A
Asyncritus
Guest
I've been struck at the sheer number of instances in nature where there is quite clearly a serious amount of counting going on.
Evolution, being the beggarly, non-intelligent, random etc etc process it is claimed to be, is faced by the simply shattering fact that every living thing has significant examples of counting in its make-up.
Equally obviously, there is no necessity or survival advantage in having a certain, exact number of, say, petals in a flower, chromosomes in a nucleus, or fingers on a hand. Other numbers would do as well.
Evolution supporters need to rally round the drooping flag, and account for this entirely contrary universal phenomenon in the natural world.
Remember, mutation and natural selection can't count!
That being so, look at this tiny sample of examples, which are everywhere, and account for the reason for the precision of the count.
So consistent is the count, that angiosperms (flowering plants) are divided into those 2 groups, on that basis.
So we have plants counting, accurately, consistently and precisely. Evolution? Chance? Utter nonsense.
The animals are no less precise, and there are innumerable examples we could use, but a couple will suffice.
The mammals have one heart, and 2 lungs. No more, no less. Mankind has 5 fingers on each normal hand and 5 toes on each normal foot. Such examples could be multiplied ad infinitum.
But did our 'ancestors' know how to produce 5 on each hand and foot? And one heart, with two lungs? Most unlikely.
And when we get into the cell itself, we see counting aplenty. In mitosis, the original number of chromosomes is reproduced ecactly in the daughter cell. So 24 chromosomes in the parent cell is duplicated exactly in each of the daughter cells.
In meiosis, EXACTLY HALF the number of chromosomes enters each of the daughter cells.
Why? Because when the male and female cells combine, a new cell WITH THE ORIGINAL NUMBER of chromosomes is produced.
But can a cell count? No, it can't - but SOMEBODY COULD, and did, when designing the process.
And it is perfectly obvious that an enormous intelligence is at the back of all this, not brainless, random, evolution, Dawkins' blind watchmaker.
We may look later at other examples of this, if we get the opportunity.
Evolution, being the beggarly, non-intelligent, random etc etc process it is claimed to be, is faced by the simply shattering fact that every living thing has significant examples of counting in its make-up.
Equally obviously, there is no necessity or survival advantage in having a certain, exact number of, say, petals in a flower, chromosomes in a nucleus, or fingers on a hand. Other numbers would do as well.
Evolution supporters need to rally round the drooping flag, and account for this entirely contrary universal phenomenon in the natural world.
Remember, mutation and natural selection can't count!
That being so, look at this tiny sample of examples, which are everywhere, and account for the reason for the precision of the count.
This stargazer lily (like all other lilies) counts in threes.
There are six sepals (3x2), six petals (3x3) six anthers (3x2) and the stigma is 3- branched (3x1).
Now how did this plant learn to count? Could such exact counting be the product of chance mutations and natural selection?
The number of seed leaves (cotyledons) in the seed is very strictly counted as well.
Monocotyledons (like lilies, grasses) have exactly ONE seed leaf, no more, no less.
Dicotyledons (like oaks, poplars, hibiscuses) have exactly TWO seed leaves, no more, no less.
There are six sepals (3x2), six petals (3x3) six anthers (3x2) and the stigma is 3- branched (3x1).
Now how did this plant learn to count? Could such exact counting be the product of chance mutations and natural selection?
The number of seed leaves (cotyledons) in the seed is very strictly counted as well.
Monocotyledons (like lilies, grasses) have exactly ONE seed leaf, no more, no less.
Dicotyledons (like oaks, poplars, hibiscuses) have exactly TWO seed leaves, no more, no less.
So consistent is the count, that angiosperms (flowering plants) are divided into those 2 groups, on that basis.
So we have plants counting, accurately, consistently and precisely. Evolution? Chance? Utter nonsense.
The animals are no less precise, and there are innumerable examples we could use, but a couple will suffice.
The mammals have one heart, and 2 lungs. No more, no less. Mankind has 5 fingers on each normal hand and 5 toes on each normal foot. Such examples could be multiplied ad infinitum.
But did our 'ancestors' know how to produce 5 on each hand and foot? And one heart, with two lungs? Most unlikely.
And when we get into the cell itself, we see counting aplenty. In mitosis, the original number of chromosomes is reproduced ecactly in the daughter cell. So 24 chromosomes in the parent cell is duplicated exactly in each of the daughter cells.
In meiosis, EXACTLY HALF the number of chromosomes enters each of the daughter cells.
Why? Because when the male and female cells combine, a new cell WITH THE ORIGINAL NUMBER of chromosomes is produced.
But can a cell count? No, it can't - but SOMEBODY COULD, and did, when designing the process.
And it is perfectly obvious that an enormous intelligence is at the back of all this, not brainless, random, evolution, Dawkins' blind watchmaker.
We may look later at other examples of this, if we get the opportunity.