Snowflakes....designed or accidents of nature?

[shawn001]

is this bird "designed" or an accident of nature?

Half-male, half-female bird has a rough life

"This bird might look like a holiday ornament, but it is actually a rare half-female, half-male northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis, pictured with female plumage on the left and male plumage on the right) spotted a few years ago in Rock Island, Illinois. Researchers have long known such split-sex “gynandromorphs” exist in insects, crustaceans, and birds. But scientists rarely get to extensively study a gynandromorph in the wild; most published observations cover just a day or so. Observers got to follow this bird, however, for more than 40 days between December 2008 and March 2010. They documented how it interacted with other birds and even how it responded to recorded calls. The results suggest being half-and-half carries consequences: The cardinal didn’t appear to have a mate, and observers never heard it sing, the researchers report this month in The Wilson Journal of Ornithology. On the other hand, it wasn’t “subjected to any unusual agonistic behaviors from other cardinals,” according to the paper. Intriguingly, another gynandromorph cardinal sighted briefly in 1969 had the opposite plumage, they note: the male’s bright red plumes on the right, the drabber female feathers on the left."

Half-male, half-female bird has a rough life | Science/AAAS | News

 

[FearGod]

is this bird "designed" or an accident of nature?

Half-male, half-female bird has a rough life

"This bird might look like a holiday ornament, but it is actually a rare half-female, half-male northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis, pictured with female plumage on the left and male plumage on the right) spotted a few years ago in Rock Island, Illinois. Researchers have long known such split-sex “gynandromorphs” exist in insects, crustaceans, and birds. But scientists rarely get to extensively study a gynandromorph in the wild; most published observations cover just a day or so. Observers got to follow this bird, however, for more than 40 days between December 2008 and March 2010. They documented how it interacted with other birds and even how it responded to recorded calls. The results suggest being half-and-half carries consequences: The cardinal didn’t appear to have a mate, and observers never heard it sing, the researchers report this month in The Wilson Journal of Ornithology. On the other hand, it wasn’t “subjected to any unusual agonistic behaviors from other cardinals,” according to the paper. Intriguingly, another gynandromorph cardinal sighted briefly in 1969 had the opposite plumage, they note: the male’s bright red plumes on the right, the drabber female feathers on the left."

Half-male, half-female bird has a rough life | Science/AAAS | News

Does it prove that evolution doesn't need random beneficial mutations to happen first ?
What's your point ?

 

[JayJayDee]

And all of this information is "proof" that one "kind" of life evolved into all the many other different "kinds" of life forms? And this process, seemingly with no intelligent direction, produced all the living beings and systems we see, and have seen on planet Earth?
Sorry, I just can't see how that is possible.

I checked out the evolution of the horse. As far as I can see, horses may have changed in shape and size over time but they are still four legged creatures of the horse "kind"......but in 55 million years, give or take a few million, according to evolutionists, they did not form a completely different animal....did they?

We have many different varieties of domestic dogs and cats of all shapes, colors and variety, who can all interbreed, but are they are selectively bred by humans to remain within their distinct varieties.
Left to their own devices, these man-made breeds would soon become a mish-mash...but they would all remain true to their species....they would all still be dogs or cats no matter how much time elapsed. Their mating habits, programmed into their DNA, would ensure that.

The "kinds" of creatures that have been around for millennia, are still here basically unchanged except perhaps for minor adaptive features that facilitate feeding or reproduction. When Darwin observed the Galapagos finches and turtles he did not see one species evolving into another. He saw adaptation through isolation because of the environment on the island being different to the mainland. He made the leap, and it seems, others blindly followed.

Beetles were mentioned......but when adaptation took place, they remain of the beetle "kind" and still are to this day.......and sea creatures are still swimming around with other marines creatures of their "kind". I have yet to see evidence for one "kind" evolving into another "kind" of creature altogether. Why can't amphibians be the product of design, the same way any other creature is? Who said they must be some kind of transitional life form? How many transitional life forms are there really? There should be literally thousands for each species that is believed to have gradually evolved. Where are they? Evidence for the gradual changes in all these life forms should be in evidence......why are they missing?

Do you understand what a stretch it is to believe what you are saying? Interpretation of the "evidence" seems to be what agrees with their own assumptions. Throw in a couple on million years and all things are possible according to the theorists....yet the mention of an intelligent designer has them all spitting the dummy. Why is their scenario any less far fetched than you think ours is?

What does the real world show us? The one that is under our noses not under a skewed scientific lens, anticipating what "might have" occurred millions of years ago.

In the oceans, myriad forms of sea creatures only mate with their own species maintaining distinct varieties within their "kinds" that do not interbreed with any other "kind" of sea creature. The varieties within their "kinds" remain separate and distinct from one another because that is the way they are designed.
I looked up the evolution of the turtle or tortoise shell and it was supported by a video to demonstrate how the skeletal structure of early species somehow ended up outside their body....computer generated of course. I laughed.

No one has explained how birds know how to build the unique nests peculiar to their species when they were not there to observe their parents doing so in order for it to be a learned behavior.

How do birds and butterflies routinely migrate to places they have never been?

Do the designs, colors and patterning of caterpillars (linked to previously) just happen with no designer......just random chance enhancing their beauty? Are they attractive to one another? Why should they be? Caterpillars don't mate.

These are the questions that evolution does not seem to want to answer. I am not impressed by the imagination of men...even learned ones.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I checked out the evolution of the horse. As far as I can see, horses may have changed in shape and size over time but they are still four legged creatures of the horse "kind"......but in 55 million years, give or take a few million, according to evolutionists, they did not form a completely different animal....did they?

Just to be clear, you think that this:

And this:

Are the same animal?

Like, if you walked through a zoo, and saw these animals in the same general location, you would say "Oh yeah! Those are obviously the same thing."

the Hyracotherium weren't much larger than a house cat...

 

[outhouse]

AIP facts of evolution.

We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
2. Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
3. Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
4. Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

Nothing you say, can refute a single word, nor any source you choose will change one of these FACTS.

 

[`mud]

Ohhhh Out,
But Noehhhhhhh got all of these creatures on the boat didn't he ?????
Every little fly, gnat, and worm.
And two kangaroos in the midst, or were there seven ?
It says so in the Bible....right there in print from the mouth of God.
Why don't you believe !!!!!!!
~
'mud

 

[Ouroboros]

Ohhhh Out,
But Noehhhhhhh got all of these creatures on the boat didn't he ?????
Every little fly, gnat, and worm.
And two kangaroos in the midst, or where there seven ?
It says so in the Bible....right there in print from the mouth of God.
Why don't you believe !!!!!!!
~
'mud

Also, he got maggots, fruit flies, mold, fungus, yeast, and other nasty, pesky things, like deadly virus and such. The cows were carriers of mad-cow disease, and so on.

The problem here, which creationists can't see, is that if you reject macro-evolution, you have to reject micro-evolution (or "adaption" as they call it). Simply because it's the same process.

Micro is just small changes, looked at individually.

Macro is many changes, looked at as a group.

It's only about the view of the same thing. Like zooming in or out on the nav system in the car or on Google maps. Details in the micro, but overview in the macro.

Each micro change can change small things with the body plan, so with many micro changes of the body plan (an individuals body, how it looks), the change will be more noticeable. We can confirm this by comparing body (what we see) with genetic code (what we can see as an output from sequencers) that the genes have changed when the bodies are different. It's not hard to understand. And, we do have "kids" (edit: I meant "kinds") that are diverging into separate species at this moment. Horses and donkeys are different species. Right now, you can crossbreed them and produce infertile offspring, mules, but over time, there will be horse breeds and donkey breeds that can't reproduce at all (I haven't checked, but they might exist already now). The same goes for dogs. There's two dog breeds that are very difficult to cross right now because their genetic differences have become too large. Over time, they'll go on their own separate merry way of mutations.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Each micro change can change small things with the body plan, so with many micro changes of the body plan (an individuals body, how it looks), the change will be more noticeable. We can confirm this by comparing body (what we see) with genetic code (what we can see as an output from sequencers) that the genes have changed when the bodies are different. It's not hard to understand. And, we do have "kids" that are diverging into separate species at this moment. Horses and donkeys are different species. Right now, you can crossbreed them and produce infertile offspring, mules, but over time, there will be horse breeds and donkey breeds that can't reproduce at all (I haven't checked, but they might exist already now). The same goes for dogs. There's two dog breeds that are very difficult to cross right now because their genetic differences have become too large. Over time, they'll go on their own separate merry way of mutations.

Yes! And for added reference let's all go back to Biology 1101, where there are some fancy vocabulary words that we should all learn to spell properly. For extra credit, there will be a short answer section at the end of the quiz...

Genotype - Genotype - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

&

Phenotype - Phenotype - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[FearGod]

Just to be clear, you think that this:

And this:

Are the same animal?

Like, if you walked through a zoo, and saw these animals in the same general location, you would say "Oh yeah! Those are obviously the same thing."

the Hyracotherium weren't much larger than a house cat...

Similar to the TV before and now, it proves nothing except that the producers were the same ones "Humans"

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Similar to the TV before and now, it proves nothing except that the producers were the same ones "Humans"

And were they animals and needed to be categorized yes we would assume them to be different but related species. Think about phones. Now we have flip phones. Now we have Ipads, We now had smart phones. We have netbooks, we have e-readers, we have portable laptops, we have home computers, we have high speed processing computers, ect ect ect.

All of them coming from a simpler design originating from Alan turning. They are all obviously different devices with different adaptations built in so as to attract more customers, but they are different.

 

[Ouroboros]

And were they animals and needed to be categorized yes we would assume them to be different but related species. Think about phones. Now we have flip phones. Now we have Ipads, We now had smart phones. We have netbooks, we have e-readers, we have portable laptops, we have home computers, we have high speed processing computers, ect ect ect.

All of them coming from a simpler design originating from Alan turning. They are all obviously different devices with different adaptations built in so as to attract more customers, but they are different.

Also, when it comes to "kind". And all bipedals are bipedal kind. All mammals are mammal kind. All organisms are organism kind. Ultimately, all life is life kind. We're all the same kind and different kinds at the same time. That's why "kind" is so useless definition and is only used by creationists to muddy up the waters.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Also, when it comes to "kind". And all bipedals are bipedal kind. All mammals are mammal kind. All organisms are organism kind. Ultimately, all life is life kind. We're all the same kind and different kinds at the same time. That's why "kind" is so useless definition and is only used by creationists to muddy up the waters.

Very true. And they can't ever find what is a "kind" and what isn't a "kind" in terms of specific limits and where they apply. Flies are still flies. They are pat of fly kind. But are they part of insect kind? If they stopped being flies and turned into bees would they claim a kind just mean insects?

 

[FearGod]

And were they animals and needed to be categorized yes we would assume them to be different but related species. Think about phones. Now we have flip phones. Now we have Ipads, We now had smart phones. We have netbooks, we have e-readers, we have portable laptops, we have home computers, we have high speed processing computers, ect ect ect.

All of them coming from a simpler design originating from Alan turning. They are all obviously different devices with different adaptations built in so as to attract more customers, but they are different.

Yes they're different devices and we're different kinds, the different devices is produced by man and the different species are produced by the creator.
What difference it makes ?

 

[Ouroboros]

Very true. And they can't ever find what is a "kind" and what isn't a "kind" in terms of specific limits and where they apply. Flies are still flies. They are pat of fly kind. But are they part of insect kind? If they stopped being flies and turned into bees would they claim a kind just mean insects?

The strange thing with "kinds" in the Bible is that doves and ravens are in the same "bird kind", but are supposed to be separate kinds according to the Noah story. Noah had both doves and ravens. Supposedly that's what he sent out. That means that every "bird kind", 10,000 or more would have been on the ark. 2 of each unclean bird-kind, and 7 pairs of the clean ones (whatever they were). So, at least 20,000 birds, but perhaps closer to 100,000. And here's an interesting fact, birds will resort to pecking and even cannibalism if not given enough space. Birds are easily stressed.

Another question, did Noah also keep goldfish, betta fish and such on the ark? Just because they're fish won't mean they would survive such a turbulent flood with whirlpools etc.

Or what about mayflies?

Or a proper habitat for some tropical plants? Or plants that can't handle tropical at all? Did Noah have temperature and humidity controlling equipment? Perhaps the first hydroponics and artificial light even?

Amazing what those aliens can do...

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Yes they're different devices and we're different kinds, the different devices is produced by man and the different species are produced by the creator.
What difference it makes ?

I don't want this to become to literal of an analogy because that is all that it is. But in the same way that we evolve, which is by taking traits that were productive and removing traits that were not successful we have a trend of the more successful companies and products being produced and emulated more. We don't have to have someone make millions and millions of devices that are slightly altered at random to move up to the next best model. So in that way we are not similar.

But the origin of some technology or some species branches off into multiple species. And the further back we go the more modern species converge into a common ancestor.

 

[jonathan180iq]

And were they animals and needed to be categorized yes we would assume them to be different but related species. Think about phones. Now we have flip phones. Now we have Ipads, We now had smart phones. We have netbooks, we have e-readers, we have portable laptops, we have home computers, we have high speed processing computers, ect ect ect.

All of them coming from a simpler design originating from Alan turning. They are all obviously different devices with different adaptations built in so as to attract more customers, but they are different.

And none of the products in their origianl versions (or ancestral states), prior to their evolution in the marketplace, are able to reproduce the type of information that is now streaming through almost every device in every city on Earth. The data is no longer beaming through the air for the older versions to reproduce images and sound. Those products, and their media, have evolved into something else, dependent on their technological environment.

 

[Ouroboros]

I don't want this to become to literal of an analogy because that is all that it is. But in the same way that we evolve, which is by taking traits that were productive and removing traits that were not successful we have a trend of the more successful companies and products being produced and emulated more. We don't have to have someone make millions and millions of devices that are slightly altered at random to move up to the next best model. So in that way we are not similar.

Actually, in design you tend to see shorter paths and more direct to specific functionality, while in a genetic evolutionary system you would see a lot more remnants of trial and error and more complexity. You will end up with more vestigial functionality that are redundant in evolution, which you do find.

But the origin of some technology or some species branches off into multiple species. And the further back we go the more modern species converge into a common ancestor.

Yup. Which we can see in the genetic code. When even "misprinted" code (or bugs and errors) are shared uniquely more by closer relatives and less with farther relatives, we can see this in reality.

 

[FearGod]

How come that the human being isn't a work of design.

Don't you think that our bodies and the way it work is a proof of a creator, otherwise it is the work of the Inanimate stone which doesn't make any sense.

 

[JayJayDee]

Please just answer the questions in post # 384. You all seem to be ignoring them.

If, in 55 million years, the horse is still a four legged creature covered in hair, then how long do you suppose it would take a whale to turn into a hippo....then explain why they are still both in existence? Whose word do we have that that the little guy was ever a horse anyway? A related species perhaps? All living things are made from the same raw materials according to the Bible.

Why didn't other primates continue to evolve to demonstrate "human" abilities? The gulf between apes and man is huge. Please tell us how long it will take the primates that presently exist, to achieve the same level of language and ability as modern humans? Do we just need to throw another 50 million years at them before there are no more primates living in the trees?

And if creatures are constantly evolving how is it that reproduction requires both male and female of all the billions of species of creatures in existence on this planet, to "evolve" in unison so as to reproduce their young? At what point did the organisms become male and female and evolve to be completely compatible in their reproductive parts so as to bring forth their young in the first place?

It is what you gloss over that beggars belief. Your fantasy is as fanciful as you believe ours is.
Each position requires faith in the teachers and in the integrity and interpretation of the evidence. The Science Books verses the books of the Holy Bible. Faith in the author is all that separates our positions.

I cannot see the exquisite design of living things and imagine no intelligent designer organising their life processes.
You can if you wish.

I could have all the pieces of a simple mousetrap and put them in a container that tipped the pieces out every day for a million years. What are the odds that the pieces would fall out in just the right order to form a fully functioning mousetrap at any time during that period? If that simple mousetrap requires a designer to actually make the pieces and then someone to put the pieces together in just the right order so that it will actually catch mice....how is it that you believe that living things required no such direction to form the many components in their structure so that they function as they do? How far can you stretch the series of fortunate mutations when mutations are rarely beneficial? Detrimental mutations will naturally produce an inferior creature who will not survive. Mutations in the majority of cases, work against evolution.

"Selection" is a word used casually in evolution. When we use the word "selection" what do we mean? If we "select" something, we do so with a purpose, having weighed the options, we make our selection intelligently. Yet the evolutionary process does not require intelligence to direct it. It only requires intelligence to believe it.
Go figure......

 

[JayJayDee]

AIP facts of evolution.

We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
2. Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
3. Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
4. Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

Nothing you say, can refute a single word, nor any source you choose will change one of these FACTS.

I responded to this the first time you posted it. I believe it is actually against the site rules to keep posting the same thing over and over. Isn't this the fourth or fifth time you have posted this same cut and paste?

Seriously......is this the best you can do?