com/review/R10TR25J...

Finally, let me talk about the "argument from authority" regarding Sermonti's credentials, probably the most striking irony of all. Intelligent Design/creationism advocates do not normally care for expert knowledge (duh). In fact, they have no trouble asking their faithful to simply dismiss the opinions of tens of thousands of scientists, the overwhelming majority of biologists in the world, who support evolutionary theory and recognize ID and Creationism as pseudo-scientific quackery. On the contrary, ID/Creationist claims START from the basic assumption that practically all the experts in the world are wrong. Without the necessary belief that all the expertise, all the credentials, all the combined professional practice and study of all the world's scientists are worth nothing, and can be overturned by Divine Revelation and/or the raw intuition of a few utterly unqualified individuals, ID/Creationism would have no leg to stand on. Yet, here they are, the very same people, saying we really have to take Sermonti's words at face value simply because of his past accomplishments as a scientist. Don't let them fool you - this book is dreck.(/i>

rgb wrote: "Although Darwin does speak of dogs and gods in Chapter 21 of The Descent of Man -- just not in the same breath, and not in any sense religiously...
A pointer dog, if able to reflect on his past conduct..."

Thanks RGB that was all I could find relating to "Dogs Reflecting" as well :-)

I was hoping Richard, who appears to be the expert on everything Darwin, would have an answer as well but he is still sniping and showing his ignorance of evolution, physics and intelligent discourse.

And what is with his "Greetings!" and "Have a Great Day"? What a pleasant way of annoying someone!

Richard wrote: "Greetings - Hp!

Love your question - "Where did your creator come from." Answer - I don't have a clue.

When Darwin was asked the same question, he said - "How can a dog reflect on the mind o..."

You see Richard, that appears to be your problem. You do not want to find the real answers; you want to be told what to do, what to believe and what you hope is to come.

Others wish to discover how the universe really came to be as it is; what really happened to create life; what the future really holds for us; and how we really came to be intelligent, sentient beings able to pose such wonderful questions.

These people do not depend on ancient myths tied to a rather ridiculous religion via a mad-man unfortunately saying that someone died for our sins: The moment you believe that Jesus died for our sins (1 Cor. 15:3; Gal. 1:4) you are inextricably stuck with the idiotic idea of sin being real and a result of the fall from “Eden”. You are then also bonded to all the other Bronze Age rubbish of the Old Testament.

I can not seem to find your Darwin quote "How can a dog reflect on the mind of man." Where does this quote come from? I’d like to see it in context.

Richard wrote: "Greetings - Robert Gibbons Brown!

Thanks for your very lengthy answer to the question - on the origin of space and time.

You said - "Space and time have no origin."

As a physicist, then, ..."


Ok Richard - Where do you think the space and time originated? How do you explain the origin of molecules? Could one conclude that we do not fully understand the physical processes involved but, eventually, they will be explained in physical terms? Surely this is a damn sight better that "a god did it"! I assume from all your posts and your book web-site that you are a young earth creationist. Where did your creator come from? Where was its origin? If it has existed forever then why not the universe? As a young earth creationist you must be able to prove that your god is infinite in ALL respects. You are willing to belittle evolution and cosmology but have no reasonable alternatives!

Richard wrote: "Greetings!

Evolution is awesome. We now know that life came about by chance from nothing in a big bang - life is driven simply by natural selection with no meaning or purpose - evolution has bee..."

I feel sorry for Richard - that is the post of a troubled, desperate man struggling with doubt :-(