Challenge to Creationists: Ichneumon Wasp

[leroy]

Aside from the mountains of evidence for evolution, I often struggle to understand how anyone can believe in an intelligent and benevolent god who designed species when reading about phenomena like this. The Ichneumon wasp is a species of wasp that bores a hole into a caterpillar in order to lay its eggs inside of the caterpillar. The wasp also injects the caterpillar so that it is paralyzed, yet still feels pain. The wasps then hatch inside of the caterpillar and eat it alive from the inside out, while the caterpillar can do nothing. Now, unless God were an evil sadist, there is no way that he would design a process like this. This type of process is simply incompatible with the existence of an intelligent and benevolent designer. Yet, when viewed from a naturalistic perspective, it makes sense. Natural selection produces results that can turn out to be incredibly beautiful and give the illusion of benevolent design, and it can also produce horrible, nasty results like this that give the illusion of a cruel designer. In reality, Natural Selection is blind and mindless, and it all makes sense when we consider this. As Dawkins put it, "Nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent."

Ichneumonidae - Wikipedia

Catapilers don't feel pain, they don't suffer......therefore no "problem of evil" has to be explained.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Catapilers don't feel pain, they don't suffer......therefore no "problem of evil" has to be explained.

They have a complex nervous system. They feel pain.

 

[Jose Fly]

I am asking for evidence for your claims, where you claimed...
(a) In the Watchmaker thread, you made claims about the absence of transitional fossils. I followed that up by asking you what the definition of a "transitional fossil" is. You dodged and dodged and dodged until eventually leaving the thread, without ever defining the term.

HERE you stated "There are no intermediary fossils - none were found. One of Darwin's concerns - never found in over a century."

HERE and HERE I asked if you agreed with a common definition of transitional fossil.

HERE and HERE I asked you to say what the term transitional fossil means to you.

HERE and HERE I noted your dodging and refusal to define the term transitional fossil.

Nowhere in that thread did you ever define the term, and you left the thread without doing so.

(d) Well sure, being a Jehovah's Witness you have enormous incentive to "have no need of that hypothesis", correct? Another JW here explained to me that if she were to become an "evolutionist" (i.e., accept evolution as valid science) she would be treated like a "rotten piece of fruit" by her Jehovah's Witness friends and family, and eventually she would likely be kicked out of the faith at which point her life would lose all meaning and purpose.

CLICK HERE to see the post where I link to and directly quote each of those.

I am fine thanks.
I am asking you to verify the claim you made here...

I see nothing about transitional fossils in this post.

That's one of the problems with jumping in the middle of conversations....it's likely you're going to miss something important.

@InChrist had made a claim about transitional fossils back on Aug. 30 (CLICK HERE). In response, I asked where he had looked to see whether or not transitional fossils existed (CLICK HERE). He then left the thread, returning this past Thursday but he didn't pick up where he and I left off and instead started talking about biochemistry. So in responding to the new points he raised (CLICK HERE), I also reminded him that I had previously asked him a question (where had he looked to see if transitional fossils exist) and he hadn't answered.

You jumped in and obviously got it all mixed up. Hopefully it's more clear now.

So now that that's all taken care of, perhaps you can actually address the issue at hand. You claimed that transitional fossils don't exist. You were given examples of specimens that others (including professional paleontologists) feel are transitional fossils. You've posted a definition for "transitional fossil". So to repeat....how do the specimens you were presented not meet the definition you posted?

 

[Jose Fly]

what I mean by chance is mindless, undirected .

Where did you get that definition from?

 

[Audie]

Where did you get that definition from?

From that bounteous storehouse of creofacts:

He made it up.

 

[nPeace]

We are not made out of clay even if the medium may have good properties. If Eve was made from the rib of Adam she would have identical genetic makeup thus a clone.

Why? Is it because you are looking at it that a mortal, is the one forming Eve? They can't. They can't even build a cell from scratch.
We are talking about the creator, the one who folded DNA into a tiny speck. Not man - the creature.

 

[nPeace]

HERE you stated "There are no intermediary fossils - none were found. One of Darwin's concerns - never found in over a century."

HERE and HERE I asked if you agreed with a common definition of transitional fossil.

HERE and HERE I asked you to say what the term transitional fossil means to you.

HERE and HERE I noted your dodging and refusal to define the term transitional fossil.

Nowhere in that thread did you ever define the term, and you left the thread without doing so.


CLICK HERE to see the post where I link to and directly quote each of those.


That's one of the problems with jumping in the middle of conversations....it's likely you're going to miss something important.

@InChrist had made a claim about transitional fossils back on Aug. 30 (CLICK HERE). In response, I asked where he had looked to see whether or not transitional fossils existed (CLICK HERE). He then left the thread, returning this past Thursday but he didn't pick up where he and I left off and instead started talking about biochemistry. So in responding to the new points he raised (CLICK HERE), I also reminded him that I had previously asked him a question (where had he looked to see if transitional fossils exist) and he hadn't answered.

You jumped in and obviously got it all mixed up. Hopefully it's more clear now.

So now that that's all taken care of, perhaps you can actually address the issue at hand. You claimed that transitional fossils don't exist. You were given examples of specimens that others (including professional paleontologists) feel are transitional fossils. You've posted a definition for "transitional fossil". So to repeat....how do the specimens you were presented not meet the definition you posted?

Don't imagine I have left the thread.
Just bouncing around on other threads.
I'll be with you in a while.

 

[Bear Wild]

Why? Is it because you are looking at it that a mortal, is the one forming Eve? They can't. They can't even build a cell from scratch.
We are talking about the creator, the one who folded DNA into a tiny speck. Not man - the creature.

In one of your posts you wrote "If one wants to understand how life came to be on earth, the Bible gives a clear logical answer, and explains, not only the process, but also the reason for life, and the intelligence of humans over animals." The problem is that you have not shown a clear logical answer. I gave you two examples where their is not a logical answer. The only answer you can give is the creator can do what the creator wants. This is of course becomes the answer for anything that cannot be logically explained. Why did god make man before woman? Did god make all of the people after Adam and Eve or did they all come from Adam and Eve. How did the different people of the world get such genetic variations? Is god still creating new people? Does god keep visiting earth to create new species of life? The theory of evolution gives an explanation that accounts for the variation in humans and animals that is missing from Genesis. I know it is hard for some to accept that we are so special, but the product of an amazing and testable process that has given us such an amazing diversity that exists in out world. Why not appreciate it and all the other living things on Earth?

 

[Audie]

In one of your posts you wrote "If one wants to understand how life came to be on earth, the Bible gives a clear logical answer, and explains, not only the process, but also the reason for life, and the intelligence of humans over animals." The problem is that you have not shown a clear logical answer. I gave you two examples where their is not a logical answer. The only answer you can give is the creator can do what the creator wants. This is of course becomes the answer for anything that cannot be logically explained. Why did god make man before woman? Did god make all of the people after Adam and Eve or did they all come from Adam and Eve. How did the different people of the world get such genetic variations? Is god still creating new people? Does god keep visiting earth to create new species of life? The theory of evolution gives an explanation that accounts for the variation in humans and animals that is missing from Genesis. I know it is hard for some to accept that we are so special, but the product of an amazing and testable process that has given us such an amazing diversity that exists in out world. Why not appreciate it and all the other living things on Earth?

Clear and logical.

Hmm.

Godpoof / magic is logical?

 

[InChrist]

So now that that's all taken care of, perhaps you can actually address the issue at hand. You claimed that transitional fossils don't exist. You were given examples of specimens that others (including professional paleontologists) feel are transitional fossils. You've posted a definition for "transitional fossil". So to repeat....how do the specimens you were presented not meet the definition you posted?

I don't see the specimens or examples presented as meeting the definition of transitional fossils because I don't think science has clear evidence of numerous transitional forms from the fossil record (as claimed) that provides unbiased evidence of ToE. Those who hold to ToE assert that all present and past living things must be descended from a common ancestor. So living things and their fossils are assigned places (which are re-arranged to suit, if needed) in the family tree of evolution based on the evolutionary theory or paradigm, imposing this on the all observations, interpretations, and re-constructions of every fossil fragment in light of ToE.

Much of the fossil remains are fragmentary with many of the fossils found only being fragments of bones. The hominid fossil record is very fragmented. There are human fossils and ape fossils. The idea that there is a complete fossil record including transitional forms between bird and dinosaur or ape and human is pure conjecture and at times has proven to be fraud.

If you can show me examples of clearly unambiguous transitional fossils between species, I will take a look. Nevertheless, there also remains the fact there is much more involved with a living organism and the change which the ToE implies, which could never be shown though only fossilized bones, or fragments.



That is a misleading image, as there are now thousands of hominid fossils. They are however mostly fragmentary, often consisting of single bones or isolated teeth. Complete skulls and skeletons are rare. Prominent Hominid Fossils

How to Solve Human Evolution’s Greatest Hoax | Science | Smithsonian

https://evolutionnews.org/2009/04/_why_evolution_is_false/

Below is a linked article which is an example and demonstrates the elaborate conjecture made to fit the ToE based on... a jawbone fragment.

A gaping hole in the fossil record has been plugged with the discovery of a jawbone fragment showing....
Human Missing Link - Fossil Found

 

[Audie]

I don't see the specimens or examples presented as meeting the definition of transitional fossils because I don't think science has clear evidence of numerous transitional forms from the fossil record (as claimed) that provides unbiased evidence of ToE. Those who hold to ToE assert that all present and past living things must be descended from a common ancestor. So living things and their fossils are assigned places (which are re-arranged to suit, if needed) in the family tree of evolution based on the evolutionary theory or paradigm, imposing this on the all observations, interpretations, and re-constructions of every fossil fragment in light of ToE.

Much of the fossil remains are fragmentary with many of the fossils found only being fragments of bones. The hominid fossil record is very fragmented. There are human fossils and ape fossils. The idea that there is a complete fossil record including transitional forms between bird and dinosaur or ape and human is pure conjecture and at times has proven to be fraud.

If you can show me examples of clearly unambiguous transitional fossils between species, I will take a look. Nevertheless, there also remains the fact there is much more involved with a living organism and the change which the ToE implies, which could never be shown though only fossilized bones, or fragments.



That is a misleading image, as there are now thousands of hominid fossils. They are however mostly fragmentary, often consisting of single bones or isolated teeth. Complete skulls and skeletons are rare. Prominent Hominid Fossils

How to Solve Human Evolution’s Greatest Hoax | Science | Smithsonian

https://evolutionnews.org/2009/04/_why_evolution_is_false/

Below is a linked article which is an example and demonstrates the elaborate conjecture made to fit the ToE based on... a jawbone fragment.

A gaping hole in the fossil record has been plugged with the discovery of a jawbone fragment showing....
Human Missing Link - Fossil Found

Facile, at best.
You dont know enough to even have a clue
how moronic all that is.

You do know how to do a gish though, which
is of course, dishonourable, for all its
tacit admission of failure.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't see the specimens or examples presented as meeting the definition of transitional fossils because I don't think science has clear evidence of numerous transitional forms from the fossil record (as claimed) that provides unbiased evidence of ToE. Those who hold to ToE assert that all present and past living things must be descended from a common ancestor. So living things and their fossils are assigned places (which are re-arranged to suit, if needed) in the family tree of evolution based on the evolutionary theory or paradigm, imposing this on the all observations, interpretations, and re-constructions of every fossil fragment in light of ToE.

Much of the fossil remains are fragmentary with many of the fossils found only being fragments of bones. The hominid fossil record is very fragmented. There are human fossils and ape fossils. The idea that there is a complete fossil record including transitional forms between bird and dinosaur or ape and human is pure conjecture and at times has proven to be fraud.

If you can show me examples of clearly unambiguous transitional fossils between species, I will take a look. Nevertheless, there also remains the fact there is much more involved with a living organism and the change which the ToE implies, which could never be shown though only fossilized bones, or fragments.



That is a misleading image, as there are now thousands of hominid fossils. They are however mostly fragmentary, often consisting of single bones or isolated teeth. Complete skulls and skeletons are rare. Prominent Hominid Fossils

How to Solve Human Evolution’s Greatest Hoax | Science | Smithsonian

https://evolutionnews.org/2009/04/_why_evolution_is_false/

Below is a linked article which is an example and demonstrates the elaborate conjecture made to fit the ToE based on... a jawbone fragment.

A gaping hole in the fossil record has been plugged with the discovery of a jawbone fragment showing....
Human Missing Link - Fossil Found

One does not need an entire fossil for it to be transitional. I suggest that you look up the definition of the term again. You really should not be using dishonest arguments. The existence of transitional fossils is undeniable by honest people.

Let's take one example that you mentioned. Reasonable feet were put on Lucy since in every other aspect she was part way between humans and chimps and she was closed to humans than chimps in some aspects. But feet were found for other members later on. They were correct.

 

[Jose Fly]

I don't see the specimens or examples presented as meeting the definition of transitional fossils because I don't think science has clear evidence of numerous transitional forms from the fossil record (as claimed) that provides unbiased evidence of ToE. Those who hold to ToE assert that all present and past living things must be descended from a common ancestor. So living things and their fossils are assigned places (which are re-arranged to suit, if needed) in the family tree of evolution based on the evolutionary theory or paradigm, imposing this on the all observations, interpretations, and re-constructions of every fossil fragment in light of ToE.

Much of the fossil remains are fragmentary with many of the fossils found only being fragments of bones. The hominid fossil record is very fragmented. There are human fossils and ape fossils. The idea that there is a complete fossil record including transitional forms between bird and dinosaur or ape and human is pure conjecture and at times has proven to be fraud.

If you can show me examples of clearly unambiguous transitional fossils between species, I will take a look. Nevertheless, there also remains the fact there is much more involved with a living organism and the change which the ToE implies, which could never be shown though only fossilized bones, or fragments.



That is a misleading image, as there are now thousands of hominid fossils. They are however mostly fragmentary, often consisting of single bones or isolated teeth. Complete skulls and skeletons are rare. Prominent Hominid Fossils

How to Solve Human Evolution’s Greatest Hoax | Science | Smithsonian

https://evolutionnews.org/2009/04/_why_evolution_is_false/

Below is a linked article which is an example and demonstrates the elaborate conjecture made to fit the ToE based on... a jawbone fragment.

A gaping hole in the fossil record has been plugged with the discovery of a jawbone fragment showing....
Human Missing Link - Fossil Found

Wait a sec....is this why @nPeace kept mixing up my posts to him with my posts to you? Are you both really the same person, using two different names?

Your post above reads like it's nPeace replying to my post, except it's posted under InChrist.

That sure would explain a lot.

 

[InChrist]

One does not need an entire fossil for it to be transitional. I suggest that you look up the definition of the term again. You really should not be using dishonest arguments. The existence of transitional fossils is undeniable by honest people.

If you are going to repeatedly resort to accusing me or others who disagree with ToE of dishonesty, rather than bothering to even read, consider, or understand that others have a sincere difference in perspective about the subject, then I don't know if we should attempt conversation. This calling people liars along with other demeaning labels is simply a tactic to shutdown any different views.

'Many Darwinists evidently feel that the most effective way to respond to the many challenges to Darwinism, or at least an important approach, is to try to marginalize the opposition by attacking their credibility. Under the subtitle “Baloney Detector Kits,” Jan Covey lists several methods Darwinists use in an attempt to win arguments, including the ad hominem attacks. For example, he says...
evolutionists claim Dr. Duane Gish is a liar, and because he’s a liar, nothing he says can be trusted. Evolutionists tend to believe all creationists are either liars or deluded by the lies of other creationists. This kind of personal attack distracts attention from good arguments (2002, p. 1).'
Are All Creationists Liars? – REVOLUTION AGAINST EVOLUTION

Let's take one example that you mentioned. Reasonable feet were put on Lucy since in every other aspect she was part way between humans and chimps and she was closed to humans than chimps in some aspects. But feet were found for other members later on. They were correct.

How can you be sure the feet were reasonable if the foot bones were not there to begin with? How do you know they are correct about the feet, only one bone was found. Who knows for a fact that it even belongs to "Lucy's" skeletal fossils?

 

[InChrist]

Wait a sec....is this why @nPeace kept mixing up my posts to him with my posts to you? Are you both really the same person, using two different names?

Your post above reads like it's nPeace replying to my post, except it's posted under InChrist.

That sure would explain a lot.

Wait a sec....is this why @nPeace kept mixing up my posts to him with my posts to you? Are you both really the same person, using two different names?

Your post above reads like it's nPeace replying to my post, except it's posted under InChrist.

That sure would explain a lot.

Not the same.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you are going to repeatedly resor

t to accusing me or others who disagree with ToE of dishonesty, rather than bothering to even read, consider, or understand that others have a sincere difference in perspective about the subject, then I don't know if we should attempt conversation. This calling people liars along with other demeaning labels is simply a tactic to shutdown any different views.

'Many Darwinists evidently feel that the most effective way to respond to the many challenges to Darwinism, or at least an important approach, is to try to marginalize the opposition by attacking their credibility. Under the subtitle “Baloney Detector Kits,” Jan Covey lists several methods Darwinists use in an attempt to win arguments, including the ad hominem attacks. For example, he says...
evolutionists claim Dr. Duane Gish is a liar, and because he’s a liar, nothing he says can be trusted. Evolutionists tend to believe all creationists are either liars or deluded by the lies of other creationists. This kind of personal attack distracts attention from good arguments (2002, p. 1).'
Are All Creationists Liars? – REVOLUTION AGAINST EVOLUTION

You got caught using a dishonest argument. Your only excuse is to claim that you were ignorant. And the person that you quoted works for a place that requires those to work there not to use the scientific method. How can he put up a valid argument?

How can you be sure the feet were reasonable if the foot bones were not there to begin with? How do you know they are correct about the feet, only one bone was found. Who knows for a fact that it even belongs to "Lucy's" skeletal fossils?

You have to be kidding. This is so amazingly ignorant that you disqualify yourself from debating by asking this question. When it came to Lucy quite a few bones were found. The foot bones were not there. There are many other examples of Australopithecus afarensis that have been found. Bones for the feet were found. I have no clue what you are talking about in regards to Lucy saying "only one bone was found".

By the way, you can tell that the author of the paper "Are all creationists liars" is a liar himself. No one claimed that all creationists are liars. Many are amazingly ignorant. As I said you got caught using dishonest arguments. They are clearly not yours, but the person that came up with them knew better. He was a liar.

 

[Jose Fly]

Not the same.

If you and nPeace are not the same person posting under two different accounts, then why are you responding to my replies to nPeace while ignoring my replies to you?

 

[Jose Fly]

You have to be kidding. This is so amazingly ignorant that you disqualify yourself from debating by asking this question. When it came to Lucy quite a few bones were found. The foot bones were not there. There are many other examples of Australopithecus afarensis that have been found. Bones for the feet were found. I have no clue what you are talking about in regards to Lucy saying "only one bone was found".

Apparently @InChrist thought "Lucy" was the only A. afarensis specimen known. Oops.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Apparently @InChrist thought "Lucy" was the only A. afarensis specimen known. Oops.

He may have conflated the first example of Homo erectus found. Also known as "Java man". That consisted of only a thigh bone and a skull cap. Experts in bones can identify a species often from just one key bone. It was obviously a "human" thigh bone, but not a Homo sapiens one. The skull cap implied a brain of lower volume than ours. The creationists first came up with this argument against that particular find. Since then many more have been found a several complete skeletons. Though there are examples of fossil finds that are the only fossil of that species when found. In fact whenever one finds a new species that is the only example at that time. But once a new fossil is found it tells us "where and when" to find other fossils of the same species so it is quite common for new finds to be quickly added to by other finds of the same species.[/B]

At one time the number of human fossils could have been displayed on one table top. Today one would need a boxcar to carry all of them.[/B]

 

[InChrist]

You got caught using a dishonest argument. Your only excuse is to claim that you were ignorant. And the person that you quoted works for a place that requires those to work there not to use the scientific method. How can he put up a valid argument?

You keep claiming there is a requirement not to use the scientific method, but I haven't seen you post anything which proves this claim. There is no reason to think that scientists who believe in a Creator or creation abandon the scientific method just because you say they do. So I consider there research valid.

You have to be kidding. This is so amazingly ignorant that you disqualify yourself from debating by asking this question. When it came to Lucy quite a few bones were found. The foot bones were not there. There are many other examples of Australopithecus afarensis that have been found. Bones for the feet were found. I have no clue what you are talking about in regards to Lucy saying "only one bone was found".

"How did Lucy walk? Although the famous 3.2-million-year-old skeleton shows that she was undoubtedly an upright walker, our incomplete knowledge of her feet has fed a long-running debate about the mechanics of her stride. Now, thanks to the discovery of a single bone, scientists have found important similarities between Lucy’s feet and our own."
Lucy's Feet Were Arched and Stiff, Just Like Ours

"The most complete Australopith skeletons show that they had none of the skeletal features, including hip, spine, femur, and foot bone structures, that enable the uniquely human manner of walking.4 In fact, Lucy-like specimens have indicated characteristic flat ape feet with curved toes, not arched feet as the media have claimed.5

Is one bone singled out from a scrap heap of “greater than 370” individual bones the best evidence for an upright-walking ape?2 If this bone actually was from a “Lucy,” it would be the first A. afarensis skeletal feature discovered that is not ideally suited for life in trees. But to assert that this one bone was an Australopith’s is to beg the question. It no more belonged to a Lucy than the famous pig’s tooth belonged to the fraudulent “Nebraska Man.”
This bone has not proven that Lucy walked, but instead illustrates how improper science leads to flawed conclusions.
'Lucy's' New Foot Bone Is Actually Human

Yes, there are many Australopithecus afarensis fossils, but I find insufficient reason to view them as anything other than the fossils of apes.