Evolution is a Fact - Index of Parts 1 - 40

by cofty 191 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

cofty

Very good reasoning Saename. Way over Perry's head but excellent.
Giles Gray

Perry:-" Here you go to the other extreme and pretend to be too intelligent and so are not required to provide any evidence what-so-ever for your ridiculous claims since no one can understand them."
Some of us do understand and enjoy these posts.
Maybe it's just you who doesn't understand them Perry... whether wilfully or otherwise?
You have shown many times the depth of your ignorance and have scurried away from numerous debates because of your lack of knowledge or your inability to apply logic.
Is this the reason why you are now getting someone else to argue in place of you?
Saename

Thanks, cofty.
By the way, I asked you a question in your other thread about the evolution of the eye. I would greatly appreciate it if you could, in your free time, take a look at it. Here's the link to the thread: https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5429397198733312/evolution-fact-40-what-use-half-eye (sorry about the series of 3 posts!!!)
cofty

Will do Saename. I might include it in the next thread in the series.
Off the top of my head the vitreous humour does most of the lensing and the "lens" provides some additional resolution that, thanks to the muscles that control the lens, is adjustable.
WhatshallIcallmyself

Perry - All of Cofty's posts have many links to scholarly research. You could spend a bit of time reading them...
Or you could keep on mashing the keyboard with your head and hope enough of the resulting mess of characters will somehow cause the reader's mind to melt.
Perry

No I personally can't but I can find plenty resources that contain the answers.
Got to go check with the "Elders" eh?
Well, you have my permission to cut and paste the BEST ANSWER you can find. We are all depending on you: Here's the question again:
Challenge Question: Can you explain (in your own words) how caterpillars and butterflies came to be, using only evolution principles such as random mutations, small incremental changes, and natural selection?
In other words, which evolutionary process would prompt an organism to digest itself into goo? Then, which incremental processes and environmental pressures would then prompt the goo to develop new organs and a new body... not to mention the added capability of flight in a beautiful display of colors and designs?
Get me a personal message from your imaginary professor friend inviting me to meet with him.
Moving the goal posts eh? No way. He has an open invitation to "anyone". That includes you. Here is a quote from him:
I posted on my Web site that I don’t understand. And I said, “I will buy lunch for anyone that will sit with me and explain to me evolution, and I won’t argue with you until I don’t understand something – I will ask you to clarify. But you can’t wave by and say, “This enzyme does that.” You’ve got to get down in the details of where molecules are built, for me. Nobody has come forward. - Professor James Tour
You agree first. Then, I will try to set it up. That's the deal. If Simon will reinstate my ability to start posts, I will keep everyone posted on the developments with a thread dedicated for that purpose.
Dr. Tour, like the rest of us would like molecules-to-man evolution explained.
Coded Logic

For someone who has zero scientific training, higher scientific education or professional experience in the sciences, I think you have done an excellent job in posting (for the umpteenth time) a synopsis of other peoples' work.
- Perry
Why is Perry such a jerk? Instead of addressing any of the issues raised by Crofty Perry instead tries to go after Crofty's level of education.
It seems that Perry does not know two things:
1.) The validity of a claim is either true or false regardless of who's making it. Attacking the education of the person making the claim says nothing about the accuracy of the claim.
2.) Finding a list of people who agree with you in no way makes your claim anymore likely to be true. Simply because I can post a list of people who believe the earth is flat in no way makes the flat earth hypothesis anymore likely.
wizzstick

Challenge Question: Can you explain (in your own words) how caterpillars and butterflies came to be, using only evolution principles such as random mutations, small incremental changes, and natural selection?
Perry,
The reason your question can't have an exact answer is simple. Unless someone invents a time machine nobody can state with 100% certainty how this happened. In the real world, outside of science fiction, this will never happen. So we rely on what we can learn by observing what we see in the fossil record and what we can see in a lab.
From Scientific American:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/insect-metamorphosis-evolution/
Complete metamorphosis likely evolved out of incomplete metamorphosis. The oldest fossilized insects developed much like modern ametabolous and hemimetabolous insects—their young looked like adults. Fossils dating to 280 million years ago, however, record the emergence of a different developmental process. Around this time, some insects began to hatch from their eggs not as minuscule adults, but as wormlike critters with plump bodies and many tiny legs. In Illinois, for example, paleontologists unearthed a young insect that looks like a cross between a caterpillar and a cricket, with long hairs coating its body. It lived in a tropical environment and likely rummaged through leaf litter for food.

Biologists have not definitively determined how or why some insects began to hatch in a larval form, but Lynn Riddiford and James Truman, formerly of the University of Washington in Seattle, have constructed one of the most comprehensive theories. They point out that insects that mature through incomplete metamorphosis pass through a brief stage of life before becoming nymphs—the pro-nymphal stage, in which insects look and behave differently from their true nymphal forms. Some insects transition from pro-nymphs to nymphs while still in the egg; others remain pro-nymphs for anywhere from mere minutes to a few days after hatching.

Perhaps this pro-nymphal stage, Riddiford and Truman suggest, evolved into the larval stage of complete metamorphosis. Perhaps 280 million years ago, through a chance mutation, some pro-nymphs failed to absorb all the yolk in their eggs, leaving a precious resource unused. In response to this unfavorable situation, some pro-nymphs gained a new talent: the ability to actively feed, to slurp up the extra yolk, while still inside the egg. If such pro-nymphs emerged from their eggs before they reached the nymphal stage, they would have been able to continue feeding themselves in the outside world. Over the generations, these infant insects may have remained in a protracted pro-nymphal stage for longer and longer periods of time, growing wormier all the while and specializing in diets that differed from those of their adult selves—consuming fruits and leaves, rather than nectar or other smaller insects. Eventually these prepubescent pro-nymphs became full-fledged larvae that resembled modern caterpillars. In this way, the larval stage of complete metamorphosis corresponds to the pro-nymphal stage of incomplete metamorphosis. The pupal stage arose later as a kind of condensed nymphal phase that catapulted the wriggly larvae into their sexually active winged adult forms.

Some anatomical, hormonal and genetic evidence supports this evolutionary scenario. Anatomically, pro-nymphs have a fair amount in common with the larvas of insects that undergo complete metamorphosis: they both have soft bodies, lack scaly armor and possess immature nervous systems. A gene named broad is essential for the pupal stage of complete metamorphosis. If you knock out this gene, a caterpillar never forms a pupa and fails to become a butterfly. The same gene is important for molting during the nymphal stage of incomplete metamorphosis, corroborating the equivalence of nymph and pupa. Likewise, both pro-nymphs and larvae have high levels of juvenile hormone, which is known to suppress the development of adult features. In insects that undergo incomplete metamorphosis, levels of juvenile hormone dip before the pro-nymph molts into the nymph; in complete metamorphosis, however, juvenile hormone continues to flood the larva's body until just before it pupates. The evolution of incomplete metamorphosis into complete metamorphosis likely involved a genetic tweak that bathed the embryo in juvenile hormone sooner than usual and kept levels of the hormone high for an unusually long time.
However metamorphosis evolved, the enormous numbers of metamorphosing insects on the planet speak for its success as a reproductive strategy. The primary advantage of complete metamorphosis is eliminating competition between the young and old. Larval insects and adult insects occupy very different ecological niches. Whereas caterpillars are busy gorging themselves on leaves, completely disinterested in reproduction, butterflies are flitting from flower to flower in search of nectar and mates. Because larvas and adults do not compete with one another for space or resources, more of each can coexist relative to species in which the young and old live in the same places and eat the same things. Ultimately, the impetus for many of life's astounding transformations also explains insect metamorphosis: survival.
Now here is one for you to answer.
What kind of God would create parasitic organisims?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitoid
Like Bed bugs:
Bed bugs are parasitic insects of the cimicid family that feed exclusively on blood. Cimex lectularius, the common bed bug, is the best known as it prefers to feed on human blood.
Or watch these videos and ask yourself, is this the work of a loving creator, or the result of millions of years of evolution? Which is more likely?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Go_LIz7kTok
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMG-LWyNcAs
I look forward to your answers.
Perry

No I personally can't but I can find plenty resources that contain the answers.
Got to go check with the "Elders" eh?
Well, you have my permission to cut and paste the BEST ANSWER you can find. We are all depending on you: Here's the question again:
Challenge Question: Can you explain (in your own words) how caterpillars and butterflies came to be, using only evolution principles such as random mutations, small incremental changes, and natural selection?
In other words, which evolutionary process would prompt an organism to digest itself into goo? Then, which incremental processes and environmental pressures would then prompt the goo to develop new organs and a new body... not to mention the added capability of flight in a beautiful display of colors and designs?
Get me a personal message from your imaginary professor friend inviting me to meet with him.
Moving the goal posts eh? No way. He has an open invitation to "anyone". That includes you. Here is a quote from him:
I posted on my Web site that I don’t understand. And I said, “I will buy lunch for anyone that will sit with me and explain to me evolution, and I won’t argue with you until I don’t understand something – I will ask you to clarify. But you can’t wave by and say, “This enzyme does that.” You’ve got to get down in the details of where molecules are built, for me. Nobody has come forward. - Professor James Tour
You agree first. Then, I will try to set it up. That's the deal. If Simon will reinstate my ability to start posts, I will keep everyone posted on the developments with a thread dedicated for that purpose.
Dr. Tour, like the rest of us would like molecules-to-man evolution explained.
wizzstick

Dr. Tour, who developed the "nano-car" — a single molecule in the shape of a car, with four rolling wheels — said he remained open-minded about evolution.
"I respect that work," said Dr. Tour, who describes himself as a Messianic Jew, one who also believes in Christ as the Messiah.
Few Biologists but Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition
So he remains openminded.
Are you Perry?

Evolution is a Fact - Index of Parts 1 - 40

Share this