Wednesday, 13 January 2010
My New Book
NEW! HOT OFF THE PRESS!!
“HOW DOES INSTINCT EVOLVE”
OR
Evolution's Soft Underbelly
by Asyncritus
AT LAST!
The Argument Darwin Dreaded…
The Argument No-One Has Developed Before…
The Argument to Which There Is
NO ANSWER FROM THE EVOLUTIONISTS!
35,000 viewers of my articles can’t all be wrong. Check Google for this subject and see!
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=17.30
100 pages of amazing facts and carefully reasoned arguments. Equip yourself! Give your children the knowledge to defend belief in Creation in class!
Get your copy here. Only $19.97 as pdf.
$27 plus $5 p&p in CDR format.
Published by phillauren.org
Tuesday, 5 January 2010
Further Notes on Reptiles becoming Birds
Perhaps I may be allowed a few words on this, the most fatal argument against evolution.
Imagine reptile X no feathers, no wings.
Imagine some mutation (systemic, enormous as per Goldschmidt) and lo and behold, we have the first bird, B -as I said, warmblooded, fully feathered, with wings instead of reptile forelimbs, one way lung circulation instead of bellows arrangement, etc etc.
One may well say, that is a creative act, just taken place, but we'll let that pass.
Diagrammatically:
X (reptile) ----Mutation --------> B (bird, with wings etc)
Now what does B do?
One of 2 things:
a. gets eaten by the parent reptile who thinks it's food
b. attempts to fly off into the distance
BUT IT DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO FLY!!!
As we all know, flight training is a complex affair. If we were to put an untrained person into the cockpit of a fighter aircraft, saying 'Get on with it', disaster is guaranteed.
In order to fly, that bird MUST HAVE THE INSTINCTS REQUIRED. Else disaster is guaranteed. Those instincts are complex, and built into every flying bird.
We know that because young fledglings are shoved out of their parents' nests - AND THEY FLY OR DIE.
So we now have 2 diagrams:
X ------- M-------> B (without flight instincts)---> death/extinction)
or
X----M-----I.I ---->B (with flight instincts) ---> gone to Hawaii.
I.I = instinct implantation.
There can be NO intermediate steps. The bird either knew how to fly, or it died. If we postulate a gliding intermediate, then that too requires training/instinct.
I'm sure you would think twice before leaping off the top of a high tree or cliff if you didn't KNOW how to hang-glide.
So the question before us is, who or what implanted that instinct, and how?
NEWS FLASH!
NEW! HOT OFF THE PRESS!!
“HOW DOES INSTINCT EVOLVE”
OR
Evolution's Soft Underbelly
by Asyncritus
AT LAST!
The Argument Darwin Dreaded…
The Argument No-One Has Developed Before…
The Argument to Which There Is
NO ANSWER FROM THE EVOLUTIONISTS!
35,000 viewers of my articles can’t all be wrong. Check Google for this subject and see!
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=17.30
100 pages of amazing facts and carefully reasoned arguments. Equip yourself! Give your children the knowledge to defend belief in Creation in class!
Get your copy here. Only $19.97 as pdf.
$27 plus $5 p&p in CDR format.
Published by phillauren.org
Imagine reptile X no feathers, no wings.
Imagine some mutation (systemic, enormous as per Goldschmidt) and lo and behold, we have the first bird, B -as I said, warmblooded, fully feathered, with wings instead of reptile forelimbs, one way lung circulation instead of bellows arrangement, etc etc.
One may well say, that is a creative act, just taken place, but we'll let that pass.
Diagrammatically:
X (reptile) ----Mutation --------> B (bird, with wings etc)
Now what does B do?
One of 2 things:
a. gets eaten by the parent reptile who thinks it's food
b. attempts to fly off into the distance
BUT IT DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO FLY!!!
As we all know, flight training is a complex affair. If we were to put an untrained person into the cockpit of a fighter aircraft, saying 'Get on with it', disaster is guaranteed.
In order to fly, that bird MUST HAVE THE INSTINCTS REQUIRED. Else disaster is guaranteed. Those instincts are complex, and built into every flying bird.
We know that because young fledglings are shoved out of their parents' nests - AND THEY FLY OR DIE.
So we now have 2 diagrams:
X ------- M-------> B (without flight instincts)---> death/extinction)
or
X----M-----I.I ---->B (with flight instincts) ---> gone to Hawaii.
I.I = instinct implantation.
There can be NO intermediate steps. The bird either knew how to fly, or it died. If we postulate a gliding intermediate, then that too requires training/instinct.
I'm sure you would think twice before leaping off the top of a high tree or cliff if you didn't KNOW how to hang-glide.
So the question before us is, who or what implanted that instinct, and how?
NEWS FLASH!
NEW! HOT OFF THE PRESS!!
“HOW DOES INSTINCT EVOLVE”
OR
Evolution's Soft Underbelly
by Asyncritus
AT LAST!
The Argument Darwin Dreaded…
The Argument No-One Has Developed Before…
The Argument to Which There Is
NO ANSWER FROM THE EVOLUTIONISTS!
35,000 viewers of my articles can’t all be wrong. Check Google for this subject and see!
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=17.30
100 pages of amazing facts and carefully reasoned arguments. Equip yourself! Give your children the knowledge to defend belief in Creation in class!
Get your copy here. Only $19.97 as pdf.
$27 plus $5 p&p in CDR format.
Published by phillauren.org
Saturday, 2 January 2010
The Bucket Orchid
The Bucket Orchid
THE BUCKET ORCHID
Darwin in his book 'On the pollination and fertilisation of Orchids' included a description of the pollination of the Bucket Orchid, Coryanthes speciosa.
He was so surprised on receiving the description that until he checked and found that it was a respectable botanist who had made the report, he would not credit it.
The BBC have filmed it happening, and the film is probably available from them.
The orchid's labellum is shaped as a bucket, and above the bucket, on another petal, is a gland which secretes a liquid, probably water, which drips into the bucket and accumulates in it.
There are some photos here:
http://blogs.salon.com/0001330/categ...006/06/29.html
The bucket possesses three remarkable features.
1 Cut into the outer side of the bucket, away from the main flower structure, is a slit, which functions as an overflow: so when the liquid reaches a level about half a centimetre BELOW the upper edge of the bucket, it overflows, so at no time is it ever full to the brim.
2 On the opposite side, inside the bucket, and below the level of the liquid, is what looks for all the world like a little step.
3 The outer lip of the bucket is made of some material which is intensely attractive to the blue euglossine male bee.
The bees come and struggle to get at the lip of the bucket, and of course, in the struggles one falls in sooner or later.
Because the walls of the bucket are smooth, he cannot get a grip EXCEPT at the point where there is the aforementioned step. Wet and bedraggled, he climbs on to the step and out, right into the heart of the flower.
As he enters the tube formed by the other petals, he is suddenly clamped and held for a few moments, unable to move or escape, and on to his back, the anthers are pressed.
On the anthers, there is a glue, which takes exactly the same amount of time to dry, as he is held motionless. It dries, he buzzes off, and goes to another flower where the process is repeated - and so the pollen from the anthers reaches the stigma, thus fertilising the orchid.
Darwin also noted that a phenomenon known as pollinarium bending occurred. The term refers to the manner in which orchid pollinaria start to bend after an 18- to 20-second interval after attaching to a visiting insect. The bending mechanism prevents self-pollination of the orchid.
It so happens that only one species of bee comes to a particular species of Coryanthes.
The probability of these features coming together by chance is astronomically small.
1 The structure of the labellum as a bucket is remarkable in itself
2 The gland above is obviously placed there to produce the liquid for the bucket. Imagine it producing liquid with no bucket there, or a bucket there with no liquid coming!
3 The overflow is there for the designed purpose of preventing the liquid from flowing out, over the top of the bucket. If it could flow over the top, the bee, when he fell in, could simply float out over the edge, and thus defeat the purpose of the exercise.
4 The little step, contrived and placed there for the express purpose of preventing the bee drowning, also forces him to enter the heart of the flower.
5 The flower has a designed clamping action, with a timer built in, exactly matched to the drying time of the glue on the anthers.
6 The anthers stick to his back, and do not impede his flight to another plant after he has dried off.
7 The stigma of the flower is positioned on the top petal of the flower, to make sure that it is in the correct position to receive the pollen when the bee arrives. If it was on the underside of the flower, then it would never receive any pollen.
We won't go into the complexities of anther construction until the post on mitosis and meiosis are completed.
8 The glue on the anthers is exactly right for the purpose, and its chemical composition known, and the manufaturing technique as well.
Having read all that, it is no wonder that Darwin staggered at the description. He said that the orchids employed a 'beautiful contrivance' to avoid self pollination.
The question of how all this evolved clearly didn't arise in his mind, or else he pushed it to the back of it. But who contrived the contrivance?
Explanations?
NEWS FLASH!
NEW! HOT OFF THE PRESS!!
“HOW DOES INSTINCT EVOLVE”
OR
Evolution's Soft Underbelly
by Asyncritus
AT LAST!
The Argument Darwin Dreaded…
The Argument No-One Has Developed Before…
The Argument to Which There Is
NO ANSWER FROM THE EVOLUTIONISTS!
35,000 viewers of my articles can’t all be wrong. Check Google for this subject and see!
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=17.30
100 pages of amazing facts and carefully reasoned arguments. Equip yourself! Give your children the knowledge to defend belief in Creation in class!
Get your copy here. Only $19.97 as pdf.
$27 plus $5 p&p in CDR format.
Published by phillauren.org
Monday, 21 December 2009
The FIG WASP
THE FIG WASP
I've put up some amazing things, but this is certainly one of the highest ranking. Judge for yourself.
The fig tree has a tightly closed inflorescence, which means that the hundreds of tiny flowers (florets to give them their proper name) are completely inclosed inside the fig. They can't be seen from the outside.
Each species of fig seems to be pollinated by only ONE species of wasp! There are about 730 species of fig so that would seem to require 730 species of wasp- but not all of these are known as yet.
How do the insects find the flowers?
When the tree is ready for pollination, it releases tree-specific volatile substances which the wasp tracks down to their source. Lo and behold, there's the flower, or the inflorescence, rather.
So the female finds the inflorescence. Thousands die in the search process though, because it's a big world out there.
How do they get in?
When she finds it, there is another big hurdle to cross. The entrance to the inflorescence (called the ostiole) is extremely small, and lined with bracts, which are placed there to keep out the unwanted. They fit tightly, and that makes life very difficult for the unwanted, but no less so for the wasp, to get in.
She, however, has been explicitly designed for this very task.
Her head and thorax (chest) are extremely flattened and elongated: just the job for squeezing past the bracts! ('Remarkably adapted' is the description. Ho ho ho!) Her 'teeth', on her mandibular apparatus, point backwards, and she's got teeth on her hind legs, also pointing backwards. They do so in order to prevent her from slipping out!
Her wings very often break off in the struggle to get in - so once in there, there's no way back.
Once inside, she sets about, in complete or nearly complete darkness, to pollinate the stigmas, and to lay eggs in some of the ovules. She distinguishes between those ovules which are going to become seeds, and those which are not.
Those ovules whose styles are too long for her ovipositor to reach the ovule, she simply pollinates.
Those ovules her ovipositor can reach, she leaves unpollinated, so they will only contain her larvae.
This makes certain that the plant will survive, and that her larvae will have food to eat.
What happens then? She dies. Her young never see her alive, and can't copy her actions - but they do exactly the same as she did.
As the eggs develop and hatch out into larvae, the eat the endosperm of the ovules they have been laid in, and they grow into adulthood.
The males mate with the females, and amazingly, chew a hole in the wall of the maturing or matured fig SO THAT THE FEMALES CAN GET OUT.
Then they die.
The females in the meantime, load up with pollen, or get covered in it, and then set off to find another flower inflorescence.
EVOLUTIONARY DIFFICULTIES
1 How do we explain the fact that the young never see the adult in action - and yet they do exactly the same as she does?
2 How do the males know that unless they dig a hole, the females won't get out, the plants won't get pollinated, and their own species will die out?
3 How is it that only the fig wasp pollinates the fig flowers? Without the wasp, as with the bucket orchid, the fig will die out, and without the fig, the wasp will die out?
4 How did the female 'develop' the elongated and flattened shape that enables her to get into the ostiole?
5 How is it thar her ovipositor length has become the determining factor in whether the ovules get pollinated or not? If it was too long, then no pollination would take place. If it was too short, then the eggs would not be laid. So who or what determined that length?
6 How did this relationship, as specific and complicated as it is, ever get started?
7 Where did the plant get the necessary chemical knowledge to produce the volatile substances which attract the wasps, and how did it know that it would attract them anyway?
8 Where did the insects get the brain to figure out that if they followed the scent, they would find a fig they could pollinate?
It happens, that once the fig is pollinated, and the females have left the fig, its colour and smell change, and it becomes attractive to the fruit eating community like birds, bats, monkeys etc etc.
Does God take thought for wasps? And figs? And birds? And monkeys? Obviously, He does!
Here's another account: http://figs4fun.com/Links/FigLink006a.pdf
The common fig is a member of the genus Ficus. Ficus is a large genus with some 2000 tropical and subtropical tree, shrub and vine species distributed around the whole world.
The fruit of all ficus species isthe syconium, an enlarged, fleshy and hollow peduncle bearing closely massed tiny flowers on its inner wall. The true fruits are tiny drupelets which develop from these flowers.
The problem is these flowers are borne on the inside of the syconium. They never open to the outside world like respectable roses, cabbages and oak trees.
How do they get pollinated?
That's their weird sex life. Hold on for this is complicated.
F. carica and some closely related species come in two basic forms: edible figs and caprifigs. Caprifigs are the host of the fig pollinator Blastophages psenes or fig wasp which lays its eggs in the caprifig's short-styled female flowers.
The male fig wasp grows, mates and dies inside the caprifig fruit in which he is born. The female is more adventuresome.
She leaves the caprifig fruit through its ostiole or eye (picking up a lot of pollen in the process) and flies off in search of a new fruit at the right stage of development in which to lay her eggs.
The kicker is this: female fig wasps lay so many eggs in each caprifig fruit that very few, if any, of the female flowers ever produce seeds. Not good for ficus species survival.
Evolution (or God, if you prefer) provided a solution: the edible fig.
The plant and fruit look just like those of the caprifig, but have two important differences: no male flowers, and the female flowers have long styles which prevent the fig wasp from laying her eggs.
If she enters the fruit of an edible fig, she searches desperately for, but finds no suitable female flowers. As she does, she scatters the pollen she picked up leaving the caprifig. And, this pollenizes (or caprifies) the edible fig. When caprified, each fruit will produce several hundred to several thousand seeds per fruit, depending on the variety.
Not so great for the individual fig wasp, but good for the ficus species. Overall, the situation benefits both figs and fig wasps. There are plenty of caprifigs to nourish the fig wasps and plenty of edible figs to produce fig seeds which develop into fig and caprifig plants.
NEWS FLASH!
NEW! HOT OFF THE PRESS!!
“HOW DOES INSTINCT EVOLVE”
OR
Evolution's Soft Underbelly
by Asyncritus
AT LAST!
The Argument Darwin Dreaded…
The Argument No-One Has Developed Before…
The Argument to Which There Is
NO ANSWER FROM THE EVOLUTIONISTS!
35,000 viewers of my articles can’t all be wrong. Check Google for this subject and see!
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=17.30
100 pages of amazing facts and carefully reasoned arguments. Equip yourself! Give your children the knowledge to defend belief in Creation in class!
Get your copy here. Only $19.97 as pdf.
$27 plus $5 p&p in CDR format.
Published by phillauren.org
I've put up some amazing things, but this is certainly one of the highest ranking. Judge for yourself.
The fig tree has a tightly closed inflorescence, which means that the hundreds of tiny flowers (florets to give them their proper name) are completely inclosed inside the fig. They can't be seen from the outside.
Each species of fig seems to be pollinated by only ONE species of wasp! There are about 730 species of fig so that would seem to require 730 species of wasp- but not all of these are known as yet.
How do the insects find the flowers?
When the tree is ready for pollination, it releases tree-specific volatile substances which the wasp tracks down to their source. Lo and behold, there's the flower, or the inflorescence, rather.
So the female finds the inflorescence. Thousands die in the search process though, because it's a big world out there.
How do they get in?
When she finds it, there is another big hurdle to cross. The entrance to the inflorescence (called the ostiole) is extremely small, and lined with bracts, which are placed there to keep out the unwanted. They fit tightly, and that makes life very difficult for the unwanted, but no less so for the wasp, to get in.
She, however, has been explicitly designed for this very task.
Her head and thorax (chest) are extremely flattened and elongated: just the job for squeezing past the bracts! ('Remarkably adapted' is the description. Ho ho ho!) Her 'teeth', on her mandibular apparatus, point backwards, and she's got teeth on her hind legs, also pointing backwards. They do so in order to prevent her from slipping out!
Her wings very often break off in the struggle to get in - so once in there, there's no way back.
Once inside, she sets about, in complete or nearly complete darkness, to pollinate the stigmas, and to lay eggs in some of the ovules. She distinguishes between those ovules which are going to become seeds, and those which are not.
Those ovules whose styles are too long for her ovipositor to reach the ovule, she simply pollinates.
Those ovules her ovipositor can reach, she leaves unpollinated, so they will only contain her larvae.
This makes certain that the plant will survive, and that her larvae will have food to eat.
What happens then? She dies. Her young never see her alive, and can't copy her actions - but they do exactly the same as she did.
As the eggs develop and hatch out into larvae, the eat the endosperm of the ovules they have been laid in, and they grow into adulthood.
The males mate with the females, and amazingly, chew a hole in the wall of the maturing or matured fig SO THAT THE FEMALES CAN GET OUT.
Then they die.
The females in the meantime, load up with pollen, or get covered in it, and then set off to find another flower inflorescence.
EVOLUTIONARY DIFFICULTIES
1 How do we explain the fact that the young never see the adult in action - and yet they do exactly the same as she does?
2 How do the males know that unless they dig a hole, the females won't get out, the plants won't get pollinated, and their own species will die out?
3 How is it that only the fig wasp pollinates the fig flowers? Without the wasp, as with the bucket orchid, the fig will die out, and without the fig, the wasp will die out?
4 How did the female 'develop' the elongated and flattened shape that enables her to get into the ostiole?
5 How is it thar her ovipositor length has become the determining factor in whether the ovules get pollinated or not? If it was too long, then no pollination would take place. If it was too short, then the eggs would not be laid. So who or what determined that length?
6 How did this relationship, as specific and complicated as it is, ever get started?
7 Where did the plant get the necessary chemical knowledge to produce the volatile substances which attract the wasps, and how did it know that it would attract them anyway?
8 Where did the insects get the brain to figure out that if they followed the scent, they would find a fig they could pollinate?
It happens, that once the fig is pollinated, and the females have left the fig, its colour and smell change, and it becomes attractive to the fruit eating community like birds, bats, monkeys etc etc.
Does God take thought for wasps? And figs? And birds? And monkeys? Obviously, He does!
Here's another account: http://figs4fun.com/Links/FigLink006a.pdf
The common fig is a member of the genus Ficus. Ficus is a large genus with some 2000 tropical and subtropical tree, shrub and vine species distributed around the whole world.
The fruit of all ficus species isthe syconium, an enlarged, fleshy and hollow peduncle bearing closely massed tiny flowers on its inner wall. The true fruits are tiny drupelets which develop from these flowers.
The problem is these flowers are borne on the inside of the syconium. They never open to the outside world like respectable roses, cabbages and oak trees.
How do they get pollinated?
That's their weird sex life. Hold on for this is complicated.
F. carica and some closely related species come in two basic forms: edible figs and caprifigs. Caprifigs are the host of the fig pollinator Blastophages psenes or fig wasp which lays its eggs in the caprifig's short-styled female flowers.
The male fig wasp grows, mates and dies inside the caprifig fruit in which he is born. The female is more adventuresome.
She leaves the caprifig fruit through its ostiole or eye (picking up a lot of pollen in the process) and flies off in search of a new fruit at the right stage of development in which to lay her eggs.
The kicker is this: female fig wasps lay so many eggs in each caprifig fruit that very few, if any, of the female flowers ever produce seeds. Not good for ficus species survival.
Evolution (or God, if you prefer) provided a solution: the edible fig.
The plant and fruit look just like those of the caprifig, but have two important differences: no male flowers, and the female flowers have long styles which prevent the fig wasp from laying her eggs.
If she enters the fruit of an edible fig, she searches desperately for, but finds no suitable female flowers. As she does, she scatters the pollen she picked up leaving the caprifig. And, this pollenizes (or caprifies) the edible fig. When caprified, each fruit will produce several hundred to several thousand seeds per fruit, depending on the variety.
Not so great for the individual fig wasp, but good for the ficus species. Overall, the situation benefits both figs and fig wasps. There are plenty of caprifigs to nourish the fig wasps and plenty of edible figs to produce fig seeds which develop into fig and caprifig plants.
NEWS FLASH!
NEW! HOT OFF THE PRESS!!
“HOW DOES INSTINCT EVOLVE”
OR
Evolution's Soft Underbelly
by Asyncritus
AT LAST!
The Argument Darwin Dreaded…
The Argument No-One Has Developed Before…
The Argument to Which There Is
NO ANSWER FROM THE EVOLUTIONISTS!
35,000 viewers of my articles can’t all be wrong. Check Google for this subject and see!
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=17.30
100 pages of amazing facts and carefully reasoned arguments. Equip yourself! Give your children the knowledge to defend belief in Creation in class!
Get your copy here. Only $19.97 as pdf.
$27 plus $5 p&p in CDR format.
Published by phillauren.org
The Miracle of Illogic
THE MIRACLE OF ILLOGIC
NEWS FLASH!
NEW! HOT OFF THE PRESS!!
“HOW DOES INSTINCT EVOLVE”
OR
Evolution's Soft Underbelly
by Asyncritus
AT LAST!
The Argument Darwin Dreaded…
The Argument No-One Has Developed Before…
The Argument to Which There Is
NO ANSWER FROM THE EVOLUTIONISTS!
35,000 viewers of my articles can’t all be wrong. Check Google for this subject and see!
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=17.30
100 pages of amazing facts and carefully reasoned arguments. Equip yourself! Give your children the knowledge to defend belief in Creation in class!
Get your copy here. Only $19.97 as pdf.
$27 plus $5 p&p in CDR format.
Published by phillauren.org
I am always amazed when I hear of some anthropologist finding a crude, brutishly made, blunt, prehistoric stone axe. Because, immediately, they leap upon it, with great cries of triumphant glee, crowing happily that our ancestors made it, and it was xyzanthropus wot did it n thousand years ago.
The product of human intelligence they cry! See, hominids made it. Or something else did. And look how advanced it is! Why, there's a slot here for the haft of the axe to fit in! And some indentations where the binding was attached to hold the device together. And look! There's a few skulls nearby with marks of an axe indented into them! That proves that xyzanthropus used tools as weapons! A tool maker, and a weapons maker! A mark of extremely advanced stages of human evolution!
Little realising that this is really a ton of garbage.
That blunt, crude stone axe is mark of human intelligence of very high order for the time, they say.
But then, the same evolutionary palaeontologist finds a fossilised flight feather. Or some tissue with DNA in it.
That flight feather, or fossil thereof, shows considerable amounts of aeronautical engineering skill, enabling us to know that the bird could and did fly. It is clearly designed for the purpose.
In the DNA are millions of coded, precisely detailed instructions, for the construction of that feather, far surpassing anything even modern Homo sapiens can construct.
And yet, they cannot see that that feather, and that DNA could not possibly have evolved. Nobody in their right senses would claim that the stone axe evolved. But they claim the feather and the DNA did.
It takes a Miracle of Illogic to make that leap.
NEWS FLASH!
NEW! HOT OFF THE PRESS!!
“HOW DOES INSTINCT EVOLVE”
OR
Evolution's Soft Underbelly
by Asyncritus
AT LAST!
The Argument Darwin Dreaded…
The Argument No-One Has Developed Before…
The Argument to Which There Is
NO ANSWER FROM THE EVOLUTIONISTS!
35,000 viewers of my articles can’t all be wrong. Check Google for this subject and see!
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=17.30
100 pages of amazing facts and carefully reasoned arguments. Equip yourself! Give your children the knowledge to defend belief in Creation in class!
Get your copy here. Only $19.97 as pdf.
$27 plus $5 p&p in CDR format.
Published by phillauren.org
I am always amazed when I hear of some anthropologist finding a crude, brutishly made, blunt, prehistoric stone axe. Because, immediately, they leap upon it, with great cries of triumphant glee, crowing happily that our ancestors made it, and it was xyzanthropus wot did it n thousand years ago.
The product of human intelligence they cry! See, hominids made it. Or something else did. And look how advanced it is! Why, there's a slot here for the haft of the axe to fit in! And some indentations where the binding was attached to hold the device together. And look! There's a few skulls nearby with marks of an axe indented into them! That proves that xyzanthropus used tools as weapons! A tool maker, and a weapons maker! A mark of extremely advanced stages of human evolution!
Little realising that this is really a ton of garbage.
That blunt, crude stone axe is mark of human intelligence of very high order for the time, they say.
But then, the same evolutionary palaeontologist finds a fossilised flight feather. Or some tissue with DNA in it.
That flight feather, or fossil thereof, shows considerable amounts of aeronautical engineering skill, enabling us to know that the bird could and did fly. It is clearly designed for the purpose.
In the DNA are millions of coded, precisely detailed instructions, for the construction of that feather, far surpassing anything even modern Homo sapiens can construct.
And yet, they cannot see that that feather, and that DNA could not possibly have evolved. Nobody in their right senses would claim that the stone axe evolved. But they claim the feather and the DNA did.
It takes a Miracle of Illogic to make that leap.
The Arctic Rose
THE ARCTIC ROSE
http://ucdnema.ucdavis.edu/imagemap/...10/pollbio.htm
Got a satellite dish which can track a satellite?
Well, I've got news for you: this plant beat your gadget's designers to it.
In the arctic, heat is at a premium. And so, the arctic rose attracts the insects which pollinate it with the freebie of heat!
The little arctic rose is shaped like a radio telescope monitoring outer space: but for a far more useful purpose.
The parabola shape of its petals gathers and reflects heat from the sun's rays as well as foil, and focusses warmth on the stamens and the stigma!
Both food (nectar and pollen) and warmth (from the parabolic structure) are available to the insects here - so they come to these private sun traps, which are about 10 degrees warmer than elsewhere. They themselves become warmer and better able to fly in very short time, and move on to the next solar heated flower!
They've got to work hard, because the Greenland summer is only about 5 weeks, even though there are nearly 24 hours of daylight. Therefore the plant has to keep warm all day.
So how does it do it? Its stem rotates because of its extraordinary design, and it tracks the sun 24 hours per day, being never more than 2 degrees off course!
So evolution lads, how did this one evolve?
1 Let's leave aside the meiosis and mitosis questions - ie how does the plant figure out that its gametes (sex cells) must contain half the required number of chromosomes.
2 How did it know that it had to get insects in to pollinate itself? And how did it know there were such things as insects, anyway?
3 How did it figure out that warmth and food are essential to insects?
4 How did it conceive the idea of a nice reflective parabolic shape that would focus (focus? - what's that in plant language?) the heat on the stigma and stamens?
5 How did it invent the tracking device, which allows it to know that there IS a sun, where that sun is, and alter its position to follow the sun?
6 And how did it get the plans for the tracking device into its own genes when it had figured out everything else?
NEW! HOT OFF THE PRESS!!
“HOW DOES INSTINCT EVOLVE”
OR
Evolution's Soft Underbelly
by Asyncritus
AT LAST!
The Argument Darwin Dreaded…
The Argument No-One Has Developed Before…
The Argument to Which There Is
NO ANSWER FROM THE EVOLUTIONISTS!
35,000 viewers of my articles can’t all be wrong. Check Google for this subject and see!
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=17.30
100 pages of amazing facts and carefully reasoned arguments. Equip yourself! Give your children the knowledge to defend belief in Creation in class!
Get your copy here. Only $19.97 as pdf.
$27 plus $5 p&p in CDR format.
Published by phillauren.org
http://ucdnema.ucdavis.edu/imagemap/...10/pollbio.htm
Got a satellite dish which can track a satellite?
Well, I've got news for you: this plant beat your gadget's designers to it.
In the arctic, heat is at a premium. And so, the arctic rose attracts the insects which pollinate it with the freebie of heat!
The little arctic rose is shaped like a radio telescope monitoring outer space: but for a far more useful purpose.
The parabola shape of its petals gathers and reflects heat from the sun's rays as well as foil, and focusses warmth on the stamens and the stigma!
Both food (nectar and pollen) and warmth (from the parabolic structure) are available to the insects here - so they come to these private sun traps, which are about 10 degrees warmer than elsewhere. They themselves become warmer and better able to fly in very short time, and move on to the next solar heated flower!
They've got to work hard, because the Greenland summer is only about 5 weeks, even though there are nearly 24 hours of daylight. Therefore the plant has to keep warm all day.
So how does it do it? Its stem rotates because of its extraordinary design, and it tracks the sun 24 hours per day, being never more than 2 degrees off course!
So evolution lads, how did this one evolve?
1 Let's leave aside the meiosis and mitosis questions - ie how does the plant figure out that its gametes (sex cells) must contain half the required number of chromosomes.
2 How did it know that it had to get insects in to pollinate itself? And how did it know there were such things as insects, anyway?
3 How did it figure out that warmth and food are essential to insects?
4 How did it conceive the idea of a nice reflective parabolic shape that would focus (focus? - what's that in plant language?) the heat on the stigma and stamens?
5 How did it invent the tracking device, which allows it to know that there IS a sun, where that sun is, and alter its position to follow the sun?
6 And how did it get the plans for the tracking device into its own genes when it had figured out everything else?
NEW! HOT OFF THE PRESS!!
“HOW DOES INSTINCT EVOLVE”
OR
Evolution's Soft Underbelly
by Asyncritus
AT LAST!
The Argument Darwin Dreaded…
The Argument No-One Has Developed Before…
The Argument to Which There Is
NO ANSWER FROM THE EVOLUTIONISTS!
35,000 viewers of my articles can’t all be wrong. Check Google for this subject and see!
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=17.30
100 pages of amazing facts and carefully reasoned arguments. Equip yourself! Give your children the knowledge to defend belief in Creation in class!
Get your copy here. Only $19.97 as pdf.
$27 plus $5 p&p in CDR format.
Published by phillauren.org
The Archerfish
THE ARCHERFISH (Toxotes spp)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10268.html
Still on the theme of being able to see both under water and in the air, we have this lovely little specimen called the archerfish.
A New Scientist article describes it thus:
Awesome skills of spitting archerfish revealed
The Indo-Pacific fish is able to spit water at its prey out of the water, and hit it. A video shows a fish leaping out of the water to catch an insect.
"Scientists had thought their hunting technique was an unsophisticated skill, based on blasts of water with a "spit and hope" quality.
However, in 2004 researchers showed that these fish are able to precisely judge the size and position of prey above the water line, taking into account the distorting effect on light of passing from air to water."
There's another fascinating feature. The mouthparts are poked out of the water when firing the blast.
That means 2 things at least.
1 The eyes are UNDERWATER while the gun is OUT of the water in the air. Imagine underwater frogmen with a gun firing at a helicopter. They can only see the target, and have no radar, sonar or other aid. What are the chances? And remember, they have brains.
2 Somehow the fish has figured out that if it remains too far UNDERWATER, the jet will be either weakened or won't reach the surface because of water resistance. So it sticks its mouth out of the water.
Their mouthparts are specially designed to enable this unique phenomenon to take place. As far as I know, no other fish in the world can do this accurate spitting, and therefore this is an evolutionary nightmare: no relatives, no gradual acquisition of the necessary physical characteristics, and definitely no acquisition of the instinctive behaviour pattern. No common ancestors.
So where did it come from?
Here is the obligatory, stupid comment: "This suggests the behaviour is evolutionarily "hardwired" and not subject to learning, the researchers say."
Not learned. Right there in our faces. Where did it come from?
Let me point out the difficulties any evolutionary theory has to face.
1 The unique mouthparts. No other fish has them, and they have to work first time, or the fish would have starved. They don't eat anything else.
DIET
Archerfish prey mainly on insects, which are shot down from overhanging branches with a strong and accurate jet of water. They form a spitting tube by positioning their tongue against a groove on the roof of their mouth.
Water is forced through this tube by quickly snapping shut their gills creating a very effective water pistol. For maximum accuracy the tip of their snout extends out of the water while the rest of the body remains submerged. They direct the jet of water with the tip of their tongue.
1. How did they learn to do this with the mouthparts when they've got them?
Remember the question: "Duh! Now what the hell do I do with this??"
2 The ability to take account of the differences in refractive index of water and air. From underwater, an insect would appear to be somewhere else than directly above the fish, and not in a straight line. Somehow the fish corrects for this. How?
3 How does a fish calculate that it will take more force to blast a bigger prey off its perch into the water? It obviously does, says the article - so where did this bit of 'fishy intelligence' come from?
ArcherFish: Changing Caliber to Fit Prey
by Brad Harrub, Ph.D.
"A fish learning the laws of optics is an amazing feat. But to combine those optical laws with the precision shooting of a sniper and then calculating the force of the shot according to the size of the prey (in order to obtain food), defies evolutionary explanation.
How was this creature able to “evolve” these distinctive abilities, and furthermore, why go through all the trouble? Why not just eat aquatic animals like other fish?"
Heidi Hardman remarked:
In a series of experiments, the researchers showed that the fish do not learn this by remembering which combinations of spatial configurations and the corresponding images were rewarding in the past. Rather, the fish extracted the underlying law that connects spatial configuration and apparent size. This remarkable cognitive ability allows the fish to readily judge a target’s objective size from underwater views they have never encountered before (2004).
Random mutations, anyone? Thought so.
NEW! HOT OFF THE PRESS!!
“HOW DOES INSTINCT EVOLVE”
OR
Evolution's Soft Underbelly
by Asyncritus
AT LAST!
The Argument Darwin Dreaded…
The Argument No-One Has Developed Before…
The Argument to Which There Is
NO ANSWER FROM THE EVOLUTIONISTS!
35,000 viewers of my articles can’t all be wrong. Check Google for this subject and see!
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=17.30
100 pages of amazing facts and carefully reasoned arguments. Equip yourself! Give your children the knowledge to defend belief in Creation in class!
Get your copy here. Only $19.97 as pdf.
$27 plus $5 p&p in CDR format.
Published by phillauren.org
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10268.html
Still on the theme of being able to see both under water and in the air, we have this lovely little specimen called the archerfish.
A New Scientist article describes it thus:
Awesome skills of spitting archerfish revealed
The Indo-Pacific fish is able to spit water at its prey out of the water, and hit it. A video shows a fish leaping out of the water to catch an insect.
"Scientists had thought their hunting technique was an unsophisticated skill, based on blasts of water with a "spit and hope" quality.
However, in 2004 researchers showed that these fish are able to precisely judge the size and position of prey above the water line, taking into account the distorting effect on light of passing from air to water."
There's another fascinating feature. The mouthparts are poked out of the water when firing the blast.
That means 2 things at least.
1 The eyes are UNDERWATER while the gun is OUT of the water in the air. Imagine underwater frogmen with a gun firing at a helicopter. They can only see the target, and have no radar, sonar or other aid. What are the chances? And remember, they have brains.
2 Somehow the fish has figured out that if it remains too far UNDERWATER, the jet will be either weakened or won't reach the surface because of water resistance. So it sticks its mouth out of the water.
Their mouthparts are specially designed to enable this unique phenomenon to take place. As far as I know, no other fish in the world can do this accurate spitting, and therefore this is an evolutionary nightmare: no relatives, no gradual acquisition of the necessary physical characteristics, and definitely no acquisition of the instinctive behaviour pattern. No common ancestors.
So where did it come from?
Here is the obligatory, stupid comment: "This suggests the behaviour is evolutionarily "hardwired" and not subject to learning, the researchers say."
Not learned. Right there in our faces. Where did it come from?
Let me point out the difficulties any evolutionary theory has to face.
1 The unique mouthparts. No other fish has them, and they have to work first time, or the fish would have starved. They don't eat anything else.
DIET
Archerfish prey mainly on insects, which are shot down from overhanging branches with a strong and accurate jet of water. They form a spitting tube by positioning their tongue against a groove on the roof of their mouth.
Water is forced through this tube by quickly snapping shut their gills creating a very effective water pistol. For maximum accuracy the tip of their snout extends out of the water while the rest of the body remains submerged. They direct the jet of water with the tip of their tongue.
1. How did they learn to do this with the mouthparts when they've got them?
Remember the question: "Duh! Now what the hell do I do with this??"
2 The ability to take account of the differences in refractive index of water and air. From underwater, an insect would appear to be somewhere else than directly above the fish, and not in a straight line. Somehow the fish corrects for this. How?
3 How does a fish calculate that it will take more force to blast a bigger prey off its perch into the water? It obviously does, says the article - so where did this bit of 'fishy intelligence' come from?
ArcherFish: Changing Caliber to Fit Prey
by Brad Harrub, Ph.D.
"A fish learning the laws of optics is an amazing feat. But to combine those optical laws with the precision shooting of a sniper and then calculating the force of the shot according to the size of the prey (in order to obtain food), defies evolutionary explanation.
How was this creature able to “evolve” these distinctive abilities, and furthermore, why go through all the trouble? Why not just eat aquatic animals like other fish?"
Heidi Hardman remarked:
In a series of experiments, the researchers showed that the fish do not learn this by remembering which combinations of spatial configurations and the corresponding images were rewarding in the past. Rather, the fish extracted the underlying law that connects spatial configuration and apparent size. This remarkable cognitive ability allows the fish to readily judge a target’s objective size from underwater views they have never encountered before (2004).
Random mutations, anyone? Thought so.
NEW! HOT OFF THE PRESS!!
“HOW DOES INSTINCT EVOLVE”
OR
Evolution's Soft Underbelly
by Asyncritus
AT LAST!
The Argument Darwin Dreaded…
The Argument No-One Has Developed Before…
The Argument to Which There Is
NO ANSWER FROM THE EVOLUTIONISTS!
35,000 viewers of my articles can’t all be wrong. Check Google for this subject and see!
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=17.30
100 pages of amazing facts and carefully reasoned arguments. Equip yourself! Give your children the knowledge to defend belief in Creation in class!
Get your copy here. Only $19.97 as pdf.
$27 plus $5 p&p in CDR format.
Published by phillauren.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)