[_ Old Earth _] THE FROG-EATING FROG

[Asyncritus]

As you read this account, please keep asking yourself ‘How could this possibly arise by small, naturally occurring steps?’

The frog is called Rheobatrachus silus and exhibits quite extraordinary design features.

The female frog swallows her eggs after they have been fertilised – but the PURPOSE is not to eat them, but to protect them, and incubate them.

And right here we have another defeat for evolution by natural selection and chance processes.

The frog does this SO THAT the eggs may be protected, hidden, and incubated. Why is this so? Most frogs don’t do anything like this. The eggs are laid in water, and develop there quite open to predators and the like.

This frog swallows them.

There can be no halfway house here. She did it right first time INSTINCTIVELY, knowing that they wouldn't be killed by her digestive juices.

How did she figure that one out? Short answer? She didn't.

But more than that. She keeps them in her stomach for six weeks – AND DOES NOT DIGEST THEM, despite having the normal digestive stomach acid (hydrochloric acid) and pepsin (a digestive enzyme) in her stomach.

How is this possible? And how does she know what to do, and what not to do?

INSTINCT. That fatal flaw in the whole evolutionary mishmash (www.howdoesinstinctevolve.com amplifies this argument extensively), again demonstrates evolution’s failings.

This particular instinct had to be implanted in the frog’s genome by the Creator, first time, and as a whole – or the whole thing would have been a disaster.

Somehow this little creature knows that she must swallow her own eggs, knows how to swallow the eggs, and how to avoid digesting them. What does she do?

Would you know how to avoid digesting a fertilised egg after you’ve swallowed it? But the frog does!

First, she stops eating for the whole 6-week gestation(?) period, which means that there is no need for the acid or the pepsin to be secreted.

Second, she has already produced this marvellous egg, which produces a hormone-like substance prostaglandin E2, which is secreted first by the egg capsules and then by the tadpoles.

This substance shuts down the production of stomach acid, and neutralises any dangerous stomach fluids which may be inadvertently produced. So the young grow healthily, even though they might be swimming in a pool of acid!

Just imagine how many such eggs were digested BEFORE they figured out that they had to produce this substance, and also how to manufacture it biochemically! Tut-tut, evolution!

While they are in the stomach, the tadpoles need to eat – and they do!

The eggs of this species have significant stores of proteins, fats and carbohydrates, enough to last for the 6-week gestation period – and is therefore larger than the eggs of other species of frog!

Isn’t the mother amazing?

She knows what will be needed by the tadpoles, and takes steps to produce it – rather, knows the biochemical processes needed to do the job. How? INSTINCT, OF COURSE!

But where did the instinct come from, and how did it become implanted effectively in the DNA of the first frog of this species?

Whatever happened, it wasn’t evolution!

The inference to the best explanation is that the whole thing was designed by the Designer.

But the wonders aren’t finished yet!

At 6 weeks, the oesophagus dilates to permit the young to emerge. Hormonal control of the enlargement at the appropriate time is timed correctly to permit the emergence of the young at the exactly correct time.

Again the mother stars in this biochemical extravaganza. She ‘knows’ how to manufacture the hormone(s), she knows the appropriate time to produce them, and produce them she does.

Suppose she didn’t know. What would have happened? They couldn’t escape, and would perish when she was forced to start eating normally again.

Extinction of the species would then take place.

The whole saga sings of creation by the All-Powerful God of the earth.

Evolution has no place here , and as a theory of origins, is defeated once more, and should be discarded.

 

[Grazer]

I still don't get why you're pitching evolution against God. One is a mechanism, the other is an agent/designer. Completely naturalistic evolution, or evolutionism, is a competitive explanation but evolution in itself is not.

It may have been a last gasp effort to protect the eggs and it worked. I have no idea really, nature seems to do some fairly odd things sometimes. But I don't see how evolution, when applied correctly, has been disproved by your argument though I'll leave it to barbarian to provide the science.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[lordkalvan]

I still don't get why you're pitching evolution against God. One is a mechanism, the other is an agent/designer. Completely naturalistic evolution, or evolutionism, is a competitive explanation but evolution in itself is not.

It may have been a last gasp effort to protect the eggs and it worked. I have no idea really, nature seems to do some fairly odd things sometimes. But I don't see how evolution, when applied correctly, has been disproved by your argument though I'll leave it to barbarian to provide the science.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

Yep, a number of fish and amphibians protect their eggs or infants in their mouths. This seems to be an extension of that behaviour paraded as another example of 'I don't believe it can have evolved, therefore Goddidit.'

More information here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mouthbrooder

 

[Asyncritus]

You do know the differences between the mouth and the stomach?

 

[Barbarian]

The usual; "I'm a really smart guy, and I can't figure out how it evolved, so it must be magic." But as Lord Kalvan points out, there are (as there always are for every living creature) transitional forms in the mouth-brooding frogs.

I predict another thread abandoned, and in a while, yet another just-so story from Async.

 

[Asyncritus]

The usual; "I'm a really smart guy, and I can't figure out how it evolved, so it must be magic." But as Lord Kalvan points out, there are (as there always are for every living creature) transitional forms in the mouth-brooding frogs.

I predict another thread abandoned, and in a while, yet another just-so story from Async.

Your responses are getting poorer and poorer. They started off by appearing scientific - like the man in the chicken suit theory - but now they're just poverty-stricken.

I'm not surprised - there is really nothing you can say in response to these nasty facts (nasty to evolution, that is). Singly, they're bad news to evolution. Put together (as in www.howdoesinstinctevolve.com), they're fatal, and bury the theory under an avalanche of evolutionarily inexplicable facts.

There are no just-so stories here. Every one is factual - you must have looked them up on wiki or google somewhere - and you know that these are facts, not fancies or fiction.

Unlike these ad hoc stories you and LK come up with at every turn.

I hope that your pal Grazer is looking carefully at all this, and maybe, just maybe, daylight is beginning to dawn in his mind, as he realises that the evolutionary boat can't float.

Merely sink under the weight of the facts.

BTW Grazer was expecting the science from you. So was I - but clearly there isn't any to be had. Tut-tut.

 

[Asyncritus]

The usual; "I'm a really smart guy, and I can't figure out how it evolved, so it must be magic." But as Lord Kalvan points out, there are (as there always are for every living creature) transitional forms in the mouth-brooding frogs.

You do know the differences between the mouth and the stomach? Don't you?

 

[Grazer]

Asyn - I've always had issues with evolution alone as a complete explanation for life on this earth but I have bigger issues with people who try to pitch evolution as a competitive explanation to God.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[lordkalvan]

You do know the differences between the mouth and the stomach? Don't you?

You do know the difference between facts and personal incredulity offered as the only interpretation of those facts? Don't you? Perhaps you would care to return to all those threads you have abandoned leaving points and questions unanswered that relate to the conclusions you offer based on that personal incredulity?

 

[Barbarian]

You do know the differences between the mouth and the stomach? Don't you?

Slightly different places in the digestive tract. So it's not hard to see how a mouth-brooding frog might inadvertently swallow a few eggs. The normal proteolytic enzymes in the mouth are suppressed during normal mouth-brooding, so it's not surprising that the normal digestive enzymes in the stomach might also be suppressed.

And now we see what Async supposed to be impossible, isn't impossible at all.

As usual, his pitch is an appeal to ignorance, not a logical argument.

At this point, Async might be wondering how I can always find a fact somewhere to puncture his arguments. It's not that nature is conspiring with me against him. If things evolve, it's not surprising that there will be a few clues left here and there.

It's just a matter of looking for them.

 

[Asyncritus]

You do know the difference between facts and personal incredulity offered as the only interpretation of those facts? Don't you? Perhaps you would care to return to all those threads you have abandoned leaving points and questions unanswered that relate to the conclusions you offer based on that personal incredulity?

Come LK. Reply to the content of the post before us.

It's this kind of behaviour which has furnished the reason for my not bothering with threads you think I've abandoned.

Why should I bother if all I get is nothing trying to sound like something?

 

[Asyncritus]

Slightly different places in the digestive tract. So it's not hard to see how a mouth-brooding frog might inadvertently swallow a few eggs. The normal proteolytic enzymes in the mouth are suppressed during normal mouth-brooding, so it's not surprising that the normal digestive enzymes in the stomach might also be suppressed.

And now we see what Async supposed to be impossible, isn't impossible at all.

As usual, his pitch is an appeal to ignorance, not a logical argument.

At this point, Async might be wondering how I can always find a fact somewhere to puncture his arguments. It's not that nature is conspiring with me against him. If things evolve, it's not surprising that there will be a few clues left here and there.

It's just a matter of looking for them.

No, you've got that wrong.

Did you read the facts I listed? No, I'm sure you didn't. So here's a reminder:

1 the digestive juices stop flowing BECAUSE THE MOTHER DOESN'T EAT FOR 6 WEEKS. The question was, WHY DOES SHE STOP? Does she exercise her evolutionary intelligence and figure out that stopping eating would be a good thing to do at this point?

What do you think?

2 The eggs are unusually large, because of the high content of food, needed to last for the 6 week gestation period. How did she figure that one out? And the biochemistry involved? Did she know what she was doing, or did INSTINCT handle all those details?

What do you think?

3 The eggs also produce prostaglandin2: with THE PURPOSE OF stopping or nearly stopping the production of the digestive juices. How could an egg figure out how to do that little thing? Or was it the mother that figured it out, and devised the biochemistry needed to produce the prostaglandin2? And what did she know about prostaglandin2 anyway?

4 When the time comes for the 'birth' to tke place, the oesophagus dilates - under hormonal control: just like the birth canal in mammals dilates.

Now, how did the mother know what hormones were needed, what their effects were, and how to produce them?

So your little excursus into the wilds of wikipedia and google was a waste of time, since you have answered none of the really important questions. In fact you haven't answered ANY of the important questions, and none of the lesser ones. Like how did she figure out that swallowing the eggs was a good idea.

Did she just put the eggs in her mouth, and WHOOPS! I swallowed that lot. I'll now stop eating for the next 6 weeks - heck, my digestive juices are still working! Tough luck, kids.

Was it like that, do you think? Or what scenario do you envisage?

Whichever, it's tough luck again, evolution!

 

[lordkalvan]

Come LK. Reply to the content of the post before us.

What reply to personal incredulity as to likely causes of behaviour having an evolutionary origin would you find persuasive when you have told us elsewhere that you have already decided no such replies are acceptable to you?

It's this kind of behaviour which has furnished the reason for my not bothering with threads you think I've abandoned.

And it's this kind of avoidance excuse for abandoning such threads when you have been asked relevant and direct questions and had counterarguments with appropriate evidence that makes view a comment like this as disingenuous.

Why should I bother if all I get is nothing trying to sound like something?

To show us you have something more substantial than personal incredulity and unsupported pre-existing certainty to offer?

 

[Spring Waters]

As you read this account, please keep asking yourself ‘How could this possibly arise by small, naturally occurring steps?’

The frog is called Rheobatrachus silus and exhibits quite extraordinary design features....

Well, Rheobatrachus silus (aka/ The Gastric Brooding Frog), could have evolved this survival mechanism for it's next generation of offspring due to the conflicts involved with Darwin's frog (Rhinoderma darwinii).
Survival of the fittest could be observed to be a matter of nature realizing carrying one's offspring in the mouth isn't near as insulated a protection ratio to depositing them in the stomach.

It's all God's will in any case. If one accepts first that God is omnipotent.

 

[Asyncritus]

What reply to personal incredulity as to likely causes of behaviour having an evolutionary origin would you find persuasive when you have told us elsewhere that you have already decided no such replies are acceptable to you?

And it's this kind of avoidance excuse for abandoning such threads when you have been asked relevant and direct questions and had counterarguments with appropriate evidence that makes view a comment like this as disingenuous.

To show us you have something more substantial than personal incredulity and unsupported pre-existing certainty to offer?

Um, where's your attempt to answer any of the points raised? And the refutation?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
No, you've got that wrong.

Did you read the facts I listed?

Mouth-breeding and gastric-breeding frogs are fairly interesting organisms. Hence, most biologists know about them.

1 the digestive juices stop flowing BECAUSE THE MOTHER DOESN'T EAT FOR 6 WEEKS.

Or she stops because the digestive juices stop flowing. One of those. It would be useful for mouth-brooding frogs.

The question was, WHY DOES SHE STOP? Does she exercise her evolutionary intelligence and figure out that stopping eating would be a good thing to do at this point?

Probably a transition from those that transport eggs. Frogs of the genus Rhinoderma don't mouth brood, but use the mouth to gather up and transfer the young to a suitable body of water. They would be able to endure a short period of digestive enzymes in the mouth, but of course, if there was a mutation that stopped such enzymes during the reproductive process, that would increase survival of the offspring.

And from that, mouth-brooding wouldn't be such a great step. And from that, gastric-brooding wouldn't be a huge change. And again, we find a series of transitionals, which you declared couldn't exist. Getting tired of this sort of surprise? Why not do some research before trotting out these foolish arguments?

What do you think?

I think you should have checked your facts, first.

2 The eggs are unusually large, because of the high content of food, needed to last for the 6 week gestation period. How did she figure that one out? And the biochemistry involved? Did she know what she was doing, or did INSTINCT handle all those details?

I don't see why, if brooding was longer, that frogs producing eggs with more yolk wouldn't leave more offspring. Or are you claiming that's impossible?

What do you think?

I think you didn't give this enough thought.

3 The eggs also produce prostaglandin2: with THE PURPOSE OF stopping or nearly stopping the production of the digestive juices. How could an egg figure out how to do that little thing?

Prostaglandin is a substance normally found in eggs. So even if these eggs had an elevated level of prostaglandin, such a change is a rather easy one. If elevated levels made survival more likely, then mothers producing eggs with higher levels of prostaglandin would leave more offspring.

4 When the time comes for the 'birth' to tke place, the oesophagus dilates - under hormonal control: just like the birth canal in mammals dilates.

This is a normal thing in frogs. Many can dilate to the point of everting their stomachs. So that's not surprising, either.

And once again, what you don't know, blindsides you. Why not do a bit of research before you expose yourself like this?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
No, you've got that wrong.

Did you read the facts I listed?

Mouth-breeding and gastric-breeding frogs are fairly interesting organisms. Hence, most biologists know about them.

1 the digestive juices stop flowing BECAUSE THE MOTHER DOESN'T EAT FOR 6 WEEKS.

Or she stops because the digestive juices stop flowing. One of those. It would be useful for mouth-brooding frogs.

The question was, WHY DOES SHE STOP? Does she exercise her evolutionary intelligence and figure out that stopping eating would be a good thing to do at this point?

Probably a transition from those that transport eggs. Frogs of the genus Rhinoderma don't mouth brood, but use the mouth to gather up and transfer the young to a suitable body of water. They would be able to endure a short period of digestive enzymes in the mouth, but of course, if there was a mutation that stopped such enzymes during the reproductive process, that would increase survival of the offspring.

And from that, mouth-brooding wouldn't be such a great step. And from that, gastric-brooding wouldn't be a huge change. And again, we find a series of transitionals, which you declared couldn't exist. Getting tired of this sort of surprise? Why not do some research before trotting out these foolish arguments?

What do you think?

I think you should have checked your facts, first.

2 The eggs are unusually large, because of the high content of food, needed to last for the 6 week gestation period. How did she figure that one out? And the biochemistry involved? Did she know what she was doing, or did INSTINCT handle all those details?

I don't see why, if brooding was longer, that frogs producing eggs with more yolk wouldn't leave more offspring. Or are you claiming that's impossible?

What do you think?

I think you didn't give this enough thought.

3 The eggs also produce prostaglandin2: with THE PURPOSE OF stopping or nearly stopping the production of the digestive juices. How could an egg figure out how to do that little thing?

Prostaglandin is a substance normally found in eggs. So even if these eggs had an elevated level of prostaglandin, such a change is a rather easy one. If elevated levels made survival more likely, then mothers producing eggs with higher levels of prostaglandin would leave more offspring.

4 When the time comes for the 'birth' to tke place, the oesophagus dilates - under hormonal control: just like the birth canal in mammals dilates.

This is a normal thing in frogs. Many can dilate to the point of everting their stomachs. So that's not surprising, either.

And once again, what you don't know, blindsides you. Why not do a bit of research before you expose yourself like this?

 

[lordkalvan]

Um, where's your attempt to answer any of the points raised? And the refutation?

Um, where's your attempt to tell us what evidence you would find persuasive and the evidence to support your claimed reasons for abandoning other threads where you have chosen to avoid answers and counterarguments to points you have raised?

 

[Barbarian]

Async's bailed out of so many threads, he must have his jumpmaster rating by now.

 

[Asyncritus]

Barbarian

The only reason I haven't replied to your previous post is that I wanted to be sure of my facts before accusing you of being a chronic liar.

I do so accuse you now.

Barbarian:

Prostaglandin is a substance normally found in eggs. So even if these eggs had an elevated level of prostaglandin, such a change is a rather easy one. If elevated levels made survival more likely, then mothers producing eggs with higher levels of prostaglandin would leave more offspring.

From Prof. Hanken, professor of Zoology, Harvard University:

I don't know. Check with Bob Denver at U Michigan for a more informed response.

The now-extinct Australian gastric-brooding frog, Rheobatrachus silus, was suggested to produce prostaglandin while embryos were incubated in the stomach, but I don't recall if the idea was that prostaglandin was derived from maternal provisioning of the unfertilized eggs, or produced by the embryos/larvae, or by the host (female parent). Author was MIchael Tyler.


jh

From which I gather that you are claiming to know more about the subject than a Harvard Professor of Zoology. Unlikely, but just to be sure, I emailed Prof. Denver at Michigan University for a more informed response as Prof. Hanken suggested.

From Prof. Bob Denver, University of Michigan:

Sorry, I don't know of any measures of prostaglandins in frog eggs. Please tell Jim I said hello.

Good luck.

Bob Denver

So neither of these eminent men know anything about frogs eggs normally producing prostaglandin E2.

Therefore your claim above is fraudulent, and a lie.

That being the case, I am forced to wonder just how many of your bombastic claims are just as fraudulent and fictional. This really casts serious doubt on all of your so-called 'refutations' of my facts. Your whole reputation on this forum is now in shreds.

Grazer and LK, you really need to take notice of this demonstration of fraud, and get on to the side of fact and truth, rather than fiction and falsehood.

Truthfully

Asyncritus