In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1546
Online now 1565 Record: 10351 (3/11/2012)
The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web
The place to ask questions to SpartanTailgate's recruiting experts
"The Duff" is dedicated to Michigan State football recruiting discussion
"The Bres" is dedicated to Michigan State basketball recruiting discussion
This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion
The place to buy, trade or sell Michigan State tickets
For fantasy football and other fantasy sports discussion
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Looks like I was incorrect with my last statement in my previous post.
So in your opinion simply because we don't at this point in time understand how this process developed we should immediately throw out the whole theory and revert back to biblical creationism.
Interesting approach to science.
by that line of reasoning all you have to do to stop any scientific theory is simply ask questions until you get to "we don't understand that yet" and then you throw away the entire underlying theory.
Of course there is a relatively simple flaw to this approach....what do we say when a person asks "how exactly did God go about creating life, what was the mechanism he used to form ever beat of field, and every bird of air out of the ground."
Simple, god used magic.
Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed or something?
Where have I said who I'm voting for and what does Sandra Fluke have to do with butterfly metamorphosis?
Science is not about beliefs, it is about evidence and data. Science is a process for investigating the world around you. What we conclude from those investigations may not always be correct but those errors are correctable. Blind faith is not correctable.
Research is what I am doing when I don’t know what I am doing - Werner von Braun
As for denying evolution, I agree you can't.
But creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive. I believe in both.
solid. So you only reply to your topics with people who agree with you?
How can you believe in both? This ought to be good......
"No one cares what you know, until they know how much you care." Mark Dantonio
There is a school of thought that god created life, and then let it evolve on it's own. I used to sort of accept that, but I have since become educated enough to realize that god isn't necessary for the equation.
This is a discussion board. Do you really expect me break down an entire course in developmental biology into a few simple words that you can comprehend? If you really want a detailed explanation I would highly recommend taking a course in developmental biology. It is an amazing process and the molecular mechanisms that control cellular differentiation are things of beauty.
Did you read the Scientific American article that doc_spartan linked to? That gives a pretty good layman's description of how metamorphosis may have evolved and why.
As I said, saying the entire organism dissolves is an oversimplification. Most general articles or basic biology textbooks are going to use this type of oversimplification but if you read a more thorough description you will see there is more to the process. Some cells truly dissolve and break down to provide food for the development of the adult, some tissue loses structural integrity but they still retain their cellular nature and some aspects of differentiation, some tissues remain intact. The tissues that remain intact are the imaginal discs mentioned in the SA article. The differentiation of the imaginal discs produces the structures of the adult butterfly.
Evolution is not "simple" to "more complex". Again, "simple" caterpillars did not evolve into "more complex" butterflies or suddenly acquire the ability to undergo metamorphosis into a butterfly. The developmental process of metamorphosis evolved at some point in the insect lineage as a process leading to the adult insect. Read the SA article to learn about how that might have come about. The butterfly evolved from that common ancestor to other metamorphosing insects, acquiring it's characteristic features which are now very different from the common ancestor.
What breaks down to a "molecular level"? Do you have any idea what you are saying? At most, the organism breaks down to the cellular level. You still have millions of completely intact cells which retain much of their prior developmental programing and spatial orientation and the imaginal discs are completely intact.
I believed Bill Nye in 5th grade. I believe him now even more.
What is that, a Titleist? A hole in one...
I admire your attempt to explain this, but even a 100 page analysis won't be enough for him. He's making several assumptions that are completely warping his posts. If he can't see past those assumptions, or at least acknowledge he is doing them, your assistance will continue to fall on deaf ears.
On the flip side, I am learning more about butterflies than I ever expected to know, so thanks!
Gravitational theory has been broken apart into shambles with that logic.
Bill Nye is a smart guy. Too bad so many religi-nuts are morans.
Sorry, can't help myself a good chuckle.
Before I say anything – I appreciate that someone is willing to go to bat for evolution and discuss it. I just now read the Scientific American article. Understand SA is decidedly pro-evolution; as such you will not obtain an unbiased opinion in that publication. Anyhow, some thoughts:
A good 90% of the article just discusses the history and known processes of metamorphosis. For example, they include dissection interpretations from a 1669 biologist. Perhaps someone should inform them that microscopes were pretty crude in the 17th century.
I would question using the fossil record for discussing metamorphosis. A hairy, tropical cricket that rummages around in 280 million-year-old leaf litter proves… What? I mean really… WTH are they talking about?
And this is the important part – the article makes a massive, MASSIVE leap in explaining metamorphosis, when it states it “most likely evolved out of incomplete metamorphosis”.
I’ll give credit – very shrewd of early biologists to use the term “incomplete metamorphosis”. “Metamorphosis” and “Incomplete Metamorphosis” have similar names, but the two processes are entirely different.
More on this in my next post…
Incomplete metamorphosis is not unlike the standard process in all other animal life. Those stages are:
• Birth or hatching
• Mature from an infant/cub/hatchling/nymph/etc. into an adult
• Mate-n-make babies
Metamorphosis adds several more stages:
• Mature into an adult caterpillar
• Pupate (go into chrysalis or cocoon, nearly all caterpillar body parts dissolve, entirely new creature formed)
• Hatching a second time from chrysalis as a butterfly
You see, the trouble with metamorphosis is it is impossible to explain with evolution. Wave that “magic-time-wand” all you want, reference data from 17th century scientists all you want, check out hairy-bug fossils all you want – but the process of metamorphosis doesn’t fit.
Evolution assumes you take a trait, and it becomes stronger over millions and billions of years. That’s how Darwin cleverly explained the complexity of the human eye. He suggested that eyes began as a simple structure that could only differentiate between light and dark. Then, over millions and millions and … okay you get the picture… eyes got better and better – till we have the complex camera eyes we see in many animals.
The difference is, metamorphosis is a “process” not a trait, like an eyeball. How can a process evolve? Did it just introduce itself all at once? One day, a caterpillar completely dissolved and became a butterfly. BAM! It just happened. No… That doesn’t make sense.
Perhaps it was slow. Just the eyes dissolved and reformed – so we had butterfly eyes on a caterpillar head. A few billion years later, the entire head dissolved and reformed. Then, a few billion years after this, the entire caterpillar goes through metamorphosis! Heck, that’s more jacked up than the previous idea.
So – how’d it happen? Ask Bill Nye the science guy this question: Please explain how the PROCESS of metamorphosis could evolve?
You mean the science guy can’t explain it? Yeah, I know he can’t – he’s not good at defending evolutionary theory in a debate forum, only talking shit at a camera. But for any theory to hold up, it’s gotta stand up to tough questions. Otherwise, it’s proven false. That’s how it works in the scientific community.
So there it is. Evolution’s worst nightmare is - a butterfly. If anything, it’s proof that God does have a sense of humor.
When I went to a Christian school abroad and had my first exposure to the religion, one of my biggest turn offs was that it brainwashed people into creationism and assumed all Christians had an asinine world view.
Thankfully I realized that there are many that embrace reality and don't tie down their faith to very antiquated world views. I think God's sense of humor is more pronounced in the incredibly complex and intricate process of evolutionary theory.
There's just no way to adequately explain to you how far along science has come - particularly in bacteriology - in developing the theories that project modern biology. You're not too far off from the Flat Earth Society.
It would usually take someone ten or more pages to get this much ignorance into print. Congratulations on doing it in such a small space.
Dick....how about you tell us how you believe that man came into existence?
Oh....by the way:
This post has been edited 3 times, most recently by doc_spartan 20 months ago
What are you even talking about?
Nice cut and paste job. Who wrote it?
If you think thr GOP's ideas on science are odd please remember many of their major donors are more than happy to outsource jobs requiring serious science offshore or import personnel whose education wasn't dictated by Bible thumpers.
This is thick for me, but really interesting, thanks!
Unrelated to your post: Why do all the "gotcha" artist keep making the same mistake over and over again? They keep assuming everything becomes better, faster, stronger because that is the "goal." There is no goal. Evolution has no goal. All goals are man-made assumptions we put on the process.
And yet not a single person can refute a one thing mentioned in my post. I gave you a good couple days too.
The few posters that responded resorted to name-calling - the last gasp of desperation.
All getting lost on me - can you please reiterate your thoughts in one (relatively short) statement?
I would agree. It's amazing what science can do with a microscope (please read my previous post regarding SC's reference to 1600's biologists...)
If anything, discoveries in microbiology have put the last few nails in the coffin of evolution. I'd be interested to hear your take.
My point, I am not aware of a single discovery in the modern age (1960 and beyond) has pointed to evolution. NOT ONE! Those that espouse evolution just continue to point to theories advanced in the late 1800's.
And you say creationism is antiquated. Sheesh!
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports