Researchers have reconstructed the song of a Jurassic cricket …

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 7, 2012

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

A remarkably complete fossil of the prehistoric insect enabled the team to see the structures in its wings that rubbed together to make the sound.

It should be perfect for getting us all off to sleep …

Comments

Gil: "Jim never leaves home" Champignon: "This is demonstrably false, for everyday he steps onto his front porch to get his newspaper, before stepping back into his house". That just about sums the argument above up. As if that were the true argument between ID/undirected evolution. ID allows for small changes in evolution as long as the change in information does not exceed a reasonable probability. But of course you know that.SCheesman_{February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PST}

Hey mushroom head- I answered Nick's question pertaining to gene duplication. However it is obvious that you, like him, are an intellectual coward. So go soak your head...Joe_{February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
04:19 AM
4
04
19
AM
PST}

Gil, You could also turn over a new leaf by retracting your false accusation against Aiden, but I'm not holding my breath.champignon_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
11:46 PM
11
11
46
PM
PST}

Gil, If you'd like to turn over a new leaf and actually present an argument, how about justifying this statement:
In fact, evidence and logic demand that random errors produce nothing but degradation...
To save time, let me begin by quoting a counterargument that I put forward in another thread:
gpuccio, Believe it or not, there are a lot of people under the ‘Big Tent’ who argue that unguided mutations (include gene duplication followed by variation of a copy) never create information, only destroying it. This apparently includes Upright Biped and nullasalus. Otherwise I can’t imagine why they so adamantly refuse to answer Nick’s simple question, or why, in null’s case, he so desperately tries to spin duplication followed by variation as “degradation”. As I’m sure you realize, the idea that mutations invariably cause a decrease in information content is easily disproven by a reductio ad absurdum: 1. Assume that these folks are correct, and that mutations invariably cause a loss of information in the genome. 2. Consider a genome X. 3. X experiences a point mutation, becoming X’. According to the “mutations cause information loss” folks, the information content of the genome has decreased. 4. After a while, X’ experiences another point mutation that reverses the first mutation. X’ changes back to X. The second mutation further decreases the information content of the genome. 5. X changed to X’, then back to X. But it experienced two consecutive losses of information. Therefore the information content of X is less than the information content of X. 6. The conclusion that X has less information than itself is absurd. Therefore the assumption that mutations invariably decrease information is wrong.
champignon_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
11:37 PM
11
11
37
PM
PST}

Monsieur Champignon, Unsubstantiated Darwinian speculation about "how this probably evolved from that" is so ubiquitous I'm amazed that you have never observed it. The claim that "evolution is a fact, just like gravity" is equally universal. Never is it explained that "evolution is a fact" means that random errors filtered by natural selection can explain all of biology. In fact, evidence and logic demand that random errors produce nothing but degradation, with exponential acceleration in sophisticated information-processing systems. It is completely absurd on purely logical grounds that error-detection-and-repair algorithms and mechanisms, found universally in living systems, could be manufactured by a process that is inherently destructive of information and machinery. Attempts to attribute such incredibly sophisticated technology to the Darwinian mechanism of random errors filtered by natural selection strike me as an exercise not only in futility, but in a fundamental denial of reality. As far as the metastasis is concerned, check out evolutionary medicine, evolutionary psychology, evolutionary feminism, evolutionary literary theory, evolutionary dentistry (really, I'm not making this up!), and other such transparent nonsense. Avec mes meilleures amitiés, cher Mushroom.GilDodgen_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PST}

Hey, just like the "theory of evolution"-> all assertion, no evidence! As for the "arguments", grade-school kids provide better "arguments" as to why their homework wasn't completed on time.Joe_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PST}

Gil, Four assertions, no evidence:
Something that fascinates me is that thoroughly unsubstantiated Darwinian speculation is presented as science — with claims of the rigor of the inverse-square law of gravitation — when it is nothing of the sort.

In fact, Darwinian speculation is essentially the equivalent of astrology — everything that could possibly be construed to support the theory (with a major dose of imagination) is taken as evidence, while all antithetical evidence is ignored.

Darwinism is not science, which should be the pursuit of truth about the way things really are.

Unfortunately, Darwinian “thinking” has metastasized to the point where it is corrupting not just biology, but many other disciplines.
What fascinates me is how often your posts and comments consist of nothing but assertions. No argument, no evidence, just bald assertions.champignon_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
10:29 PM
10
10
29
PM
PST}

People thought singing in crickets probably evolved... People thought? Who are these people? Something that fascinates me is that thoroughly unsubstantiated Darwinian speculation is presented as science -- with claims of the rigor of the inverse-square law of gravitation -- when it is nothing of the sort. In fact, Darwinian speculation is essentially the equivalent of astrology -- everything that could possibly be construed to support the theory (with a major dose of imagination) is taken as evidence, while all antithetical evidence is ignored. Darwinism is not science, which should be the pursuit of truth about the way things really are. Unfortunately, Darwinian "thinking" has metastasized to the point where it is corrupting not just biology, but many other disciplines.GilDodgen_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
09:33 PM
9
09
33
PM
PST}

"People thought singing in crickets probably evolved later from a startle reflex," he told BBC Nature. "But this suggests that [very early on] they were already... producing these lovely, pure tones to compete for a mate.
Once again, no evolution; the earliest example is fully realized.SCheesman_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PST}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply