Design inference Intelligent Design

New vid from the John 10:10 Project: God is in the details

Spread the love

There’s an old proverb that says, “God is in the details.” The truth of those words has never been more obvious. Every day, 21st century technology opens extraordinary windows on biological systems once too small to see with our unaided eyes. In this fascinating video, superb microscopic photography reveals some of the hidden wonders that enable butterflies to thrive on earth, while filling our eyes with unforgettable evidence of intelligent design in the living world.

Hat tip: Philip Cunningham

19 Replies to “New vid from the John 10:10 Project: God is in the details

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    Well this video certainly explains why Francis Crick once remarked that, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”

    “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”
    Francis Crick – co-discoverer of DNA, – “What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery” – pg. 138

    And also explains why Richard Dawkins once said, “Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.”

    “Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.”
    – Richard Dawkins – “The Blind Watchmaker” – 1986 – page 21

    Small problem for Dawkins and Crick, natural selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to be grossly inadequate as a supposed ‘designer substitute’

    The waiting time problem in a model hominin population – 2015 Sep 17
    John Sanford, Wesley Brewer, Franzine Smith, and John Baumgardner
    Excerpt: The program Mendel’s Accountant realistically simulates the mutation/selection process,,,
    Given optimal settings, what is the longest nucleotide string that can arise within a reasonable waiting time within a hominin population of 10,000? Arguably, the waiting time for the fixation of a “string-of-one” is by itself problematic (Table 2). Waiting a minimum of 1.5 million years (realistically, much longer), for a single point mutation is not timely adaptation in the face of any type of pressing evolutionary challenge. This is especially problematic when we consider that it is estimated that it only took six million years for the chimp and human genomes to diverge by over 5 % [1]. This represents at least 75 million nucleotide changes in the human lineage, many of which must encode new information.
    While fixing one point mutation is problematic, our simulations show that the fixation of two co-dependent mutations is extremely problematic – requiring at least 84 million years (Table 2). This is ten-fold longer than the estimated time required for ape-to-man evolution. In this light, we suggest that a string of two specific mutations is a reasonable upper limit, in terms of the longest string length that is likely to evolve within a hominin population (at least in a way that is either timely or meaningful). Certainly the creation and fixation of a string of three (requiring at least 380 million years) would be extremely untimely (and trivial in effect), in terms of the evolution of modern man.
    It is widely thought that a larger population size can eliminate the waiting time problem. If that were true, then the waiting time problem would only be meaningful within small populations. While our simulations show that larger populations do help reduce waiting time, we see that the benefit of larger population size produces rapidly diminishing returns (Table 4 and Fig. 4). When we increase the hominin population from 10,000 to 1 million (our current upper limit for these types of experiments), the waiting time for creating a string of five is only reduced from two billion to 482 million years.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....MC4573302/

    And without natural selection to act as a ‘designer substitute’ to produce the ‘illusion of design’ “then the flip side of that is, well, things appear designed because they are designed.”

    “Darwinism provided an explanation for the appearance of design, and argued that there is no Designer — or, if you will, the designer is natural selection. If that’s out of the way — if that (natural selection) just does not explain the evidence — then the flip side of that is, well, things appear designed because they are designed.”
    Richard Sternberg – Living Waters documentary
    Whale Evolution vs. Population Genetics – Richard Sternberg and Paul Nelson – (excerpt from Living Waters video)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0csd3M4bc0Q

    Butterflies, especially with ‘downstream’ metamorphosis, (where the entire body plan of the caterpillar is reworked into a butterfly), highlight just how grossly inadequate natural selection actually is as the supposed ‘designer substitute’ as Darwinists have falsely imagined it to be.

    As Henry Gee explained, “Natural selection exists only in the continuous present of the natural world: it has no memory of its previous actions, no plans for the future, or underlying purpose.”

    “Natural selection is a blind and undirected consequence of the interaction between variation and the environment. Natural selection exists only in the continuous present of the natural world: it has no memory of its previous actions, no plans for the future, or underlying purpose.”
    ? Henry Gee – senior editor of nature, In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life

    Yet metamorphosis, by its very nature, requires a tremendous amount of foresight and planning in order to change a caterpillar into a butterfly,

    From Discovering Intelligent Design: My How You’ve Changed – May 26, 2013
    Excerpt: Holometabolism (complete metamorphosis) is the most common and complicated form of insect maturation. The diverse group that undergoes this type of process includes butterflies, moths, beetles, fleas, bees, ants, and many kinds of flies.,,,
    It is exceedingly difficult to understand the origin of holometabolism in Darwinian evolutionary terms. Neither the larval nor the pupal stage is capable of reproduction — only the adult is. In particular, the pupal stage is an all-or nothing proposition. It must complete the process and become an adult, or it will die without ever reproducing.
    The liquefied organism must be completely rebuilt. For this to occur, large amounts of information — encoding the larval body plan, the mechanisms of transformation during metamorphosis, and the adult body plan — must exist before the larva enters this stage. An organism could not survive complete metamorphosis unless the entire process was fully programmed from the beginning. Such a large jump in complexity requires forethought and planning — things that don’t exist in Darwinian evolution. As one evolutionary entomologist acknowledges:
    “… the biggest head-scratcher in evolutionary biology would have to be the origin of the holometabolous insect larva.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....72521.html

    In the following video, Paul Nelson, in an easy to understand manner, explains exactly why Metamorphosis presents such an enormous challenge to natural selection and/or to Darwinian explanations.

    The Miracle of Development Part 1 – Origins with Dr. Paul A. Nelson – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....T90#t=741s

    As well, a good film on the subject is “Metamorphosis’ by Illustra media (of note: Illustra media also has several other excellent films on Intelligent Design)

    Metamorphosis: The Design and Beauty of Butterflies
    http://www.metamorphosisthefilm.com

    Of ‘spiritual’ note:

    Although butterflies in the Bible aren’t mentioned explicitly, their lifecycle is a remarkable illustration from nature of the transforming work of Jesus Christ in the lives of believers. The Bible says that anyone who belongs to Christ has become a new creation. The old life is gone, and the new life has begun (2 Corinthians 5:17). The same God who takes a caterpillar and changes it into a butterfly, transforms sinners into saints.
    https://www.learnreligions.com/butterflies-in-the-bible-meaning-and-symbolism-4846560

  2. 2
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Tremendous video.
    I never get enough of these just for sheer wonder.
    Plus, not a word is said about Darwin and none is necessary. Visuals speak louder than words – no arguments needed.

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    Sorry, a couple of links are dead in my preceding post at 1. Here are the correct, live, links,

    From Discovering Intelligent Design: My How You’ve Changed – May 26, 2013
    https://evolutionnews.org/2013/05/from_discoverin_3/

    The Miracle of Development (Part 1) – Origins with Dr. Paul A. Nelson – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFswW0McSV4

    The Miracle of Development (Part 2) – Origins with Dr. Paul A. Nelson – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBx3sLdFZSI

  4. 4
    jerry says:

    If anyone is interested, the Great Courses is having a sale for the next 4 hours on their course on Astrophysics

    https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/introduction-to-astrophysics?ICMP=197720&pfm=largepanel

    1 Zooming Out to Distant Galaxies

    2 Zooming In to Fundamental Particles

    3 Making Maps of the Cosmos

    4 The Physics Demonstration in the Sky

    5 Newton’s Hardest Problem

    6 Tidal Forces

    7 Black Holes

    8 Photons and Particles

    9 Comparative Planetology

    10 Optical Telescopes

    11 Radio and X-Ray Telescopes

    12,The Message in a Spectrum

    13 The Properties of Stars

    14 Planets around Other Stars

    15 Why Stars Shine

    16 Simple Stellar Models

    17 White Dwarfs

    18,When Stars Grow Old

    19,Supernovas and Neutron Stars

    20 Gravitational Waves

    21,The Milky Way and Other Galaxies

    22 Dark Matter

    23The First Atoms and the First Nuclei

    24 The History of the Universe

  5. 5
    Hanks says:

    We are all worms that will become either butterflies or moths.

  6. 6
    Querius says:

    Brilliant video!

    Loved it.

    -Q

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    Brian Miller highlighted an interesting quote on the infamous ‘selection pressure’ that Darwinists often invoke in their ‘just-so’ stories.

    Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection Has Left a Legacy of Confusion over Biological Adaptation
    Brian Miller – September 20, 2021
    Excerpt: Evolutionary biologist Robert Reid stated:
    “Indeed the language of neo-Darwinism is so careless that the words ‘divine plan’ can be substituted for ‘selection pressure’ in any popular work in the biological literature without the slightest disruption in the logical flow of argument.”
    Robert Reid, Biological Emergences: Evolution by Natural Experiment, PP. 37-38
    To fully comprehend the critique, one simply needs to imagine attempting to craft an evolutionary barometer that measures the selection pressure driving one organism to transform into something different (e.g., fish into an amphibian). The fact that no such instrument could be constructed highlights the fictitious nature of such mystical forces.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2021/09/darwins-theory-of-natural-selection-has-left-a-legacy-of-confusion-over-biological-adaptation/

  8. 8
    Belfast says:

    Thanks Jerry. If you hadn’t posted I was unlikely to find it. The site asked how I found and from all the choices I had to choose other.

  9. 9
    martin_r says:

    Beautiful video. Beautiful species…

    After 150 years of Darwinism, there is a ZERO evidence of how wings and powered flight evolved … and i mean any wings and any kind of powered flight .. (don’t forget, Darwinists claim, that powered flight evolved repeatedly and independently at least 4 times – insects, dinos, birds, mammals)

    Actually, there is a ZERO evidence of how insects (e.g. this butterfly) evolved …. suddenly, it was here …

    PS:
    In 21st century, we fly to Mars, but to build a fully autonomous, self-navigating, self-powered flying system in a size of this butterfly, this is still an engineering SCI-FI … (not to mention the self-replication) … but there is a group of scientists, biologists, natural science graduates, who never made anything, who believe that this butterfly was designed by some blind, unguided, natural process, by a trial-error process … the funny things is, these biologists never show you the errors….

  10. 10
    Silver Asiatic says:

    The simple fact that for metamorphosis to take place, the caterpillar releases enzymes that liquefy it. The body dissolves. From that goo, the butterfly is rearranged and emerges.
    Let’s look at the gradual transition from one liquefied goo to the next. Fossils? There’s no body – it’s liquid.

  11. 11
    jerry says:

    Thanks

    The course is graduate level physics. I understand generally what’s being said but not the specifics. One thing is clear, they don’t understand a lot and metaphors are used as facts.

    For example, the term “wave” is used to describe much of the microscopic world and its use may be very different from our understanding of the macro world and waves.

  12. 12
    Querius says:

    Silver Asiatic @10,

    The simple fact that for metamorphosis to take place, the caterpillar releases enzymes that liquefy it. The body dissolves. From that goo, the butterfly is rearranged and emerges.
    Let’s look at the gradual transition from one liquefied goo to the next. Fossils? There’s no body – it’s liquid.

    Heh. That’s just the Designer teasing us.

    So, how does turning an insect’s body into a goo capsule and then forming a whole new body “evolve” in tiny steps? Maybe this is a form of “recapitulation” of a warm pond. Insects are able to do this under current environmental conditions, so how about making an insect smoothie and having something completely different emerge? Any takers among the High Priests of Darwinism?

    Take a look at the many euphemisms for “clueless” here:
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/insect-metamorphosis-evolution/

    -Q

  13. 13
    Querius says:

    Jerry @ 11,

    For example, the term “wave” is used to describe much of the microscopic world and its use may be very different from our understanding of the macro world and waves.

    Yes, that’s right. In quantum mechanics, the waves (as in the wave function) are waves of probability.

    -Q

  14. 14
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Querius

    So, how does turning an insect’s body into a goo capsule and then forming a whole new body “evolve” in tiny steps?

    There would need to be unsuccessful steps. Eventually, all the caterpillars turned into liquid and they all died off. But then one day, some of the liquid rearranged itself into a butterfly. That way, evolution found the most successful strategy. From dead organic liquid goo, eventually living organisms “arose”. Kind of like Lawrence Krauss’ universe from nothing. Or spontaneous generation, or our basic abiogenesis theories. Things happen.

    From the paper:

    The evolution of metamorphosis remains somewhat mysterious

    Good word there: “somewhat”.

    But then later:

    the evolution of insect metamorphosis remains a genuine biological mystery even today

    They dropped “somewhat” and used “genuine”.

    Metamorphosis is a truly bizarre process, but an explanation of its evolution does not require such unsubstantiated theories

    Key word here is “such”. They were referring to someone’s crackpot idea. But then they make it sound like they have something other than “unsubstantiated theories” which they do not.

    biologists have established a plausible narrative about the origin of insect metamorphosis, which they continue to revise as new information surfaces

    This tells us what the task of the evolutionist is. It’s not to actually demonstrate a testable process, but rather “to establish a narrative”.

    And what is “a narrative”?

    The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
    First definition:
    Narrative: 1. A narrated account; a story.

    There we have it from their own account. The task of the evolutionist is to make up a story. And then their friends in the science press will say “it’s plausible” so they can tell the story to the public.
    If the story is entirely wrong, that’s ok also – since the evolutionary-storytelling process allows them to “continue to revise” as they go along and who can be upset about that?

  15. 15
    Querius says:

    Good point, Silver Asiatic, about the priority of maintaining the Darwin narrative above everything else. And when the Darwinian explanations are obviously and painfully ridiculous, the Darwinian faithful retreat into the Darwinicum Mysterium, which will be solved any moment now . . .

    -Q

  16. 16
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Querius

    And when the Darwinian explanations are obviously and painfully ridiculous …

    It’s interesting that IDists see so many Darwinian explanations as being exactly as you describe — painfully ridiculous — but then our opponents cannot see that at all.
    Maybe it’s like one of those magic eye images with a bunch of squiggles and you have to stare at it for a long time, and then a 3-D image appears.
    But some people can simply never see it. No matter how long they stare it’s just squiggles. The ones that can see the 3D shape think it’s obvious.
    No matter what we say to the Darwinists, they can’t see the laughable absurdity of their claims. Everything looks plausible and reasonable to them.
    So, it’s either a magic eye sort of thing or they’re just not telling the truth. They can see that their claims are painfully and obviously ridiculous but they won’t admit it.
    Then as you said, even knowing nothing at all just means it’s “somewhat of a mystery”.

  17. 17
    martin_r says:

    SA,

    i had a look at the original paper too, and i noticed the very same sentence:

    biologists have established a plausible narrative about the origin of insect metamorphosis

    as you said, this is Darwinism… plausible narratives AKA just-so-stories …. okay, plausible just-so-stories … plausible faith-based just-so-stories ….

  18. 18
    Silver Asiatic says:

    martin_r

    … plausible faith-based just-so-stories ….

    Yes, a faith-based approach is necessary. In fact, the stories are not subject to real criticism even though they’re imaginary. Even the idea of what is “plausible” is vague. How could that be scientific?
    Again,

    The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
    Plausible:
    Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible.

    The first term there conditions all the rest “seemingly”.
    So, “it seems acceptable”. But on what basis?
    “it’s credible” – worthy of faith.
    Credible: Capable of being believed; believable or plausible: synonym: plausible

    So there we go full circle. It’s plausible because it’s believable, because we put our faith in it.
    The Darwinist told a story and all the rest of the Darwinists believe it because it’s a matter of faith for them.

  19. 19
    Querius says:

    The word “plausible narrative” means that while there’s not a shred of evidence for it, the “plausible narrative” doesn’t actually involve the Multiverse or the tooth fairy.

    -Q

Leave a Reply