Convergent Evolution Found in Poison Frogs

LiveScience ^ | 8/9/05 | Bjorn Carey

[GreenFreeper]

maybe not quite an eco-ping but interesting nonetheless. Some cool buggers!

[trebb]

There's no arguing with someone who won't be argued with. I'll pray that you get to know Christ so you can spend Eternity with Him.

God Bless

[bvw]

Excuse me, please.

The headline should read "Convergent Design Found in Poison Frogs"

[skinkinthegrass]

You know, these Darwin/Creation threads get heated enough without someone like you going out of his way to be a..

Whoa!...and its still early.

And yes, why would an intelligent designer go through such contorted physiological mechanisms like this - why not just give the stupid frog a real weapon? Claws, talons, a 38 revolver?

Funny line.

No one is avoiding them, some just don't listen to the answers.

Point taken. :/

[skinkinthegrass]

By claiming that proof of God is to be found in what we do not know as opposed to what we do know, creationists are (apparently unwittingly) complicit in the diminishment of the Christian faith they claim to be championing.

I really hate, hi-jacking of threads. (this was a Herpetology/Frog thread :) But, Now its getting interesting...

[skinkinthegrass]

Religious folks always talk about God's plan, but never seem to believe that His plan could be larger than their own little lifetime. For a being as grand as God, designing a universe that plays out exactly as He envisions, right down to the location and momentum of each and every subatomic particle over billions of years, should be child's play....Excellent points...

[editor-surveyor]

Now, Valerie Clark of Cornell University and her colleagues have detailed two instances of convergent evolution--the process in which organisms not closely related independently acquire similar characteristics while evolving in separate ecosystems--between frogs and ants on two continents.

First, species of ants high in alkaloids had to evolve on two separate continents.

"The ants had to be there with alkaloids for the frogs to evolve to get alkaloids in their skin," Clark told LiveScience."

Yep, nifty looking frogs, But it sure is hard to treat someone that presents such statistically strong evidence against evolution as (new oxy-moron) "divergent evolution."

How long did it take to come up with that rationalization, and then call it 'science?' Figgers that it was Cornell!

[Tax-chick]

Chortle. The frogs are cool, though.

[editor-surveyor]

I love a story that goes "first this had to happen, then this had to happen, then a final thing had to happen..., etc".

No evidence that it actually happened, of course.

Not just 'no evidence,' but strong logical and statistical evidence that it didn't happen that way. This is good anecdotal support for the book "Tornado in a Junkyard."

"Just a presupposition that because the frogs are there, and evolution is the only allowable explanation for it, then it must have happend by covergent evolution."

Exactly! Stephen Gould, in his book "Wonderful Life" essentially demolished the idea of evolution, but went on to support it anyway because he admitted that the alternative was "unthinkable."

"Sorry, not convincing."

Not science, either!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[editor-surveyor]

" Is it not worth considering a possible migration of both the ants and the frogs via French shipping?"

This question gave me quite a chuckle. I don't know for sure if you were being coy, but the most important premise for evolunacy to work is that the ants had to be here for a kazillion billion years to allow enough time for this statistically impossible "tornado in a Junkyard" chain of events to occur.

This article illustrates perfectly why evolunacy is impossible.

[editor-surveyor]

"The Murchison asteroid containing amino acids is a trick of the anti-christ"

An asteroid containing amino acids is no better, or more logical than a flying saucer full of immensely intelligent aliens; It's tantamount to an admission of defeat, coupled with a plea to take the case to another indeterminable location so the lack of evidence here on earth cannot be used as an argument to defeat evolunacy.

[editor-surveyor]

"why not just give the stupid frog a real weapon? Claws, talons, a 38 revolver?"

Yea, but claws wouldn't be much use in catching flies, so why didn't he arrange for them to catch wildebeasts (much better tasting, I'm sure) and even better, give them soft silky fur! (and a Winchester magnum...)

[Elsie]

(And here's an odd fact for smokers: one Madagascan frog studied was found to have nicotine in its system!)

I'll bet that tobacco worms do too!

[Elsie]

... they are not sure how the chemical enters the frog's system.

Psst....

Look REALLY close for tiny patches!!

[Elsie]

...second hand legs???


(or maybe feet?)

[Elsie]

Bat Boy comes to mind.....

[Elsie]

By claiming that proof of God is to be found in what we do not know as opposed to what we do know, creationists are (apparently unwittingly) complicit in the diminishment of the Christian faith they claim to be championing.

Oh???

Says whom?

Surely not Crevo's who STAND on these verses:

Romans Chapter 1
18. The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
19. since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
20. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

[Elsie]

 

why does creation of man in God's image preclude evolution?

 

 

Unfortunately, most Christians 'believe' Evolution because they do NOT know what their Bible says.  If, as they say, they 'believe' the words of Jesus and then of the New Testement writers, they have to decide what the following verses mean:

 

Romans 5:12-21
 12.  Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--
 13.  for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
 14.  Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
 15.  But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
 16.  Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
 17.  For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
 18.  Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
 19.  For just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
 20.  The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,
 21.  so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

 

 

If there were  no one man, that means SIN did NOT enter the World thru him.

 

If Adam was NOT the one man, that means SPIRITUAL DEATH did not come thru him.

 

If SIN did NOT enter the World thru the one man, that means Jesus does not save from SIN.

 

 

Are we to believe that the one man is symbolic?  Does that mean Jesus is symbolic as well?

 

 

The Theory of Evolution states that there WAS no one man, but a wide population that managed to inherit that last mutated gene that makes MEN different from APES.

 

 

 

 

1 Timothy 2:13

  For Adam was formed first, then Eve.   Was Paul WRONG about this???

 

 

[Elsie]

What, for example, are the odds of a T-rex for example appearing whole out of nothingness?

Oh...

...aboutt the same as one coming from an unknown amount of tiny changes to a bit of amino acids over an unknown amount time.