[_ Old Earth _] The Scorpion Fish

[Asyncritus]

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...id=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21101162021827

'In October, 1970, laboratory observations were conducted on fishes collected from the hull of a 12 meter boat which had remained on the ocean bottom in 70 meters of water for over five months.

Included in the collection were three live specimens of the scorpionfish, Iracundus signifer Jordan and Evermann. These specimens displayed a type of luring behavior unlike any pattern described previously.

Prior to feeding, the camouflaged scorpionfish raised its spinous dorsal fin and began snapping it from side to side in a characteristic fashion. Colors on the fin intensified during the display.

The image of a small fish, complete with eye, mouth and dorsal fin, became visible on the fin.'

Heh heh heh! :toofunny

Go Barbarian!Let's have a few more wild guesses about the origin of this!

Evolution? Or Creation?

Remember the old Darwinian dictum:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.

He didn't look hard enough!

Did he? Heh heh heh!

 

[cupid dave]

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...id=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21101162021827

'In October, 1970, laboratory observations were conducted on fishes collected from the hull of a 12 meter boat which had remained on the ocean bottom in 70 meters of water for over five months.

Included in the collection were three live specimens of the scorpionfish, Iracundus signifer Jordan and Evermann. These specimens displayed a type of luring behavior unlike any pattern described previously.

Prior to feeding, the camouflaged scorpionfish raised its spinous dorsal fin and began snapping it from side to side in a characteristic fashion. Colors on the fin intensified during the display.

The image of a small fish, complete with eye, mouth and dorsal fin, became visible on the fin.'

Heh heh heh! :toofunny

Go Barbarian!Let's have a few more wild guesses about the origin of this!

Evolution? Or Creation?

Remember the old Darwinian dictum:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.

He didn't look hard enough!

Did he? Heh heh heh!

Intereting.

It like the chameleon, right?


Mechanism of color change
Further information: Animal coloration and Category:Animals that can change color
Chameleons have specialized cells, chromatophores, which contain pigments in their cytoplasm, in three layers below their transparent outer skin:

1. The cells in the upper layer, called xanthophores and erythrophores, contain yellow and red pigments respectively.
2. Below these is a second layer of cells called iridophores or guanophores; these contain guanine, appearing blue or white.
3. The deepest layer of cells, melanophores, contain the dark pigment melanin, controlling how much light is reflected.

Dispersion of the pigment granules in the chromatophores sets the intensity of each color. When the pigment is equally distributed in a chromatophore, the whole cell is intensively colored. When the pigment is located only in the centre of the cell, the cell appears mainly transparent. Chromatophores can rapidly relocate their particles of pigment, thereby influencing the animal's color. Chromatophores change because the cells get a message from the brain.[21


This ability seems related to emotions:

Color change in chameleons has functions in social signaling and in reactions to temperature and other conditions as well as camouflage. The relative importance of the classes of function vary with the circumstances as well as the species. Color change signals a chameleon's physiological condition and intentions to other chameleons.[18][19] Chameleons tend to show darker colors when angered, or attempting to scare or intimidate others, while males show lighter, multi-colored patterns when courting females.[citation needed]
Some species, such as Smith's dwarf chameleon, adjust their colors for camouflage in accordance with the vision of the specific predator species (bird or snake) that they are being threatened by.[20]
The desert dwelling Namaqua Chameleon also uses color change as an aid to thermoregulation, becoming black in the cooler morning to absorb heat more efficiently, then a lighter grey color to reflect light during the heat of the day. It may show both colors at the same time, neatly separated left from right by the spine.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed

 

[AlexBC]

Actually, this fish is a fun little example OF evolution.

There are still aspects of this kind of mimicry that are not fully understood but there are numerous papers on the morphogenesis of eyespots on butterfly wings for example. You should check those out. Remember that this kind of mimicry occurs in many species of flora and fauna.

 

[lordkalvan]

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...id=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21101162021827

'In October, 1970, laboratory observations were conducted on fishes collected from the hull of a 12 meter boat which had remained on the ocean bottom in 70 meters of water for over five months.

Included in the collection were three live specimens of the scorpionfish, Iracundus signifer Jordan and Evermann. These specimens displayed a type of luring behavior unlike any pattern described previously.

Prior to feeding, the camouflaged scorpionfish raised its spinous dorsal fin and began snapping it from side to side in a characteristic fashion. Colors on the fin intensified during the display.

The image of a small fish, complete with eye, mouth and dorsal fin, became visible on the fin.'

Heh heh heh! :toofunny

Go Barbarian!Let's have a few more wild guesses about the origin of this!

Evolution? Or Creation?

Remember the old Darwinian dictum:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.

He didn't look hard enough!

Did he? Heh heh heh!

As you have not demonstrated that this organ could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, your argument seems to be little more than one of your many statements to the effect that, because you cannot conceive that a phenomenon has a naturalistic cause, then a supernatural one must be the cause and therefore evolution is falsified. Can you remind us what field your scientific training is in?

 

[Asyncritus]

Actually, this fish is a fun little example OF evolution.

There are still aspects of this kind of mimicry that are not fully understood but there are numerous papers on the morphogenesis of eyespots on butterfly wings for example. You should check those out. Remember that this kind of mimicry occurs in many species of flora and fauna.

Absolutely correct. And every one of them is a fatal stab at evolution's gut.

Have you ever looked at the mimicry used by the orchids to lure insects to come and fertilise them?

Here's another joke:

[...] Some orchids, however, appear to offer the promise of sex: They have evolved to resemble female versions of certain insects.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_02.html

I'd be embarrassed to write such nonsense.

The Encyclopedia Britannica has this to say:

The labellum (lip) of the Ophrys flower is a specialized median petal that acts as a dummy female of a species of bee or wasp (depending on the species of Ophrys), the resemblance being so close that males visit the flower in an attempt to copulate with the dummy female (see photograph). In the course of precopulatory and copulatory movements, the visiting insect acquires the pollen sacs (pollinia) of the orchid and subsequently transmits them to other blossoms.

A similar situation occurs in an Australian orchid, Cryptostylis leptochila, which bears a sufficient resemblance to the female of the ichneumon wasp Lissopimpla semipunctata to induce copulation by the male wasp.

There, isn't that wonderful?

Can you imagine what happened to that species of orchid BEFORE it managed to evolve that similarity?

Yup. Extinction.

It beggars belief that apparently intelligent people like Barbarian and LK can look at something like this, and seriously imagine that it came about by chance mutations and natural selection.

Here's a photo of a soldier mimicking vegetation. Can you see him?

Only with difficulty.

Now, did his outfit evolve, or was it designed?

Mimicry involves:

1 A knowledge of the purpose of the mimicry

2 A knowledge of what the thing being mimicked looks like

3 A knowledge of how to create that mimicked look

4 The instincts required to utilise the mimicked look effectively

Not one of these could be evolved.

So, evolution chaps, what do you have to say in defense of your theory?
​

 

[lordkalvan]

Ah, Asyncritus, it's so uninspiring to still see proffering personal incredulity as a supposedly 'scientific' argument against evolution and evolutionary theory, and then declaring both refuted on the back of this personal incredulity. Even when your misunderstandings are pointed out - as Barbarian has in the case of you assertions and claims in respect of termites, for example - you simply deny and ridicule the supporting evidence and arguments. So perhaps you can explain why we should refute your arguments here, except perhaps to demonstrate their shaky foundations for the benefit of anyone else who might be interested?

 

[Hammer]

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.

If it could be demonstrated that Evolutionists could envision a hypothetical example of a complex organ that could not possibly be formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, then maybe we could take them more seriously.

Part of a legitimate scientific theory is one that can be tested, such as proposed by Darwin. If Evolution explains everything, it explained nothing, and is worthless, and in all probability false.

 

[Barbarian]

If it could be demonstrated that Evolutionists could envision a hypothetical example of a complex organ that could not possibly be formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, then maybe we could take them more seriously.

Wings on humans.

Another set of limbs on a horse.

Part of a legitimate scientific theory is one that can be tested, such as proposed by Darwin.

It's why science accepts evolution. Many, many, predictions made by evolutionary theory have been later verified. Want to learn about some of them?

If Evolution explains everything, it explained nothing, and is worthless, and in all probability false.

You'll be happy to learn that it doesn't explain everything. And there's still a lot to learn about evolution, as there is about chemistry and physics and so on.

I never could figure out why creationists suppose evolution is supposed to explain everything.

 

[Hammer]

Wings on humans.

Another set of limbs on a horse.

Evolution refuted?:

"It's not a horse." Yeah, Evolution is saved!

If wings on humans would refute Evolution, why not wings on birds? All you've done is chosen something that you know doesn't exist, but you've given no Darwinian reason why it couldn't exist. The basic 4-limbed body plan goes back to the Cambrian, but in the same vein as my post about five-fingers vs. Evolution, I count this as evidence against Evolution. But, in your circular thinking, it's evidence of Evolution.

If there were winged humans, you'd just dream up a story of a baby that was born with two sets of arms and over the generations one set of arms moved around to the back and slowly transformed into wings the same way you believe other wings have developed from limbs.

Another condition, which I shouldn't need to mention, is that the organ would have to be viable. The largest living flying bird weighs about 30 pounds. Larger birds are unable to fly. Compare to a human male which averages about 150 pounds. Regardless of Evolution, flying humans isn't viable.

It's why science accepts evolution.

Wrong. Science doesn't accept anything because it's not a person. As for scientists, ever hear of the logical error of Appeal to Authority? Evolutionists are Exhibit A as to the validity of that error.

Many, many, predictions made by evolutionary theory have been later verified. Want to learn about some of them?

In your mind, everything that exists is predicted by Evolution. You failed miserably at the challenge you just attempted. I'll give you another opportunity to fail miserably (My prediction, based on the theory that Evolution is false). Give me some predictions that Darwin made which were later discovered to be accurate. I bet I can give you more predictions of his that failed.

 

[lordkalvan]

I'll bite on a one-for-one basis:

‘In each great region of the world the living mammals are closely related to the extinct species of the same region. It is therefore probably that Africa was formerly inhabited by extinct apes closely allied to the gorilla and chimpanzee; and as these two species are now man’s nearest allies, it is somewhat more probable that our early progenitors lived on the African continent than elsewhere.’

Descent of Man, Chapter VI.

 

[Hammer]

I'll bite on a one-for-one basis:

‘In each great region of the world the living mammals are closely related to the extinct species of the same region. It is therefore probably that Africa was formerly inhabited by extinct apes closely allied to the gorilla and chimpanzee; and as these two species are now man’s nearest allies, it is somewhat more probable that our early progenitors lived on the African continent than elsewhere.’

Descent of Man, Chapter VI.

Back in Darwin's day, they practically considered black Africans to be our early progenitors. Further, it doesn't take Evolution to predict that where there are various species of ape, there will be extinct species of ape which would lend themselves to the imagination of Darwinists as ape men.

My turn. "I can give only one or two instances of transitional habits and structures in closely allied species of the same genus; and of diversified habits, either constant or occasional, in the same species. And it seems to me that nothing less than a long list of such cases is sufficient to lessen the difficulty in any particular case like that of the bat." Origin of the Species, ch 6.

There are over a thousand species of bat. But, among them, there is very little in the way of anything that can even be considered for transitional habits and structures. No various stages of echolocation. No various stages of wing development. Etc.

Darwin predicted a long list of transitional states between existent bat species. Compare with squirrels, as with squirrels, were there's a gradual range from non-flying to flying squirrels.

 

[lordkalvan]

Back in Darwin's day, they practically considered black Africans to be our early progenitors.

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you have evidence to this effect?

Further, it doesn't take Evolution to predict that where there are various species of ape, there will be extinct species of ape which would lend themselves to the imagination of Darwinists as ape men.

In other words, you simply deny the evidence that confirms the prediction. Is it your contention, therefore, that species classified as Homo bear no relation at all to Homo sapiens? If so, what evidence do you use to support this contention?

My turn. "I can give only one or two instances of transitional habits and structures in closely allied species of the same genus; and of diversified habits, either constant or occasional, in the same species. And it seems to me that nothing less than a long list of such cases is sufficient to lessen the difficulty in any particular case like that of the bat." Origin of the Species, ch 6.

There are over a thousand species of bat. But, among them, there is very little in the way of anything that can even be considered for transitional habits and structures. No various stages of echolocation. No various stages of wing development. Etc.

Darwin predicted a long list of transitional states between existent bat species. Compare with squirrels, as with squirrels, were there's a gradual range from non-flying to flying squirrels.

I cannot see where your reference shows that Darwin 'predicted a long list of transitional states between existent bat species'. I have read the relevant chapter of OOS and can see no place where Darwin made such a prediction. Can you help me, please?

I would not in passing that some species of shrews and tenrecs in Madagascar use echolocation, so its existence in rudimentary form in species ancestral to bats would be no great surprise, although I understand current research suggests that flying developed before echolocation.

This article sheds some light on the rapid development of flight in ancestral bat species:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/How-Did-Rats-Grow-Wings-and-Became-Bats-21804.shtml

 

[Asyncritus]

Wings on humans.

Another set of limbs on a horse.

No, no. Something much nearer home.

The mimicry shown above.

The echolocation system in microchiropteran bats.

The echolocation system in whales and dolphins

It's why science accepts evolution. Many, many, predictions made by evolutionary theory have been later verified. Want to learn about some of them?

:toofunny

You'll be happy to learn that it doesn't explain everything. And there's still a lot to learn about evolution,

Yeah. Like: did it happen, and if so, how?

as there is about chemistry and physics and so on.

Sure they didn't evolve too?

I never could figure out why creationists suppose evolution is supposed to explain everything.

I can't either, since it explains nothing.

But what is your opinion about the mimicry examples above? Evolved or not? How?

 

[Asyncritus]

Intereting.

[...]

Dave, we need some evolutionary explanation of every item on your list.

There is nothing that holds any water.

Does that bother anybody? Don't be silly.

 

[Barbarian]

Evolution refuted?:

"It's not a horse." Yeah, Evolution is saved!

Not genetic. Just an error in translation of ordinary genes. I thought you knew. This can't happen by random mutation and natural selection.

If wings on humans would refute Evolution, why not wings on birds?

Humans are too heavy. You'd have to start with something quite small and light, say chicken size or less. Humans will never evolve wings, because they would never be possible by random mutation and natural selection.

All you've done is chosen something that you know doesn't exist, but you've given no Darwinian reason why it couldn't exist.

Wrong. You just don't know much about biology.

The basic 4-limbed body plan goes back to the Cambrian, but in the same vein as my post about five-fingers vs. Evolution, I count this as evidence against Evolution.

In fact, horses with functional arms would be at an advantage, but there's no way to get there by gradual steps. So it's out of the question.

But, in your circular thinking, it's evidence of Evolution.

Surprise.

If there were winged humans, you'd just dream up a story of a baby that was born with two sets of arms and over the generations one set of arms moved around to the back and slowly transformed into wings the same way you believe other wings have developed from limbs.

Surprise again.

Another condition, which I shouldn't need to mention, is that the organ would have to be viable. The largest living flying bird weighs about 30 pounds. Larger birds are unable to fly. Compare to a human male which averages about 150 pounds. Regardless of Evolution, flying humans isn't viable.

Which is why it can't evolve in humans. You just answered your own question.

Part of a legitimate scientific theory is one that can be tested, such as proposed by Darwin.

Barbarian observes:
It's why science accepts evolution. Many, many, predictions made by evolutionary theory have been later verified. Want to learn about some of them?

Wrong.

It's very right. If you can believe the claims of the creationists at the Discovery Institute, about 0.3% of biologists doubt Darwinian evolution.

As for scientists, ever hear of the logical error of Appeal to Authority?

If my doctor says I need surgery, I'll give the opinion of doctors in that specialty a much higher weight than I'll give my accountant. You're welcome to see it otherwise, of course.

In your mind, everything that exists is predicted by Evolution.

Apparently, your mind-reading abilities are less than reliable. Turns out, the theory only predicts how populations vary over time.

You failed miserably at the challenge you just attempted.

If so, you wouldn't be trying so hard to prove it.

Give me some predictions that Darwin made which were later discovered to be accurate. I bet I can give you more predictions of his that failed.

Let's match up. I'll give you a few from evolutionary theory, and you give me a few that the theory falsely predicted. Then I'll give you a few more, and you respond again. Just the theory. (Darwin was wrong about a lot of things aside from the theory)

1. There must have been at one time, dinosaurs with feathers.
2. There must have been at one time, whales with functional legs.
3. Genetics would support common descent.
4. Humans must have had at one time, a fusion event for chromosomes.
5. There must have been transitionals between reptiles and mammals.
6. Antibiotics would eventually become less useful as bacteria evolve resistance
7. Speciation must occur.
8. A well-evolved population in a relatively unchanging environment will be kept from evolving because natural selection will tend to prevent it.
9. There must have been, at one time, fish with legs.
10. Endosymbiosis must be possible.
11. Transitionals, linking all carnivores, must have existed at one time.
12. There must have been transitionals between frogs and primitive amphibians
13. Ducks and flamingos must be related and there must have been transitionals between them.
14. Termites evolved from cockroaches, and there must be genetic and anatomical evidence for this.
15. Vestigial organs
16. Disruptive selection
17. p² + 2pq + q² = 1
18. Dinosaurs must have proteins more like that of birds than of other living reptiles.
19. The nested hierarchy of Linnaeus would be confirmed by genetic data.
20. There must have been at one time, snakes with functional legs.
21. The oldest humans would be found in Africa
22. Chimps and humans would be most similar in genes.

That's enough. You go for a while.

 

[Asyncritus]

Try answering at least one of the points raised LK. Those questions on mimicry might be a good place to start.

Here, have a go.

 

[Barbarian]

I see Async has bailed out on yet another challenge.

 

[lordkalvan]

Try answering at least one of the points raised LK. Those questions on mimicry might be a good place to start.

Here, have a go.

Which particular piece of personal incredulity or misunderstanding/misrepresentation do you want to have answered and to what purpose, given the many other threads you have abandoned leaving responses to your 'points' ignored and questions arising from them unanswered?

 

[cupid dave]

Which particular piece of personal incredulity or misunderstanding/misrepresentation do you want to have answered and to what purpose, given the many other threads you have abandoned leaving responses to your 'points' ignored and questions arising from them unanswered?

Hey, welcome back Lordie,....

The things I focus YEC atteb=ntion on concerning evo and Genesis is the many verses which actually recognize the process albeit never calls it evolution of course.


Gen. 6:7 And the LORD, (the force behind the ever unfolding Reality of the Universe) said, I will destroy man (of these types and species) whom I have created (for the purpose to mentally model my image of Reality), destroy them, (of these types and species), from the face of the earth, (deeming them extinct); both (this species and kind of) man, and (his present abstract idea of) the beast (of the earth), and (his idea of) the creeping thing (of the earth), and (his idea of) the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them (in this process of evolution).