Guest Davka Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 I heard this story and thought it would make for a good thread to post similar examples of adaptation. Moths outwit bats by jamming sonar Questions for creationists: - If God created these animals with all their abilities, why did he only give the ability to escape being eaten by bats to a single species of moth? What is it that makes this species worthy of not being eaten by bats? - Are there really no other insects that are similarly worthy of not being eaten by bats? Does God hate insects? Or does he just want to screw with bats in the Southwest? - Since (according to the Christian Creation Myth) God created all animals as peaceful vegetarians, and they only started eating each other because of sin, why would moths need sonar-jamming at all? Where did it come from? For that matter, where did any defense mechanisms come from? Skunk spray, porcupine quills, turtle shells - what's the point in a perfect world with no death? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hereticzero Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Viruses are another good example of evolution. They evolve fast enough to stay ahead of vaccines and many immune systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Antibiotic resistance... http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/relevance/IA1antibiotics.shtml The golden age of antibiotics proved to be a short-lived one. During the past few decades, many strains of bacteria have evolved resistance to antibiotics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 A good video explaining Evolution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OpheliaGinger Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Moths turning vampiric to supplement a sodium deficiency in mating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest K-Y LoveChild Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 As mentioned, viruses are a wonderful example of evolution we can witness in our lifetime. Many viruses mutate (evolve) at such a rate, that the antibiotics that used to kill them no longer work. The AIDS virus is a perfect example of this. It mutates, evolves, changes, whatever you want to call it, at such a rate that so far, no vaccine we can come up with has been able to have a beneficial effect at killing the virus. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight-mindwanderings Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Problem is, try arguing these things with the majority of creationists and they will go all macro vs micro evolution on you and start talking about kinds and blah blah blah. I think DNA shows it best. Using the same tested and proven methods to test for paternity they can show how different species are related. Even if all the specifics of the theory of evolution are not spot on, testing it through the scientific method has given us many breakthroughs in medicine, genetics - not to mention all it has done for biology. ID cannot be tested and could not have led to these breakthroughs. Of course people who are unable to believe in evolution are quite content to shut their mind to any evidence that contradicts them. Its like arguing with a toy that can only say one thing over and over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Davka Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 I think DNA shows it best. Yeah, DNA sequencing is a real stake in the heart of the ID vampire. Facts such as "humans share 50% of their DNA with bananas" point so strongly to a single cellular ancestor for all of life that it absurd to claim otherwise. Unless you really want to believe that the Lucky Charms leprechaun wished everything into existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Problem is, try arguing these things with the majority of creationists and they will go all macro vs micro evolution on you and start talking about kinds and blah blah blah. I think DNA shows it best. Creationism is so ridiculous that even creationists are abandoning it and migrating to ID. ID is more subtle, and they can embrace almost every scientific discovery but still claim a role for God (thus denying only the mechanism for the changes, not the changes themselves). Thus "guided evolution." Ultimately, the variations in DNA intraspecies and interspecies and the role of various sequences in the development of specific characteristics should put that to rest. Every person, after all, has some unique DNA characteristics that are nonetheless derived from parental DNA with the occasional mutation, transposition deletion, etc. There is nothing guided about genetic disorders, chromosomal disorders, or autosomal recessive (or dominant) inherited disorders. The whole thing still makes no sense in the context of a super powerful supernatural creator god. Why a process? Why guide it instead of just "doing" it? Life is biology, biology is chemistry, chemistry is physics, and while all of the answers are not available, ID only seeks to stop looking. I didn't know we share 50% of our DNA with bananas. I'm not sure I want to eat a banana now. We're too closely related. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight-mindwanderings Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 My mom studies DNA, working on her Phd, and it has removed all doubts in her about evolution. She was quite conservative Christian for many years but since her education she has become agnostic (she doesn't actually talk to me much about religious beliefs but the changes she has made are pretty obvious). I never understood the need for ID. I mean, I suppose people can believe it if they want, but why the push to have it taught in schools? It doesn't add anything to science - if anything it seeks to undermine it. My dad is still a young earth creationist and I am sure that no amount of science could ever convince him. Science being from the devil and all. He doesn't 'believe' in global warming or that Obama was born in Hawaii either - at least he is consistently blind to reality. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 My mom studies DNA, working on her Phd, and it has removed all doubts in her about evolution. She was quite conservative Christian for many years but since her education she has become agnostic (she doesn't actually talk to me much about religious beliefs but the changes she has made are pretty obvious). Some areas of scientific inquiry erase supernaturalism more than others. Biology is a killer, but astophysics seems to leave some potential for at least deistic belief. I never understood the need for ID. I mean, I suppose people can believe it if they want, but why the push to have it taught in schools? It doesn't add anything to science - if anything it seeks to undermine it. You have just defined Occams Razor. My dad is still a young earth creationist and I am sure that no amount of science could ever convince him. Science being from the devil and all. He doesn't 'believe' in global warming or that Obama was born in Hawaii either - at least he is consistently blind to reality. Some skepticism about almost anything is not necessarily bad, but sheepishly following along with the crowd to express skeptical ideas isn't skepticism. It's blind obedience. There is also rational and irrational skepticism. I remain skeptical but try to proportion my skepticism to fit the consensus of scientific beliefs, or do my own research and evaluate the data myself. Science is from the devil however. Just kidding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 - at least he is consistently blind to reality. That's why I keep on calling it a delusion. an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder : the delusion of being watched. It's typically a mental disorder, but delusion can also be self-inflicted, or even learned through disinformation, which religion gladly provides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight-mindwanderings Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 It's typically a mental disorder, but delusion can also be self-inflicted, or even learned through disinformation, which religion gladly provides. Its funny you say that since he often says things like "Liberalism is a mental disorder" or "Atheism is a form of mental retardation." Its fun being related to him. If I lived in the same state I would probably rant about him more in the Ex-C life section. Since I will be there for 4 months starting in November, maybe I'll get a good rant about the vast difference between skepticism and being willfully blind to reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scitsofreaky Posted August 29, 2009 Share Posted August 29, 2009 I never understood the need for ID. I mean, I suppose people can believe it if they want, but why the push to have it taught in schools? It doesn't add anything to science - if anything it seeks to undermine it. That's because ID is not really real, it is merely a wedge to get creationism into the door. The IDiots' textbook is just a creationist textbook where they took out the word "God." On the topic of DNA, ever since I have heard of them I have found hox genes to be a very good example of how we are related. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babylonian Dream Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 I have some proof no one can escape that proves evolution. You look a little different from your mother, and even more different from your grandpa, And you can take that many steps further to say (by basic logic) the farther back the generations you look even possibly unrelated even if they are your direct ancestor. Trace it back farther they even start having different color skin, maybe a bit harrier, Then eventually you get to he ancestral father to both chimps and humans (ehrm....no clue about his name). It's actually one of the simplest theories to grasp mentally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiverDale Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 Viruses are another good example of evolution. They evolve fast enough to stay ahead of vaccines and many immune systems. And when were 'they' created? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancey Posted May 1, 2010 Share Posted May 1, 2010 Here's a decent example of (albeit forced) evolution: Everyone knows (even most Creationists acknowledge this) that dogs all come from a common ancestor of wolf-life dogs domesticated by humans and now we have thousands of breeds. Yet they refuse to acknowledge that dogs as evolution of macro-evolution, as technically dogs can breed back in with each other and have viable offspring. Now, barring human intervention: Can a Chihuahua breed with a Saint Bernard? I'd say it's darn near impossible- and if both breeds continue to remain 'isolated' and only able to breed with each other, further differing their genetics (and at the very least, refuse to mate with those of the other breed and prefer to breed with similar dogs) by definition, they are separate species! Another example: Ligers- while most animals are incapable of really breeding with other species, the breed between Lion and Tiger, although able to exist, are always sterile. You could not do this with a housecat and a cheetah, I'd wager, and get any offspring. It does show that Lions and Tigers are likely closer together in terms of a common ancestor- they have been isolated long enough and specialized to their own environment for so long that interbreeding is impossible as there are no viable offspring. Same for Mules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted May 1, 2010 Share Posted May 1, 2010 Ring species. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species Defies the definition of species. The ends of the spectrum of the same "species" can't interbreed, i.e. logically a different species. Breakdown of the discrete categories of the animal taxonomy. Can only be explained in an evolutionary context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted June 20, 2010 Share Posted June 20, 2010 Ring species is my favorite example to give for evolution. There are better ones, but you can't beat an example that even Dr. Terrible himself, Kent Hovind, uses in one of his own seminars. In his "they're still rabbits" speech, he identifies a ring species, failing to grasp the fact that he's just proven evolution to the audience. Or maybe he recognizes this fact and uses the example as a form of damage control. You know... "Nip it in the bud." Barney Fife style. See, the beauty of that is that now I've got you all thinking about the similarities between Hovind and Mayberry's bumbling deputy. Uncanny, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krackenthorpe Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 Hello, (This is actually my first post on this forum) Here is one that I like to use: Supernumerary nipples. Why would humans (especially males) have extra nipples if we were created by some hocus-pocus, mumbo-jumbo, all-powerful, supernatural being who never makes mistakes? Hmm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancey Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 Hello, (This is actually my first post on this forum) Here is one that I like to use: Supernumerary nipples. Why would humans (especially males) have extra nipples if we were created by some hocus-pocus, mumbo-jumbo, all-powerful, supernatural being who never makes mistakes? Hmm? Haha, Male nipples... Oh, here's another thing: at about 6 months, human fetuses grow a fine layer of hair all over their body and promptly shed it before birth. Does this sound like something a smart creator would really add in to the growth cycle of fetuses? Sounds more like a left-over of evolution that hasn't been canceled out over time because it is so harmless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 - If God created these animals with all their abilities, why did he only give the ability to escape being eaten by bats to a single species of moth? You posed a series of questions, but I think this one is enough. No sense in machine-gunning the creationists. The answer you'll likely get is that all moths are of the same kind and thus can be traced back to a single pair (or grouping) from the creation. Thus all moths had this ability at one time, and it's only this one diversification of moth that has retained the ability to evade bats, despite the fact that there'd be no bats to evade in the pre-fall garden. It could be that these moths had a different purpose for this ability in Eden that didn't involve evading echo location from bats, but that would be saying that this ability is vestigial, and boy creationists don't want to open that can of worms! So, there is no answer that the creationists can give you that won't be ridiculous. You might as well stop at your first question and enjoy the show. Viruses are another good example of evolution. They evolve fast enough to stay ahead of vaccines and many immune systems. Well, yeah, but if you ask Kent Hovind, he'll just say that the virus is losing information, and thus the old vaccines no longer work. Barring the fact that this isn't exactly an accurate depiction (nothing Hovind says ever is), it is remarkable that something like that could pass his lips without him realizing that he just described a positive mutation. But that's only a hypothetical situation. One of the best examples of evolution can actually be found in a Hovind seminar. In one of them, he actually describes and identifies a ring species and then fails to realize that he's just given his audience a perfectly valid example of speciation in action. That would be like Buster Keaton throwing the pie at his own face. It's funny how creationists have no choice but to adopt evolution anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest I Love Dog Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 How was it that Kent Hovind and Ken Ham evolved into such a pair of useless dimwits who wouldn't spot intelligence if it hit them in the testicles. Remind me never to put people with the initials KH on my friends list! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babylonian Dream Posted September 18, 2010 Share Posted September 18, 2010 Our dogs are an example of evolution. It's highy unlikely that you have a dog that looks anything like the first domesticated dogs people had in bronze age canaan, from which nearly all dogs are descended. Yeah, artificial selection sped up the process, but its still evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sexton Blake Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 Evolution in action: Scientists discover lizards on verge of leap from egg-laying to live births http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1308772/Evolution-action-Scientists-discover-lizards-verge-leap-egg-laying-live-births.html And the old faithful: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html Creationists don't believe in evolution because it obviously did not happen to their family line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts