Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Envying the Tooth of the Sea Urchin (they used the word "design"--off with their heads!)
CEH ^ | March 31, 2009

Posted on 04/02/2009 4:46:24 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts

Envying the Tooth of the Sea Urchin

March 31, 2009 — Did you know the lowly sea urchin has a tooth?  It’s not just any tooth: it’s “a remarkable grinding tool,” according to a team of international scientists.  They even used the word “exquisite

in the title of their paper in PNAS.1  Humans might benefit from knowing more about this tool.  “The improved understanding of these structural features,” they said, “could lead to the design of better mechanical grinding and cutting tools.

    The sea urchin “tooth” is not really a tooth, but a hard rod with a serrated edge used for crushing the animal’s food (see description at Univ. of Wisconsin about the work of Pupa Gilbert, one of the co-authors).  The urchin tooth, which grinds down hard limestone, has the hardness of teeth in higher animals.  “Even though the tooth is composed almost entirely of calcite, it is used to grind holes into a rocky substrate itself often composed of calcite,” the abstract from the paper reads.  It continues—

Here, we use 3 complementary high-resolution tools to probe aspects of the structure of the grinding tip: X-ray photoelectron emission spectromicroscopy (X-PEEM), X-ray microdiffraction, and NanoSIMS.  We confirm that the needles and plates are aligned and show here that even the high Mg [magnesium] polycrystalline matrix constituents are aligned with the other 2 structural elements when imaged at 20-nm resolution.  Furthermore, we show that the entire tooth is composed of 2 cooriented polycrystalline blocks that differ in their orientations by only a few degrees

A unique feature of the grinding tip is that the structural elements from each coaligned block interdigitate.  This interdigitation may influence the fracture process by creating a corrugated grinding surface.  We also show that the overall Mg content of the tooth structural elements increases toward the grinding tip.  This probably contributes to the increasing hardness of the tooth from the periphery to the tip.  Clearly the formation of the tooth, and the tooth tip in particular, is amazingly well controlled.

The slight misalignment and interdigitation appears to provide a functional advantage, they found.  It provides a corrugated edge that fractures along its cleavage planes so as not to fracture the tooth but actually sharpen it as it cuts.  “We also note that in this model, the edges of the individual plates would remain anatomically sharp due to cleavage along the {104} planes, and the cleavage would probably not propagate through the whole tooth tip because of the small misalignment between neighboring plates.”  In other words, even the apparent misalignment has a function.  They said, in conclusion,
The mature sea urchin tooth possesses incredible structural and compositional complexity.  Here, we show the presence of crystalline blocks composed of 3 different coaligned elements: needles, plates, and polycrystalline matrix.  We also show that the tip, and presumably the whole tooth, is composed essentially of 2 such coaligned blocks that differ in their orientations by [less than] 6°. 

The blocks are also interdigitated in the tip.  Furthermore, the Mg concentrations increase toward the center of the tooth tip.  We propose that all of these features contribute to the grinding capability of the tooth.  A deep understanding of the structural

design features of the tooth tip sheds light on the manner in which one crystalline phase, calcite, can be tailored to fulfill grinding and self-sharpening functions that enable the tooth to be used to grind holes into a substrate that is also composed only of calcite.  Much can be learned from the sea urchin tooth that can be applied to the development of improved grinding and cutting tools.


1.  Ma, Aichmeyer, Paris, Fratzl, Meibom, Metzler, Politi, Addadi, Gilbert and Weiner, “The grinding tip of the sea urchin tooth exhibits exquisite control over calcite crystal orientation and Mg distribution,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

USA, published online before print March 30, 2009, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0810300106.

All together, everyone: how much was said about evolution in this paper?  ZILCH!  Instead, they used the D word design: they wanted to gain a “deep understanding of the structural design features” of this “exquisite” grinding tool to learn how we might tailor our own bottom-up nanofabrication of crystals to fulfill functions useful to us.  This paper had intelligent design all over it – in the research, in the understanding, and in the application.

Show this to your biology teacher and tell him or her that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of design.”



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: creation; evolution; goodgodimnutz; intelligentdesign; seaurchin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

1 posted on 04/02/2009 4:46:25 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; metmom; Alamo-Girl; betty boop; GourmetDan; MrB; valkyry1; DaveLoneRanger; ...

Ping!


2 posted on 04/02/2009 4:46:58 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Design???

How unscientific!


3 posted on 04/02/2009 4:51:28 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Why is it everybody’s suddenly into beheading?


4 posted on 04/02/2009 4:53:54 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Ask the the dissidents who have been slaughtered by the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism:

http://www.slaughterofthedissidents.com/index.php?p=20case_studies


5 posted on 04/02/2009 5:00:03 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: All

Money quote:

Show this to your biology teacher and tell him or her that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of design.”


6 posted on 04/02/2009 5:00:43 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Try telling that to the engineers!


7 posted on 04/02/2009 5:01:21 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Incredibly well-suited features are, just by themselves, difficult to imagine randomly appearing for use by the animal that needs them. Especially when the evolutionary bioligists tell us that nothing induces these mutations, they just “randomly” appear with the most suitable surving.

When one couples this improbability with the observation that each of these specially suited features require incredibly complex physiological support systems interonnected around them to function, it boggles the mind that such a series of accidental benefits could inure to any creature.

But, wait, there’s more! Then, we are told the same thing happened in every single creature. Hmmm.


8 posted on 04/02/2009 5:07:30 PM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88

Actually, there is mounting evidence for directed mutations, which makes matters far worse (I would say fatal) for RM + NS!


9 posted on 04/02/2009 5:15:13 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I like how every reply in this thread is not about the sea urchin but posts against evolution.


10 posted on 04/02/2009 5:26:23 PM PDT by ciwwaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

They just can’t help themselves...God’s creation demands it!


11 posted on 04/02/2009 5:27:05 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

The hits just keep coming...

“Directed” mutations? This in the face of the need for this to be utterly, fully, undirected. I would hate to have to deal with the mental dissonance this creates.


12 posted on 04/02/2009 5:27:55 PM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ciwwaf

Not so. The sea urchin is clearly the subject. It is just difficult to contain a discussion about one item, which holds implications about hundreds, no millions of other items when the prevailing “religion” wants us to be sheeple and trust them. Random events give rise to billions of well suited structures. It begs the extended comment.


13 posted on 04/02/2009 5:32:21 PM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

You really need to get a life.


14 posted on 04/02/2009 5:35:59 PM PDT by saganite (What would Sully do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Sea urchin tooth on loan from GODDDDDDD.


15 posted on 04/02/2009 5:39:56 PM PDT by ryan71 (TERM LIMITS!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88

Natural selection isn’t random. Genetic mutations are random.
Understanding evolution takes a gross simplification. Let’s say there are 100 tiny creatures.

Their genetic code causes them to glow red 80% of the time and glow green 20% of the time.

Suddenly because of an environmental change there’s a series of events which cause a 15% chance of death to a red one and a 10% chance of death to a green one. Without any genetic mutations chance of survival will be equal for all the creatures. If one has a genetic mutation for it to glow red 90% of the time it has a lower chance of survival than the others and that genetic code will be eliminated. While on the other hand one that has a 30% chance to glow green will have a higher chance of survival, maybe it will die anyways and that genetic code will be erased, but through odds eventually the surviving genetic code will favor a green glow without ever having a “design” behind it.

Macro evolution is more complex and in stages. If humans suddenly were placed into a water environment natural selection would favor people with a genetic mutation of long fingers and webbing between digits. Both of which are genetic mutations which already exist in people. In small increments this will (assuming it follows a logical path which it doesn’t always) lead to very webbed hands and long flat extended fingers.


16 posted on 04/02/2009 5:47:12 PM PDT by ciwwaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Wow. All those people slaughtered. And yet they still live. Amazing.


17 posted on 04/02/2009 5:48:29 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ciwwaf

Wow what an imagination you have!

None of it has anything to do with evolution. The plan has been in place since the beginning, and nothing will deviate from it. So few species, and such magnificent complexity; just the opposite of evolution.


18 posted on 04/02/2009 5:55:47 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Yeah I do have a very large imagination, thanks.


19 posted on 04/02/2009 5:59:18 PM PDT by ciwwaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ciwwaf

Please re read before you post. I did not say natural selection was random. I said the appearance of the mutations were random. Notice your little creatures first have to have the red or green glows appear for no reason whatsoever, for the natural selection to operate and prefer one over the other.

It is that “appearance” that is so glossed over. Especially, considering that the little “glow” may be a 500 element structure and that it could not function on its own. The glow requires an operating blood supply, healing system, aspiration devices, temperature monitoring system, immune system, and four hundred other “in place” mechanisms all working in perfect harmony BEFORE the glow would even survive the first day.

Macro evolution’s main schtick is common descent. Everything came from one original organism. That, by definition, begins the skepticism about the six hundred billion interactive mechanisms which had to appear. When the probability of one of these arising is set against the need for ten thousand supporting systems all occurring within seconds of each other, or none could have survived long enough to get selected, thoughtful folks see what is being peddled.


20 posted on 04/02/2009 6:01:45 PM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88

“Notice your little creatures first have to have the red or green glows appear for no reason whatsoever.”

It was a simplified explanation of natural selection. Not macro evolution which you are now talking about. I said the The red or green glow simply so there were limited variables. But the red or green glow could easily have an explanation, for example it’s biological process includes an indicator which is green under acidic conditions and and red under basic conditions. This color had nothing to do with it’s survival and was simply a byproduct of past evolution.

“may be a 500 element structure”

Please re read before you post. I didn’t say it was a 500 element structure.

The glow requires an operating blood supply, healing system, aspiration devices, temperature monitoring system, immune system, and four hundred other “in place” mechanisms all working in perfect harmony BEFORE the glow would even survive the first day.

A simple creature requires none of that except maybe a blood supply.


21 posted on 04/02/2009 6:24:32 PM PDT by ciwwaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Self-Directed Intelligent Evolutionary Design. The sea urchin knew that it needed a better tool for grinding hard limestone, so it directed itself to design the desired mechanism in its future generations. OK, OK, how about this one: The limestone instructed the sea urchin on the proper design of a tooth through a chemical process which caused, through random trial and error over billions of years, the necessary mutations in the DNA of the sea urchin to eventually develop the proper grinding mechanism. Yes. Yes. I’m sure that’s what happened.


22 posted on 04/02/2009 6:36:01 PM PDT by Leonard210 (Tagline? We don't need no stinkin' tagliine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leonard210

My comments about directed mutation had nothing to do with the sea urchin. Google directed or (the more politically correct) adaptive mutation. And while you’re at it, Google epigenetic inheritance. It will be a real eye opener for you.


23 posted on 04/02/2009 6:41:00 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ryan71

Amen!


24 posted on 04/02/2009 6:43:00 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Yeah! Then have the clergy design torture devices for the blaspheming engineers! Maybe some kind of boring device that employs an interdigitating feature (I just had to use that word)!


25 posted on 04/02/2009 6:54:39 PM PDT by ExpatGator (Extending logic since 1961.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

When I was in HS I developed the theory of God directed evolution. It is as valid today as ever. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! Evolution directed itself to form man in the form of a monkey because a monkey was the best form that evolution could imagine a man may evolve from. (Evolution first tried using the French Bulldog, but they kept capitulating.) God, in his infinite wisdom, simply waited until the monkey was ready, grabbed one male and one female, breathed intelligent life into them and viola...you!


26 posted on 04/02/2009 6:59:19 PM PDT by Leonard210 (Tagline? We don't need no stinkin' tagliine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ExpatGator
Yeah! Then have the clergy design torture devices for the blaspheming engineers!

"The Iron Pocket Protector" has a nice ring to it.

27 posted on 04/02/2009 7:04:16 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

LOL!

“Sentence first! Verdict afterwards.”


28 posted on 04/02/2009 7:09:48 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

The “Draft Table Rack”.


29 posted on 04/02/2009 7:31:58 PM PDT by ExpatGator (Extending logic since 1961.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!


30 posted on 04/02/2009 8:21:53 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ciwwaf

If you do not stop making sense, I’m afraid I’ll have to congratulate you.


31 posted on 04/02/2009 9:03:51 PM PDT by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ciwwaf

Precisely the problem. It requires a blood supply. And a blood supply requires a pump mechanism, a cleansing mechansim, an aspiration mechanism, and has a shelf life of 30 seconds before it begins to rot without such.

Now, let’s get this organism to fire off a blood supply, together with all of its accompanying mechanisms at exactly the same momemt. Why? Because the pump mechanism needs, yes, a blood supply a cleansing mechansim, a healing system, a repair system, an aspiration mechanism, and has a shelf life of 45 seconds before it begins to decay with such. The “blood supply” is itself a complex set of interactive and interdependent systems, none of which could survive on their own, yet all must have arisen from simultaneous accidental mutations?

It is this probability of the complexity of the support systems arising first (and concurrently) needed to provide an environment for the “glow” to accidentally appear in both red and green that is just astronomical. But, it is treated as if, “Okay, assuming this all randomly appeared and a set of red and green glows appear. Which color would be preferred by the environoment?” That question is almost ridiculous in the face of what just occurred.


32 posted on 04/03/2009 6:45:59 AM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Leonard210; GodGunsGuts
“God, in his infinite wisdom, simply waited until the monkey was ready, grabbed one male and one female, breathed intelligent life into them and viola...you!” [excerpt]

Well, according to God's word, He used the dust of the ground

And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Genesis 2:7


The Hebrew word used for dust is עפר (`aphar) and can mean the following:

1) dry earth, dust, powder, ashes, earth, ground, mortar, rubbish
a) dry or loose earth
b) debris
c) mortar
d) ore

The Hebrew used for ground is אדמה ('adamah) and can mean the following:
1) ground, land
a) ground (as general, tilled, yielding sustenance)
b) piece of ground, a specific plot of land
c) earth substance (for building or constructing)
d) ground as earth's visible surface
e) land, territory, country
f) whole inhabited earth
g) city in Naphtali

If God had used a monkey as the basis for Adam, I think that would be recorded, seeing as how it is recorded that Adam's rib was the basis for Eve.

[ref]
33 posted on 04/03/2009 11:36:54 AM PDT by Fichori (The only bailout I'm interested in is the one where the entire Democrat party leaves the county)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: saganite; GodGunsGuts
You really need to get a life.

Leading people away from the truth requires a lot of quantity over quality.

34 posted on 04/03/2009 12:05:49 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Did you know the lowly sea urchin has a tooth?

If it's not in the Bible, why would I know that?

35 posted on 04/03/2009 12:21:22 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88

You are terribly terribly wrong. A blood system does NOT require that, all of those are found in complex creatures.

Simple creatures have an open circulatory system in which a simple blood-like fluid directly supplies oxygen to cells.

Transportation for oxygen and nutrients have distinct stages of efficiency.

The first being it was simply there and had no transportation method which is not efficient and only the very simplist of creatures use that.

The second is transportation with Osmotic pressure which is used by plants and non moving creatures. This does not require evolution beyond anything except a membrane.

The third is an open circulatory system which the bloodlike fluid is found sorrounding all cells and movement of the “blood” only occurs when the creature itself moves and can not be specifically targeted to certain areas of the creature.

This arises to simple canals which will later become vessels and muscles specifically targeted to moving blood and simple hearts evolve.

“Okay, assuming this all randomly appeared and a set of red and green glows appear. Which color would be preferred by the environoment?”

I gave a reason for a red and green glow to appear which is very simple and requires the most basic of reactions, Acid-Base. Again, it was a simplistic model so argueing the odds that a red and green glow would appear is not really smart. Especially considering that the type of reaction i gave happens ALL THE TIME everywhere you look. In fact a glass of water self ionizes to a certain point the only reason you don’t see a color is because hydroxide and hydronium are both colorless.


36 posted on 04/03/2009 12:30:45 PM PDT by ciwwaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88
By the way if the ph of the creature was modeled as a sinusoidal function (a low point of pH when the creature is feeding and a high point of Ph when the creature is not) and a ph above 6 was when the creature glowed green up to a max of 7. Natural selection would choose the creatures which consistently had a higher ph. Maybe the creatures feed on lime stone and the ones which are faster at digesting the lime stone and converting it to energy are favored or maybe the creatures which evolve a buffer system would be favored. If it was the second option and the environment no longer cared about the glow the buffer system would remain to better control the ph of the creature to let it become more complex because more complex creatures require a consistent ph. Fast forward 1 billion years and we would have you arguing that a creature could not survive without a ph buffer system (humans can't) and suggesting that the creature evolved any other way is preposterous.
37 posted on 04/03/2009 12:44:50 PM PDT by ciwwaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.

;)


38 posted on 04/03/2009 12:45:55 PM PDT by ciwwaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ciwwaf

If the support system for your “simple” creature with red and green glows is so “simple: then create one, any one. Create a one cell organism from your own composite of constituent materials.

The terribly terribly wrongness lies with your observations that even the simplest of mechanisms are so very complex that they are impossible to reproduce apart from the organisms themselves. Gloss over these if you wish, but the astounding requirements even for the “membrane” to survive and reproduce are enormously difficult or you would make one and show how “simple” they really are. So, if you are right, show us. All of the chemicals in the world are available to you, choose a well equipped lab, and deliver us “life”. Otherwise your cavalier use of “simple” displays an arrogance of monumental proportions.


39 posted on 04/03/2009 1:55:52 PM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Fichori

Sorry Fichori, I was being sarcastic. My silly point was that just because we (men) can think of a scenario to explain an observation it is still only an observation. Since Adam all that man has done is to record the intricacies of what God has made. In describing their observations, they have believed themselves to be possessors of knowledge and wisdom beyond the Creator. Yet they remain journalists recording observations which they had no part.


40 posted on 04/03/2009 2:19:35 PM PDT by Leonard210 (Tagline? We don't need no stinkin' tagliine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Leonard210
“Sorry Fichori, I was being sarcastic.” [excerpt]
LOL!

The reason I didn't notice is because other people have said basically the same thing, except they were serious!

“My silly point was that just because we (men) can think of a scenario to explain an observation it is still only an observation. Since Adam all that man has done is to record the intricacies of what God has made. In describing their observations, they have believed themselves to be possessors of knowledge and wisdom beyond the Creator. Yet they remain journalists recording observations which they had no part.” [excerpt]
Interesting take.

And like todays journalists, they often lack objectivity...
41 posted on 04/03/2009 2:29:52 PM PDT by Fichori (The only bailout I'm interested in is the one where the entire Democrat party leaves the county)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Fichori

“The reason I didn’t notice is because other people have said basically the same thing, except they were serious!”

I was serious in HS also! Our biology teacher spent a couple of days explaining how God and evolution were compatible. (In a Catholic HS no less.) His reasoning was pretty much that God simply set the world in motion and then allowed evolution to run its course. (I’m not sure at what point he felt that God needed to get involved. After all, if God could have waited patiently for a fish to form Halle Berry, he could have waited for a spontaneous “big bang” to occur.)

I wasn’t satisfied with his take so, being convinced of macro-evolution at the time I simply devised a method whereby God could get involved while keeping a bit of Genesis intact; not a bunch of Genesis, just a bit. It was the absence of transitionals in the fossil record that caused me to reconsider my earlier training.

Thanks for the rundown of the Hebrew in your previous post. I haven’t studied these things in many years so it’s good to get a refresher.


42 posted on 04/03/2009 3:09:49 PM PDT by Leonard210 (Tagline? We don't need no stinkin' tagliine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88

Alright, prove god exists and then I’ll do your little experiment.

You changed the subject again by the way. Now you are talking about the creation of life from organic reactions which is an entirely different field of study.

But evolution is a testable theory. Take anything that reproduces rapidly and expose it to an event which causes death to them. For example an ant being exposed to pesticides. After generations the ants with an immune system that can fight the pesticides will be naturally selected and the genetic coding of the ants will change. Happens all the time. If you don’t want to trust science and instead want to believe in a young Earth, that is fine. But realize that it is your faith and nothing else which is your reasoning for believing. There is no scientific proof that favors a young earth. There is scientific proof that suggests a creator exists, but nothing that agrees with the Christian bible. I’m Christian myself by the way, I just don’t spend my day turning people off from my religion.


43 posted on 04/03/2009 4:03:06 PM PDT by ciwwaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Why is it everybody’s suddenly into beheading?

How dare you ask that! Off with your head! :-)

44 posted on 04/03/2009 4:05:01 PM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC
How dare you ask that! Off with your head! :-)

See there! Whatever happened to drawing and quartering, or keelhauling, or even good old-fashioned crucifiction?

45 posted on 04/03/2009 4:09:52 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ciwwaf

Tap the brakes, ciwwaf. There is no “god”. There is a God. The proof for Him does not fit in the petrie dish.

But, I didn’t change the subject. You made the comment that a “membrane” fit the definition of a “simple” transportation device. With that in view, I asked you to give rise to anything which comes close to this “mutation”. We haven’t moved to the environment preferring one over the other, because the mutations must be in place first for the selection to begin. You want to move it along and show selection at work. Not so fast.

If a membrane did arise randomly, the great puzzler is that a bicycle chain or a cucumber did not also “arise” as a possible mutation for the organism to present to the environment for selection. How many mutations arose while the “right” one was waiting to be rolled out? And, what aided the organism with survival until that arose? You speak as though, “Okay, the membrane is here for propulsion. Check.” But, wait a moment. Evolutionists admit that there is no “driver” to cause mutations. They are random events, then the environment prefers one over the other. My concern is twofold before we get to selection: 1. Why are the mutations that you are claiming arise by random events useful to the organism? Given that there are an infinite number of possiblities, why is the useful one even appearing, at all? And, 2. what provides for the incredibly complex support systems that sustain the mutations in the first place? Again, this is assumed as axiomatic. Don’t ask, thank you.

And evolution is not the same thing as common descent. Your ant example is peculiar, because it is almost as if something is directing the fight against the pesticide. Why would random mutationst give rise to this useful survival mechanism?

I don’t hold to a young earth. A very old earth and universe is completely compatible with the text of the Bible. And, you may not be spending all day doing it, but, clearly you are spending sometime turning folks off about your religion. Randomness is the basis upon which your world operates.


46 posted on 04/03/2009 4:36:44 PM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88
“With that in view, I asked you to give rise to anything which comes close to this “mutation”.”

Membranes are usually a bi layer of lipid fats with a hydrophobic tail that allows the creation of a channel between the two layers. Lipids are used for storing energy and are naturally hydrophobic because of their molecular structure. Any life that stored the lipids in a shell around itself would better survive, these lipids would slowly be naturally selected to better serve their purpose of protecting the cell and the hydrophobic string would naturally be naturally selected to grow longer.

47 posted on 04/03/2009 6:13:53 PM PDT by ciwwaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ciwwaf

This is exactly the response I expected. You argue that mutations are “simple”, such as a membrane for transportation. I rebut that if they are so simple to arise as a random mutation, then build one for us. You say, here is how a membrane is constructed and how it works.

The challenge was, if you are so sure these are “simple” and require no complex support systems to stay “alive”, then MAKE ONE for us, don’t tell us how they are made. You are the one that says “science” is about testable hypothesis. Test it and let us know.


48 posted on 04/04/2009 7:33:45 AM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I am getting new dentures next week, I wonder if I could get teeth like this?

I was going to go titanium but apparently some guy in a James Bond movie gave it a bad rep.


49 posted on 04/04/2009 7:37:20 AM PDT by Eye of Unk ("If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace." T. Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88

I have not personally made one but i use them all the time for organic chemistry and if i was given the materials I could. They don’t have to be alive and can be made from organic or inorganic materials. Their molecular structure is what causes them to be semi-permiable and osmotic pressure is what causes movement of fluid.


50 posted on 04/04/2009 12:46:46 PM PDT by ciwwaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson