Challenge to Creationists: Ichneumon Wasp

[Polymath257]

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

Since humans are also apes, you would be correct. But some (not all) Australopithecines are also ancestral to humans.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Of course there is a requirement to use the scientific method to do science. It is sort of part of the definition of what science is. This is so obvious that there really is no need to support this claim. And please, do not conflate real scientists that believe in a God with the dishonest liars, loons, and losers that you keep referring to. The vast majority of Christians that are scientists accept the theory of evolution.

"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.

Christ on a bicycle! You keep making amazingly foolish assumptions. One bone exceptionally well preserved bone was all that it took to conclude that Lucy walked very much as we do. Why do you assume that it was the only foot bone discovered?


Creationists "assume" almost all of the time, and there assumptions are almost always wrong. You should be asking questions politely and properly, not posting nonsense. Do you think that you can do that?

That bone was part of a treasure trove of many Australopithecus afaranesis bones. It was not the only bone at that site. Not only that it was not the only foot fossil of an Australopithecus that has been found. I found several but here is a link to one that was obviously Australopithecus, again it was not the only bone found, and it has some of the sturdier foot bones preserved:


A rare foot fossil shows some hominid kids walked upright 3.3 million years ago

By the way, ICR also requires its workers not to use the scientific method. That rules that site out as a valid source. Why did you use it?

 

[Jose Fly]

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.

I don't know about "The Revolution Against Evolution", but from looking over their website, I don't see any indication that they are even pretending to be a scientific organization. Instead, they seem to be more of an advocacy group for fundamentalist Christianity. Now, if you choose to get your information about scientific subjects from that sort of group, I'll just let that speak for itself.

As far as The Institute for Creation Research, their employees must adhere to their Core Principles. As you can see, all of their work is conducted under the framework of...

The Bible, consisting of the thirty-nine canonical books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven canonical books of the New Testament, is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological.​

IOW, they believe that the Bible is infallible and all employees' work must conform to it. That is the exact opposite of the scientific method.

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

What specific characteristics differentiate "ape fossils" from "human fossils"?

Also, I've asked you a question (where exactly did you look to see if transitional fossils exist) 3 times now and you've ignored it each time. So now I'm less interested in your answer to that question, than I am in why you keep avoiding it. My guess is it's because the truth is you haven't really looked, and your assertion that there are no transitional fossils stems not from a review of actual fossils, but instead is a direct result of your religious beliefs and how they mandate that such fossils don't exist. Is that correct?

 

[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.

Could we take this a step at a time?

One question on this.
Did Darwin define what a transitional is, in Origin of the Species, and did I or did I not provide that definition?

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

You have provided many links here.
I don;t know what for, since I didn't ask for an entire conversation.
I am only asked for what you claimed, that basically I don't have much of a choice, but to oppose ToE, and that a JW here explained to you 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.

I actually found though that these are your words, not hers - Here and here.

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?

Okay, I always look before I leap, but I didn't look that far back.
So you provided the link. Cool.

 

[nPeace]

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?

Please logically explain what caused the "Big Bang".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please logically explain what caused the "Big Bang".

Wow! Now you have conceded the evolution debate, the abiogenesis debate, and the debate on planetary formation. And the answer to your question is:

We don't know yet. The fact that we do not know is not evidence for a god.

 

[Polymath257]

Please logically explain what caused the "Big Bang".

Why do you think there was a cause for the BB?

 

[nPeace]

Why do you think there was a cause for the BB?

I really don't know how to answer that question, other than to say, perhaps the same reason you think there is a cause for the expansion of the universe.

 

[Jose Fly]

One question on this.
Did Darwin define what a transitional is, in Origin of the Species

I don't believe so. In some of his other works he described such specimens as having "intermediate characters".

and did I or did I not provide that definition?

As I documented, in the Watchmaker thread you refused to define the term and eventually left the thread. You eventually posted a definition here in this thread, which is what prompted me to ask you to explain how the specimens you were provided do not meet that definition. You still haven't responded to that.

You have provided many links here.
I don;t know what for, since I didn't ask for an entire conversation.
I am only asked for what you claimed, that basically I don't have much of a choice, but to oppose ToE, and that a JW here explained to you 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.

I actually found though that these are your words, not hers - Here and here.

Again I have to ask.....is there something wrong with you? In MY POST every single item contains a direct quote from the Jehovah's Witness and a link to the post where she said it. Here are some examples of her exact words....

"You do realise what is at stake in this question when people accept what "might have" taken place according to science's theory, compared with what "might have" taken place if we are a product of an Intelligent Designer? Science has no reason for our being....to them, life is just a fluke that popped into existence one day and somehow morphed itself into all we see on Earth today......and it gives us no future to look forward to, except what has already taken place under human rulership....On the other hand, the Creator tells us that there is a reason for our existence".

"I have a reasonable explanation for everything and answers to every question I have ever asked from the Bible.....what could you possibly give me that is better than what I already have? No purpose, no meaning, no future....no thanks!..."

"Science wants us all to take an enormous leap of faith and believe what they say.....there is no Creator....but my leap is already taken. I have full confidence in my Maker to reveal himself in his own good time. I have a purpose to my being and a future to look forward to. What has evolution given you?"

(when asked if you could be a Jehovah's Witness and an "evolutionist") "No, as a believer, I could never compromise my views on this subject. Evolution is used to make God either disappear or to make him out to be a liar....neither of which can be true according to my very strongly held beliefs."

"There is no separation between God and science for us....separating the creation from its Creator will never answer the big questions of life for those who need an answer (like me.) Only God can do that and he does so very well in the Bible."

"Genesis is not ambiguous so there is no room for "God used evolution". That is just nonsense." "If it disagrees with the Bible, then God is not the Creator. True science does NOT disagree with the Bible...evolution does."​

In the "here" you link to above (both go to the same post), I am responding to the same Jehovah's Witness who stated (in response to me asking if she could be an "evolutionist" and stay in the Jehovah's Witnesses")....

Those who leave our ranks have already been discussed. It is clear that once you learn "the truth"....you can't "unlearn" it. And since we can see that no one else teaches it, who would we turn to?...and why would we receive 'defectors' back into our ranks only to have them spread their poison. Let them commiserate with each other ....that is all they can do apparently. They have nowhere to go. Like a ripe piece of fruit, they can't go back to being 'green'....they just go rotten.

If I became a defector, and a slanderer I would expect and deserve the same treatment.​

So when I described that as her saying that a Jehovah's Witness who became an "evolutionist" would be treated like a rotten piece of fruit and someone spreading poison, how exactly is that "my words not hers"? That's pretty much exactly what she said!

But how about you clear this up....was the Jehovah's Witness who wrote all of the above wrong? Are you now saying that you could become an "evolutionist" and your fellow Witnesses would not treat you any differently at all and you would not have to wrestle with some deep theological issues such as the reason for our existence?

Okay, I always look before I leap, but I didn't look that far back.
So you provided the link. Cool.

I did exactly what you asked.

Now how about you reciprocate? Please explain how the fossil specimens that you were provided in the Watchmaker thread....ones that many people, including professional paleontologists, feel are "transitional fossils".....do not meet the definition that you posted.

 

[nPeace]

I don't believe so. In some of his other works he described such specimens as having "intermediate characters".

That is not what I asked you, it it?
Can you answer the question I asked?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I really don't know how to answer that question, other than to say, perhaps the same reason you think there is a cause for the expansion of the universe.

That is a rather inelegant dodge.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And a search of the Bible shows God created flowers and bees. I do not trust your sources and you do not trust mine,. We are back to square one.

There you have it. You do not trust anything that goes against your view. No evidence will be sufficient to convince you that what you believe is not true.

Insects and plants existed before flowers evolved. It is not inconceivable that there was a relationship between the two groups of organisms prior to flower evolution and the evidence bears this out. I have not looked at all the evidence for the evolution of flowers, but I do know that the features that we find beautiful did not evolve with us in mind. The shapes, colors, locations on the plant, timing and other characters are there with insects as the object of attention.

Perhaps they evolved to disseminate pollen by wind and some group of insects chanced upon them as an excellent source of food. Many insects eat pollen. I would have to look into what is known about the coevolution of these groups.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Other insects that did evolve before bees pollinated plants. Lager animals brushing against plants pick up pollen then against other plants.
The wind carries pollen from plant to plant.
In some cases water carries pollen.
Flowering plants were pollinated in early history In exactly the same was as they are now . Plants dont strictly need bees, but bees are very efficient pollinators.

In some cases, a very close relationship has developed between flowering plant and pollinator to the point that the extirpation of one would inevitably lead to the extirpation of the other.

In some cases there are other vectors to pollination. Wind is the most common and may have been the original means of pollination prior to the evolution of other mechanisms. In some cases, flies, beetles, butterflies, bats, and birds are important in pollination as well as or instead of bees.

The presumption based on the original post in this line is that these things develop fully in the form they now predominantly exist in. That they could exist in rudimentary, intermediate or alternative forms seems to be an unknown to the person that poses these sorts of statements. If a person would educate themselves on the scope of the issue, it would serve to eliminate a lot of points that are often just an expression of "I refuse to accept the evidence".

 

[Jose Fly]

That is not what I asked you, it it?
Can you answer the question I asked?

????????? Let's try again....

Did Darwin define what a transitional is, in Origin of the Species

As I said, I don't believe so.

and did I or did I not provide that definition?

No, I don't believe you did.

Now that I've (again) answered your questions, how about you answer what I've been asking you for weeks now?

Please explain how the fossil specimens that you were provided in the Watchmaker thread....ones that many people, including professional paleontologists, feel are "transitional fossils".....do not meet the definition that you posted.

Surely you're not playing that game where you demand everyone answer your questions, while you refuse to answer theirs....right?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Here's a favourite of mine....the orchid wasp....

How does a mindless plant think up such a clever ruse to ensure its pollination? The chemical attraction (pheromones) of the orchid to the wasp is identical to that of a female wasp ready to mate....

This is a classic case of design....pure and simple.

A mindless plant did not think this up. Evolution is not a contrived mechanism of the organisms subject to it. The evolution of chemicals to attract pollinators is profuse in the botanical world. Scent is a great form of communication and the evolution of chemicals that co-opt existing chemistry of another organism is a reasonable means to ensure greater fitness to the orchid while providing something for the pollinator as well.

How can it be a classic case of design, without evidence that it was designed. Arguing from ignorance of what is occurring is not the default to design as the answer.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

I have encountered the tomato hornworm caterpillar covered in a vestiture of wasp cocoons since I was a child. It was one of those things that fascinated me then and still does. While I see no evidence of a plan in this, I do not see God is an evil sadist because this an many other examples like it are allowed to evolve and take place. This too, I am not so sure the caterpillar feels pain, at least not in the way that we do. The nervous system of insects is not a mirror of the mammalian system and it does not have the same processing or receptors that we do.

 

[nPeace]

????????? Let's try again....

As I said, I don't believe so.


No, I don't believe you did.

Page 55
... during the process of modification, represented in the diagram, another of our principles, namely that of extinction, will have played an important part. As in each fully stocked country natural selection necessarily acts by the selected form having some advantage in the struggle for life over other forms, there will be a constant tendency in the improved descendants of any one species to supplant and exterminate in each stage of descent their predecessors and their original parent. For it should be remembered that the competition will generally be most severe between those forms which are most nearly related to each other in habits, constitution, and structure. Hence all the intermediate forms between the earlier and later states, that is between the less and more improved state of a species, as well as the original parent-species itself, will generally tend to become extinct.

Page 58
Natural selection, as has just been remarked, leads to divergence of character and to much extinction of the less improved and intermediate forms of life.

Page 80
... must assuredly have existed; but the very process of natural selection constantly tends, as has been so often remarked, to exterminate the parent forms and the intermediate links. Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains, which are preserved...

Page 125
By the theory of natural selection all living species have been connected with the parent-species of each genus, by differences not greater than we see between the varieties of the same species at the present day; and these parent-species, now generally extinct, have in their turn been similarly connected with more ancient species; and so on backwards, always converging to the common ancestor of each great class. So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon this earth.

I think a transitional fossil has been defined here. Do you agree or disagree?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Page 55
... during the process of modification, represented in the diagram, another of our principles, namely that of extinction, will have played an important part. As in each fully stocked country natural selection necessarily acts by the selected form having some advantage in the struggle for life over other forms, there will be a constant tendency in the improved descendants of any one species to supplant and exterminate in each stage of descent their predecessors and their original parent. For it should be remembered that the competition will generally be most severe between those forms which are most nearly related to each other in habits, constitution, and structure. Hence all the intermediate forms between the earlier and later states, that is between the less and more improved state of a species, as well as the original parent-species itself, will generally tend to become extinct.

Page 58
Natural selection, as has just been remarked, leads to divergence of character and to much extinction of the less improved and intermediate forms of life.

Page 80
... must assuredly have existed; but the very process of natural selection constantly tends, as has been so often remarked, to exterminate the parent forms and the intermediate links. Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains, which are preserved...

Page 125
By the theory of natural selection all living species have been connected with the parent-species of each genus, by differences not greater than we see between the varieties of the same species at the present day; and these parent-species, now generally extinct, have in their turn been similarly connected with more ancient species; and so on backwards, always converging to the common ancestor of each great class. So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon this earth.

I think a transitional fossil has been defined here. Do you agree or disagree?

Not very well or clearly. Earlier you copied and pasted from a Wiki article on intermediate species, why did you not post that much clearer definition again?

 

[ecco]

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.

I've been wondering about that myself.

 

[ecco]

evolutionists claim Dr. Duane Gish is a liar

I'm quite certain that some people who believe in evolution have referred to Mr. Gish as a liar.

, and because he’s a liar, nothing he says can be trusted.

I think that's valid. Why would I trust a liar?

Evolutionists tend to believe all creationists are either liars or deluded by the lies of other creationists.

I think many people who believe in evolution have good reason to believe that all creationists are either liars or deluded by the lies of other creationists. In most cases it goes back to years of childhood indoctrination.

This kind of personal attack distracts attention from good arguments (2002, p. 1).'

I don't find creationists making good arguments. There would be a lot more respect for creationists if they just stated: God said it, I believe it, End of story.

Instead they try to make nonsensical and false arguments against ToE.