A thread has been started at EvC forum on a remarkable insect that has actual meshing gears as part of its body design, used to synchronize the movements of its hind legs as it makes a high leap. Of course this will be treated as a remarkable instance of what evolution can do, although of course it is really much better evidence for design than for evolution, design in this case by God, a really good instance of Intelligent Design.
Here's the source information
But they are so convinced of evolution all that thread is going to get is one rationalization after another for how evolution coulda brought it about: the time-honored Coulda Argument. They've convinced themselves that the complex human eye evolved simply because they can point to eye designs all over the range of living things that they are able to mentally arrange into a sequence of steps or stages of complexity, although most of them don't even occur in the same Linnaean lineage. No matter, if you can mentally assemble utterly separate designs into some semblance of a sequence that's all they need to justify belief that the eye evolved and convince them no Designer is implied.
There is another instance of a remarkable creature, the one used by Michael Behe in his argument for Intelligent Design, the bacterium with a rotating flagellum. The way they argued that one was to find other creatures that could plausibly be said to have one or another of the parts of the complex rotating apparatus as part of their design, so that they could say that if any of those parts exist as a functioning unit in any other bacteria, then all of them could have been part of an evolutionary sequence to the final rotating mechanism. But of course there isn't an iota of evidence that this occurred, again it's just a mental arranging of features of completely unrelated creatures into a sequence, a purely mental sequence: the Coulda argument again, though in fact it really couldn't.
So we can expect that for this amazing jumping bug with its amazing gear mechanism they'll try to put together some kind of sequence out of just as much fluff as in the other cases and declare it evidence for evolution. If they can't find anything that resembles a stage on the way to the gear mechanism, they won't have any problem declaring it evolved anyway.
Sigh.
While I'm at it, since I do not want to be tempted to post at EvC any more (and thankfully there have been very few temptations since I left), I'll answer something here: Coyote who always says he misses me, which is nice except we never agree on anything, claimed that I place the Flood at the time of the "KT boundary," which is absolutely false. I've so many times said that I place it where the Bible genealogies place it, about 4300 years ago, that I'm amazed anyone could misquote me.
Sunday, November 6, 2016
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)