|
|
#1691
09-24-2014, 11:43 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
| |||
|
|
||||
|
#1692
09-24-2014, 11:44 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
| |||
|
|
||||
|
#1693
09-24-2014, 11:48 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
| |||
|
|
||||
|
#1695
09-25-2014, 12:19 AM
|
||||
|
Quote:
Who taught the bee to build its cell, displaying greater knowledge than that of many a college graduate? Darwin says (Origin of Species), "It can be clearly shown that the most wonderful instincts with which we are acquainted, namely those of the honey bee, could not possibly have been acquired by habit." We quote from Granville's Calculus, p. 119: "We know that the shape of a bee cell is hexagonal, giving a certain capacity for honey with the greatest possible economy of wax." How could the working bee conserve the gains accumulated by experience or habit? The drone is the father and the queen is the mother of the sterile female working bee. Neither parent knows how to build a cell. How could they transmit their knowledge or their habits to the working bee? Every new swarm of bees would not know how to build their cells. There is no improvement from generation to generation. Even if instinct in other animals could be accounted for, evolution can not account for the instinct of the working bees, since they are not descendants of other working bees, from which they might inherit habits or instinct. | |||
|
|
||||
|
#1696
09-25-2014, 12:50 AM
|
||||
|
Quote:
I dont know the complete answer and dont feel like looking it up but I will still take a stab at it. Bees werent always bees. They evolved from wasps. Wasps build nests as well. If you look at the structure of a wasp nest it is very similar to a honeycomb structure. As the wasp species that evolved into bees became more like bees with each successive generation, the hives they built were being selected for as well. The more efficient the honeycomb structure the greater the odds that the bees would benefit and pass along genes. Poor honeycomb building instincts would not be rewarded. "How could the working bee conserve the gains accumulated by experience or habit? The drone is the father and the queen is the mother of the sterile female working bee. Neither parent knows how to build a cell. How could they transmit their knowledge or their habits to the working bee?" This is because of gene regulation. Each cell and in turn each organism expresses, or turns on, only a fraction of its genes. The rest of the genes are repressed or turned off. Genes are turned on and off in different patterns during development to make a brain cell look and act different from a liver cell or a muscle cell, for example. The information is all there in each bee but that doesnt mean it is switched on. In other words, a worker bee and a queen have matching DNA (minus small variations) but different genes are switched on and off for each. | |||
|
|
||||
|
#1697
09-25-2014, 01:11 AM
|
||||
|
Quote:
Organisms can even change sexes by making use of gene regulation. Here is an interesting article from the NYT showing sex changes in fish are common: http://www.nytimes.com/1984/12/04/sc...nd-common.html "WHEN a school of reef fish loses its single male, the largest female begins acting like a male within a few hours and will produce sperm within 10 days. Some other species repeatedly switch back and forth between the production of eggs and of sperm during a single mating. Among deep sea fish that only rarely encounter potential mates, reproduction is often possible only if one changes sex. Such opportunistic sex changes in fish, once thought to be a rare oddity, are proving far more common than supposed. Conversions from female to male are now known to occur in species belonging to at least 14 families, while conversions from male to female are known in eight families." | |||
|
|
||||
|
#1699
09-25-2014, 01:52 AM
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
[60 Shaman] Gwat
| |||
|
|
||||
|
#1700
09-25-2014, 12:12 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
I'm just asking for one example of an entirely new kind/type of animal (new, never before seen written genetic code spontaneously writing itself to work in complete harmony withe existing genetic code). He couldn't provide one. When backed in a corner, he ran away like a little girl. The coward put me on ignore because he couldn't prove it. Why couldn't he prove it? Because no such example exists. No such example has ever been observed in a lab (he lied or he as too stupid to understand what we were talking about). No such example has ever been observed in the field. When pressed, the answer is always the same. "millions and billions of years did it". Except there is one small problem with that answer. Time doesn't write genetic code. Mutations don't write ordered, legible, structured and precise genetic code. They scramble genetic code. Carbon 14 is now being found in fossils thought to be "millions and billions" of years old (such as dinosaur fossils) with the latest technology that we have. So is skin tissue. Skin tissue on Dinosaur bones. Carbon 14 doesn't last any longer than 100K years. Carbon dating has also dated living animals at 20K years old. In other words, it's never been a reliable model for properly dating fossils. In every example he tried to show (copy/pasted nonsense) the life form was still the same life form. Still bacteria. Still finches. Still fruit flies. still foxes. Adaptation and Natural Selection are parts of "micro evolution". Not "macro-evolution". If you don't understand the difference between the two like the little girl running away like a coward than than I feel sorry for you. It's not my problem he's a pathetic coward and is now trying to claim victory after having run away like a little girl from the discussion. You want to try and pick up where he left off or are you a coward too? | |||
|
|
||||
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
