Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Yet ANOTHER "living fossil" ...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Yet ANOTHER "living fossil" ...

    Yet ANOTHER "living fossil", this one would have gone through hundreds of millions of generations with essentially no Evolution. And it's not a single-celled organism; it's a complex flying insect. It's called Enigmatinea glatzella - the "enigma moth" because it's an enigma to Evolutionists. It's also called the "dinosaur moth" because it 'belongs with the dinosaurs' (allegedly 65 million years ago).

    But never fear, the Evo-Faithful will undoubtedly "explain" away this enigmatic, counter-Evolution example. Their worn-out "unchanging environmental niche" explanation won't work because even an idiot would never believe that the environment of a flying insect would remain unchanged over the "40 million years" that this insect has allegedly been around. Yup, it's still buzzing around!

    Tap dancing, you may not know, is a requisite course for Evo-Biologists. The course is required because of all the frantic tap-dancing that the Evo-Faithful will have to do as discoveries render Evolution more and more mythical.

    http://www.icr.org/article/8672

    Jorge

  • #2
    Yet ANOTHER example showing that Jorge has absolutely no idea what biological evolution entails.
    "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
    --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
      Yet ANOTHER example showing that Jorge has absolutely no idea what biological evolution entails.
      WOW- the above, folks, is a "scholarly", "scientific" rebuttal! I feel faint ...

      Jorge

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Jorge View Post
        WOW- the above, folks, is a "scholarly", "scientific" rebuttal! I feel faint ...
        Why would I offer a scholarly, scientific rebuttal to a post which is neither scholarly nor scientific? As soon as you start dealing with the science rather than propagandizing your persecution complex, I'll start replying with science.
        "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
        --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Jorge View Post
          But never fear, the Evo-Faithful will undoubtedly "explain" away this enigmatic, counter-Evolution example.
          Well no.

          They will try to explain it.

          What they won't do is say:-

          1) We can't explain it,

          2) Therefore God did it.

          Imagine if Newton did this? He would never have considered that the apple hitting his head explained why the moon orbited the earth. He would have remained at "God holds the moon in its place. The Bible tells me so."

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Jorge View Post
            WOW- the above, folks, is a "scholarly", "scientific" rebuttal! I feel faint ...

            Jorge
            I noticed your ICR clown, er, "scientist" referred to the moth "kind".

            How did we get from the single moth 'kind" on the Ark to the over 160,000 known species of moths today in only 4500 years?

            The Jorge doesn't think before he clucks.

            Comment


            • #7
              Living fossils are a misnomer. In the pre-crash Tweb I had several threads showing how various creatures called living fossils had changed dramatically over the eons including crocodiles and coelacanths.

              In any case here is a couple of articles covering that premise

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                I noticed your ICR clown, er, "scientist" referred to the moth "kind".
                Tut tut. He didn't.

                Hebert and Fernandez made multiple mistakes, but this wasn't one of them.

                Roy
                Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

                Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                Mountain Man: … this is how liberals argue these days, with labels instead of ideas.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Roy View Post
                  Tut tut. He didn't.

                  Hebert and Fernandez made multiple mistakes, but this wasn't one of them.

                  Roy
                  Actually it is. It's at the very bottom of the article

                  This moth is just one more example of a "living fossil," a creature whose living representatives are not significantly different from their fossilized ancestors, despite the alleged passage of millions of years.5,6,7,8 Of course, this lack of evolution is exactly what one would expect to find in nature since God created all flying creatures—including moths—to reproduce "according to its kind" (Genesis 1:21).

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                    Actually it is. It's at the very bottom of the article
                    Actually it isn't. The quoted text does not state that there is only a single moth "kind", only that each moth reproduces according to its kind, whatever that might be.

                    Roy
                    Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                    mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

                    Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                    Mountain Man: … this is how liberals argue these days, with labels instead of ideas.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                      Yet ANOTHER "living fossil", this one would have gone through hundreds of millions of generations with essentially no Evolution. And it's not a single-celled organism; it's a complex flying insect. It's called Enigmatinea glatzella - the "enigma moth" because it's an enigma to Evolutionists. It's also called the "dinosaur moth" because it 'belongs with the dinosaurs' (allegedly 65 million years ago).

                      But never fear, the Evo-Faithful will undoubtedly "explain" away this enigmatic, counter-Evolution example. Their worn-out "unchanging environmental niche" explanation won't work because even an idiot would never believe that the environment of a flying insect would remain unchanged over the "40 million years" that this insect has allegedly been around. Yup, it's still buzzing around!

                      Tap dancing, you may not know, is a requisite course for Evo-Biologists. The course is required because of all the frantic tap-dancing that the Evo-Faithful will have to do as discoveries render Evolution more and more mythical.

                      http://www.icr.org/article/8672

                      Jorge
                      Why wouldn't "the environment of a flying insect... remain unchanged over the 40 million years"?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                        Yet ANOTHER "living fossil", this one would have gone through hundreds of millions of generations with essentially no Evolution. And it's not a single-celled organism; it's a complex flying insect. It's called Enigmatinea glatzella - the "enigma moth" because it's an enigma to Evolutionists. It's also called the "dinosaur moth" because it 'belongs with the dinosaurs' (allegedly 65 million years ago).

                        But never fear, the Evo-Faithful will undoubtedly "explain" away this enigmatic, counter-Evolution example. Their worn-out "unchanging environmental niche" explanation won't work because even an idiot would never believe that the environment of a flying insect would remain unchanged over the "40 million years" that this insect has allegedly been around. Yup, it's still buzzing around!

                        Tap dancing, you may not know, is a requisite course for Evo-Biologists. The course is required because of all the frantic tap-dancing that the Evo-Faithful will have to do as discoveries render Evolution more and more mythical.

                        http://www.icr.org/article/8672

                        Jorge
                        Jorge - you've made many posts presenting this specific misunderstanding of Evolutionary theory. Why is it so hard for you to take a step back and think logically about why this is not the 'problem' you make it out to be. Over and over you have been given a sholarly, sufficient response to this particular objection to Evolutionary theory:

                        A) the entity in question has evolved - it's genome has changed.
                        B) its form is similar, even identical to from a standpoint of fossil preservation, that of its ancient counterpart. But this simply means it is well adapted to the environments it has been a part of over the time it has existed. Evolution does NOT require a species go extinct, or even that it change. Change comes when there are adaptations possible which enhance it's capability to survive. Change does not come when
                        a) the environment does not change
                        b) the species has reached a fitness plateau for that environment

                        A careful analysis of Evolutionary theory reveals that a FEW species that have been around millions, even hundreds of millions of years, are not precluded. They could even be said to be expected.

                        So what you need to do if you wish to proceed logically and if you wish to be 'honest' in your intellectual development is understand these issues, and then if you actually find some salient and robust contradiction to my points above, present THAT, and show using a robust and logical argument why such a 'living fossil' is in fact a problem having TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT the points made above.

                        This you have not ever done. You simply return to the same mantra without engaging in the slightest depth of mental exercise.

                        This is totally beneath you - unless you primary detractors are correct and you are a mental midget.


                        Jim
                        He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

                        "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                          I noticed your ICR clown, er, "scientist" referred to the moth "kind".

                          How did we get from the single moth 'kind" on the Ark to the over 160,000 known species of moths today in only 4500 years?

                          The Jorge doesn't think before he clucks.
                          Oh look, it's Beagle Boy! For those of you that don't know, Beagle Boy's appearance at the end or start of a month comes as no surprise because that's when he's typically released from his cage to howl at the moon and to do some off-the-leash rummaging.

                          Never fear, he should be safely locked-up again in a day or two.

                          Jorge

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Roy View Post
                            Actually it isn't. The quoted text does not state that there is only a single moth "kind", only that each moth reproduces according to its kind, whatever that might be.

                            Roy
                            You're trying to explain basic English semantics to a guy that had a hard time
                            getting past "See Spot chase the ball ... run, Spot, run!".

                            Oh, and let's not forget his famous score on the "Science Test for Young Teenagers".

                            Jorge

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Cuttlebones View Post
                              Why wouldn't "the environment of a flying insect... remain unchanged over the 40 million years"?
                              Was that a trick question?

                              Jorge

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by shunyadragon, Yesterday, 09:08 PM
                              1 response
                              11 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by lee_merrill, Yesterday, 06:43 PM
                              2 responses
                              11 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by Juvenal, 11-30-2020, 04:47 PM
                              3 responses
                              42 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Terraceth  
                              Started by rogue06, 11-28-2020, 12:54 PM
                              4 responses
                              37 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by shunyadragon, 11-26-2020, 09:46 PM
                              0 responses
                              12 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X