Turns out, human parents can learn a lot from animals. Huh?

_{Denyse O'Leary

August 15, 2014

Animal minds, Intelligent Design, News}

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

Of course not. But that’s the nonsense theatre that current tax-funded science encourages.

Get a look at this:

Strong evidence now shows that human and animal parenting share many nervous system mechanisms. This is the conclusion of Yerkes National Primate Research Center researchers Larry Young, PhD, and James Rilling, PhD, in their review article about the biology of mammalian parenting, published in this week’s issue of Science. Better understanding this biology could lead to improved social development, benefitting generations of humans and animals to come.

Anyone who has watched how animals really treat their offspring (for example, eating them, which I have witnessed) can’t help pausing to wonder how anyone could make such a claim.

What’s missing here is that intelligence matters. Human intelligence is the reason that humans establish sanctuaries for endangered animals, not the reverse.

It is significant that no one even asks these questions any more.

In a couple of weeks, I will be starting a series of Science Fictions on fictions about human intelligence and the mind.

Meanwhile,

The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (cosmology).

The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (origin of life)

The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (human evolution)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Yes awstar! Excellent point. Casey Luskin did a summary of that paper here:
How the Burgeoning Field of Systems Biology Supports Intelligent Design - July 2014 Excerpt: Snoke lists various features in biology that have been found to function like goal-directed, top-down engineered systems: *"Negative feedback for stable operation." *"Frequency filtering" for extracting a signal from a noisy system. *Control and signaling to induce a response. *"Information storage" where information is stored for later use. In fact, Snoke observes: "This paradigm [of systems biology] is advancing the view that biology is essentially an information science with information operating on multiple hierarchical levels and in complex networks [13]. " *"Timing and synchronization," where organisms maintain clocks to ensure that different processes and events happen in the right order. *"Addressing," where signaling molecules are tagged with an address to help them arrive at their intended target. *"Hierarchies of function," where organisms maintain clocks to ensure that cellular processes and events happen at the right times and in the right order. *"Redundancy," as organisms contain backup systems or "fail-safes" if primary essential systems fail. *"Adaptation," where organisms are pre-engineered to be able to undergo small-scale adaptations to their environments. As Snoke explains, "These systems use randomization controlled by supersystems, just as the immune system uses randomization in a very controlled way," and "Only part of the system is allowed to vary randomly, while the rest is highly conserved.",,, Snoke observes that systems biology assumes that biological features are optimized, meaning, in part, that "just about everything in the cell does indeed have a role, i.e., that there is very little 'junk.'" He explains, "Some systems biologists go further than just assuming that every little thing has a purpose. Some argue that each item is fulfilling its purpose as well as is physically possible," and quotes additional authorities who assume that biological systems are optimized.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/when_biologists087871.html
As well, Luskin had a very informative interview with Dr. Snoke:
podcast: "David Snoke: Systems Biology and Intelligent Design, pt. 1" http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-08-11T17_19_09-07_00 podcast: David Snoke: Systems Biology and Intelligent Design, pt. 2 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-08-13T16_30_01-07_00
Dr. Snoke also states that this 'top-down' approach, unlike Darwinism, which is infamous for having failed predictions and for making ad hoc 'post-dictions', this 'top-down' makes successful predictions. And making successful predictions in science is the benchmark for having a robust scientific theory.
"It has become clear in the past ten years that the concept of design is not merely an add-on meta-description of biological systems, of no scientific consequence, but is in fact a driver of science. A whole cohort of young scientists is being trained to “think like engineers” when looking at biological systems, using terms explicitly related to engineering design concepts: design, purpose, optimal tradeoffs for multiple goals, information, control, decision making, etc. This approach is widely seen as a successful, predictive, quantitative theory of biology." David Snoke*, Systems Biology as a Research Program for Intelligent Design
And, as mentioned previously, Darwinism is infamous for having failed predictions and for making ad hoc 'post-dictions'. Here are a few notes in that regards:
"Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought." ~ Cornelius Hunter Darwin's Predictions With Cornelius Hunter - podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/eg/2009-11-04T16_03_23-08_00 What Are the Top Ten Problems with Darwinian Evolution? - Casey Luskin - July 12, 2012 1. Lack of a viable mechanism for producing high (or any) levels of complex and specified information. 2. The failure of the fossil record to provide support for Darwinian evolution. 3. The failure of molecular biology to provide evidence for a grand "tree of life." 4. Natural selection is an extremely inefficient method of spreading traits in populations unless a trait has an extremely high selection coefficient 5. The problem that convergent evolution appears rampant -- at both the genetic and morphological levels, even though under Darwinian theory this is highly unlikely. 6. The failure of chemistry to explain the origin of the genetic code. 7. The failure of developmental biology to explain why vertebrate embryos diverge from the beginning of development. 8. The failure of neo-Darwinian evolution to explain the biogeographical distribution of many species. 9. A long history of inaccurate predictions inspired by neo-Darwinism (such as) vestigial organs or so-called "junk" DNA. 10. Humans show many behavioral and cognitive traits and abilities that offer no apparent survival advantage (e.g. music, art, religion, ability to ponder the nature of the universe). http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/what_are_the_to_1062011.html
Add on to that the disastrous social consequences of Darwinism, and then one begins to see the depth to which not only has Darwinian thinking impeded biological science, as bad as that is, but has also had horrendous, even lethal, moral consequences for society at large. Here are a few notes in that regard:
The Moral Impact Of Darwinism On Society - Dr. Phil Fernandes - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcQfwICe2Og The Cultural Impact of Darwinian Evolution - John West, PhD - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFh4whzh_NU From Darwin To Hitler - Richard Weikart - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_5EwYpLD6A How Darwin's Theory Changed the World Rejection of Judeo-Christian values Excerpt: Weikart explains how accepting Darwinist dogma shifted society’s thinking on human life: “Before Darwinism burst onto the scene in the mid-nineteenth century, the idea of the sanctity of human life was dominant in European thought and law (though, as with all ethical principles, not always followed in practice). Judeo-Christian ethics proscribed the killing of innocent human life, and the Christian churches explicitly forbade murder, infanticide, abortion, and even suicide. “The sanctity of human life became enshrined in classical liberal human rights ideology as ‘the right to life,’ which according to John Locke and the United States Declaration of Independence, was one of the supreme rights of every individual” (p. 75). Only in the late nineteenth and especially the early twentieth century did significant debate erupt over issues relating to the sanctity of human life, especially infanticide, euthanasia, abortion, and suicide. It was no mere coincidence that these contentious issues emerged at the same time that Darwinism was gaining in influence. Darwinism played an important role in this debate, for it altered many people’s conceptions of the importance and value of human life, as well as the significance of death” (ibid.). http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn85/darwin-theory-changed-world.htm
bornagain77_{August 16, 2014
August
08
Aug
16
16
2014
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT}

missing linking #2: http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/viewArticle/BIO-C.2014.3awstar_{August 16, 2014
August
08
Aug
16
16
2014
04:27 AM
4
04
27
AM
PDT}

BA77 says:
One place man can learn from the design found in nature is in engineering:
Engineering isn't the only field that man learns from the design in nature. The biology field is another place man can learn from design found in nature -- as long as they don't mention ID or Creation. see bio-complexity.org paperawstar_{August 16, 2014
August
08
Aug
16
16
2014
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT}

One place man can learn from the design found in nature is in engineering: Structure of certain types of beetle shells could inspire brighter, whiter coatings and materials - August, 2014 Excerpt: To appear as white, however, a tissue needs to reflect all wavelengths of light with the same efficiency. The ultra-white Cyphochilus and L. Stigma beetles produce this colouration by exploiting the geometry of a dense complex network of chitin –,, ,,,the beetles have,, a compressed network of chitin filaments. This network is directionally-dependent, or anisotropic, which allows high intensities of reflected light for all colours at the same time, resulting in a very intense white with very little material. "Current technology is not able to produce a coating as white as these beetles can in such a thin layer,",,, Exactly how this could be possible remained unclear up to now. The researchers studied how light propagates in the white scales, quantitatively measuring their scattering strength for the first time and demonstrating that they scatter light more efficiently than any other low-refractive-index material yet known. "These scales have a structure that is truly complex since it gives rise to something that is more than the sum of its parts," said co-author Dr Matteo Burresi of the Italian National Institute of Optics in Florence. "Our simulations show that a randomly packed collection of its constituent elements by itself is not sufficient to achieve the degree of brightness that we observe." http://phys.org/news/2014-08-beetle-shells-brighter-whiter-coatings.htmlbornagain77_{August 16, 2014
August
08
Aug
16
16
2014
03:17 AM
3
03
17
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply