A Message to Creationists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-03-2012, 01:13 PM (This post was last modified: 29-03-2012 01:51 PM by tudorthetutor.)
RE: A Message to Creationists
(29-03-2012 08:24 AM)robotworld Wrote:  I read the first part of your blog. Very interesting arguments put forth.

Thanks for showing an interest. At last there is someone who can take my "paper" seriously. I have many answers to your suggestions, and we can discuss them here. I like this open exchange of arguments.

As you will see in part 2, I anticipated that the first two "zero factors" might still be questioned by skeptics. I'm curious if you will question the next one too.

If you want to talk about bats and how they got their echolocation system, maybe we should crank it up one notch and discuss the fishing bat. That one is the daddy of them all because it does something literally unbelievable. It detects little fish under the surface of the water using its tiny radar and is able to catch them quite successfully. The bat misses many times but the fact that it is here today proves it can fish after all.

Now, you probably know the physical phenomenon of refraction. Light refracts when it passes from one medium into another that has a different density. So does sound. Therefore, the "radar signature" of a fish under water is not where the bat expects it to be if the bat uses the same calculations as in the air. Supposing that the fishing bat acquired this "specialization" after the bat had already developed its echolocation system, how was it able to correct the "coordinates" in order to catch the fish? Allegedly this was done in millions of years, right? It kept failing at first, but it persisted in scooping up water in its claws for millions of years until finally it was able to catch a fish. I don't like this explanation.

I think it makes more sense to say this: the first bat that tried to extend its diet below the surface of the water was also successful because otherwise it would have given up fishing as a hobby. If you don't catch the fish then you go find yourself something else to eat or you starve to death. So, either you catch the fish when you try it (after multiple attempts, of course) or forget about it! This second scenario suggests that fishing was a hobby the bats got not in millions of years of trial and error, but in only one generation. And this is a practical impossibility, just as I explained in part 2 of my paper with the wasp.

And if it didn't acquire that hobby in one generation, the only other possibility is to have done it in many generations, which means we have to return to the first scenario again. So the bat got better at attempting to fish, a little bit today, a little bit tomorrow, and so on. Remember that we have to account for millions of years of improvements generation after generation. But the ability to catch the fish only came at the end of the whole process of "improving" if we don't want to contradict ourselves and return to the previous scenario. So, they were able to catch the first fish only millions of years after they first tried it. I'm going to use a little math here to make it easier to formulate my next question. Generation 1 is the one of the bat that first tried its hand (or claws) at fishing. Generation one million, let's say, is the one of the first bat that caught the first fish. Can you please explain to me the difference between the bats from generation 2 and the ones from generation 999,998? What skills did the latter have that the former didn't? Neither one was able to catch the fish. How can you weigh the skill of the latter against the one of the former? According to the theory of evolution (and our logic in this scenario) the bat from generation 999,998 was much better at "still not catching" fish than the one from generation 2, right? How can you visualize that difference? I can't.

To me a bat that can't catch fish is a bat that can't catch fish, not a bat whose babies may be able to catch fish two or three generation later. Or one million. The simple existence of the fishing bat should be enough to make you understand it was able to catch fish from day one or it shouldn't be here. And this goes for many animals, too many to even think about. Of course you have the right to sincerely doubt this! Smile

PS. I have a lot more coming for the skeptics, much heavier artillery than the fishing bat. Actually, this argument with the bat is small caliber bullets compared to the ballistic missiles I still have in store.
(29-03-2012 08:24 AM)robotworld Wrote:  But first, the common problems throughout your arguments. You seem to not really understand natural selection, the mechanisms of evolution and phylogenetic trees.
I have another paper on natural selection. I'll post it soon and you will see whether I understand it or not. Natural selection only justifies improvements within one species, not the leap from one species to another.


Quote:The ability to use sound as an aid to hunt, regardless of how weak it is, is not as useless as you claim.
To say that proves that you don't really understand echolocation. The radar inside the brain of the bat is such a complex device that it rules out the possibility of being used in a "primitive form." So the changes I was talking about were not virtually useless in the first generation of bats-to-be, but useless, period.
There is no evolutionary "wriggle room" here at all, I'm afraid. Please don't make me write two pages of explanations for this phenomenon.


Quote:For your third question, no. Your kid will NOT have identical DNA with you. Through meiotic processes such as homologous recombination in the gametes of both parents, the kid will possess a combination of the DNA of both parents.
I meant as a species, not individuals, duh!
Quote:Heard of omnivores?
No, I haven't. What are those? Aliens that eat humans? Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 02:22 PM
RE: A Message to Creationists
(29-03-2012 01:13 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  If you want to talk about bats and how they got their echolocation system, maybe we should crank it up one notch and discuss the fishing bat. That one is the daddy of them all because it does something literally unbelievable.

Pet peeve: that is not what "literally" means.

(29-03-2012 01:13 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  It detects little fish under the surface of the water using its tiny radar and is able to catch them quite successfully. The bat misses many times but the fact that it is here today proves it can fish after all.

Now, you probably know the physical phenomenon of refraction. Light refracts when it passes from one medium into another that has a different density. So does sound. Therefore, the "radar signature" of a fish under water is not where the bat expects it to be if the bat uses the same calculations as in the air. Supposing that the fishing bat acquired this "specialization" after the bat had already developed its echolocation system, how was it able to correct the "coordinates" in order to catch the fish? Allegedly this was done in millions of years, right? It kept failing at first, but it persisted in scooping up water in its claws for millions of years until finally it was able to catch a fish. I don't like this explanation.

That's because it's wrong.

Bats are nocturnal creatures. Because there is so little light available at night, they had to depend largely on their hearing to both find prey and to avoid predators. Thus, bats with better hearing were better able to do both of those things, and thus flourished. Over thousands of years, the average bat's hearing improved to the point that it could hear echoes from other noises. It's a natural consequence of having such sensitive ears. Echolocation isn't actually sight. It's just the ability to listen to a sound and figure out about how far away it is by intensity. Humans can do this as well. The only thing that bats have over us in this area is that their hearing is so much more sensitive, so they can detect smaller and smaller sounds - including echoes from other sounds made. So they make their own noises to listen to the echoes. There's nothing mysterious about it; it's just really, really powerful hearing.

As for how fishing bats operate, you have two things wrong. One, fishing bats do not use echolocation to detect the location of a fish under the water. They detect the ripples on the surface of the water, not the fish. And they don't dive at the fish itself. They've simply learned to recognize that the presence of ripples indicates the presence of fish, and thus trawl the water (not diving, but trawling; they fly just above the surface of the water and use their claws as nets) where any ripples are detected. They aren't aiming for any specific fish. They just know fish are in the area, so they run their claws through the water until they hit one that wasn't fast enough to get out of the way.

(29-03-2012 01:13 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  I think it makes more sense to say this: the first bat that tried to extend its diet below the surface of the water was also successful because otherwise it would have given up fishing as a hobby. If you don't catch the fish then you go find yourself something else to eat or you starve to death. So, either you catch the fish when you try it (after multiple attempts, of course) or forget about it!

Do foxes as a whole give up hunting chickens because one fox fails to ever catch one? As long as predators are aware of the presence of prey that they can catch - not necessarily that they will, but that they can - they'll go for it. And you also assume that there was only one bat who ever evolved this trait, and that they aren't capable of eating things other than fish (the bulldog bat, which is what you are referring to, eats both insects and fish).

(29-03-2012 01:13 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  This second scenario suggests that fishing was a hobby the bats got not in millions of years of trial and error, but in only one generation.

As it wasn't acquired through millions of years of trial and error in the first place, this is irrelevant.

(29-03-2012 01:13 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  And if it didn't acquire that hobby in one generation, the only other possibility is to have done it in many generations

Or that there could have been multiple instances where a bat gave this a try and thus gained an edge in survivability.

(29-03-2012 01:13 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  Generation 1 is the one of the bat that first tried its hand (or claws) at fishing. Generation one million, let's say, is the one of the first bat that caught the first fish. Can you please explain to me the difference between the bats from generation 2 and the ones from generation 999,998?

Bats in generation 999,998 make longer trawling runs?

In all honesty, I have no idea. I'm not an expert on the evolution of bats. But I can make some educated guesses.

One, it probably didn't take more than a few generations - if there were any at all - between beginning to fish and actually catching them, so having this habit would have paid off very quickly in evolutionary terms, even if it didn't help each individual bat during the intervening generations.

Two, there are plenty of bats who eat insects in and around the water. Trawling the water with their claws would not have been an evolutionarily disadvantageous trait. At the very worst, it would have been neutral, since the bats spend so much time near the surface of the water anyway. I could actually see a case for it being beneficial, since it would allow them to scoop up insects from the surface. From there, it would only take a slight alteration in the bat's habits in order to have it trawl a little deeper once in a while. That wouldn't hurt its efforts to eat any insects, and would actually end up widening its pool of possible snacks, since it now has a chance to snatch up some fish as well.

(29-03-2012 01:13 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  According to the theory of evolution (and our logic in this scenario) the bat from generation 999,998 was much better at "still not catching" fish than the one from generation 2, right? How can you visualize that difference? I can't. To me a bat that can't catch fish is a bat that can't catch fish, not a bat whose babies may be able to catch fish two or three generation later. Or one million. The simple existence of the fishing bat should be enough to make you understand it was able to catch fish from day one or it shouldn't be here.

Unfortunately, the argumentum ad ignorantum ("I can't see how it would happen, therefore it didn't") is a logical fallacy, and does not make a compelling case.

(29-03-2012 01:13 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  PS. I have a lot more coming for the skeptics, much heavier artillery than the fishing bat.

Considering that your fishing bat argument is only artillery in the same way that a lighter is a supernova, I'm not all that worried.

(29-03-2012 01:13 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  I have another paper on natural selection. I'll post it soon and you will see whether I understand it or not. Natural selection only justifies improvements within one species, not the leap from one species to another.

Entirely incorrect.

(29-03-2012 01:13 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  To say that proves that you don't really understand echolocation. The radar inside the brain of the bat is such a complex device that it rules out the possibility of being used in a "primitive form."

No. It doesn't.

(29-03-2012 01:13 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  So the changes I was talking about were not virtually useless in the first generation of bats-to-be, but useless, period.

"Useless" does not equal "does not happen in evolution". Nor does it equal "will not be improved upon by natural selection". You are proposing a false dichotomy between "evolutionarily advantageous" and "evolutionarily disadvantageous" traits. You are ignoring neutral traits, which both can and do come up with extreme regularity in evolution and which can and are improved upon by natural selection.

(29-03-2012 01:13 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  There is no evolutionary "wriggle room" here at all, I'm afraid. Please don't make me write two pages of explanations for this phenomenon.

Please don't waste your time. You don't understand it.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 02:34 PM (This post was last modified: 29-03-2012 02:56 PM by tudorthetutor.)
RE: A Message to Creationists
(29-03-2012 08:26 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  I skimmed through that stuff - it is made of rant. The scientific method evolved naturalism away from philosophical truth and towards predictive modeling. You seem to have missed the turn.
My friend, if you are as smart as you sound, please tell me how that parasitic wasp evolved. I'm willing to listen to you in the humblest way possible. And make it logical, okay? I don't believe in "might have," which is what evolutionists love to use. I like "can't have" or "couldn't have" a lot more because they tell you what didn't happen rather than what may have happened. Do you get my drift? I guess you do since you are a thinking atheist.



(29-03-2012 02:22 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Please don't waste your time. You don't understand it.


Now I understand why the world is the way it is. Because it is filled with people like you who would do anything but see the truth. I have nothing more to say to you, my friend, because I have the feeling that whatever I say you will come up with a much better explanation. Apart from God, you're the next best thing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 03:01 PM
RE: A Message to Creationists
(29-03-2012 02:34 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  
(29-03-2012 08:26 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  I skimmed through that stuff - it is made of rant. The scientific method evolved naturalism away from philosophical truth and towards predictive modeling. You seem to have missed the turn.
My friend, if you are as smart as you sound, please tell me how that parasitic wasp evolved. I'm willing to listen to you in the humblest way possible. And make it logical, okay? I don't believe in "might have," which is what evolutionists love to use. I like "can't have" or "couldn't have" a lot more because they tell you what didn't happen rather than what may have happened. Do you get my drift? I guess you do since you are a thinking atheist.

One time I wuz sitting in the Pima County Funhouse - jail to you - and I had two pictures. One of Neve Campbell and one of Gwyneth Paltrow. Like evolution, there was a single iteration - draw the Gwynnies - and like evolution, looking back it doesn't seem possible that one choice made all the difference. In my case, eleven years of love and madness has standard humans looking at me like a new species. In the case of the wasp, I wasn't there. Smile

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
29-03-2012, 03:18 PM
RE: A Message to Creationists
Going over your blog:

Quote:We don’t have fur to protect us against the elements, we don’t have sharp teeth or claws, we don’t have a good sense of smell, we can’t run or swim very fast or for too long, we don’t have special sensory organs to detect food or danger, we don’t produce chemicals in our body to help us defend against predators or catch pray, we don’t have a lot of the tools many animals have. Yet, we are the masters of the Earth, with no competition whatsoever. In a normal universe, that would seem quite unfair.

Except that you leave out all the advantages we have over the others. The ability to communicate complex, abstract ideas. The ability to create and make use of tools of incredible complexity. And so on.

Quote:But who said we’re living in a normal universe? From what I’ve seen so far, the universe we live in is anything but normal. I can’t even begin to understand the complexity of the laws that govern it, and the more documentaries I watch on the Science Channel the more I realize how little I know about these laws.

You don't understand the definition of the word "normal".

Quote:I am going to thoroughly analyze this theory and what it claims, and if I find one single fact that makes no sense, I will dismiss it as being false. This might sound too harsh, but mathematics is a very precise subject.

Too bad we're not talking about mathematics. This doesn't sound too harsh, it is too harsh. The fact that our current understand of evolution may be imperfect doesn't mean that evolution itself doesn't occur. It just means that our present model is wrong. Try again.

Quote:The product P = (a–b)×(c–d)×(e–f)×(g–h)×…×(y–z) is going to be zero if any of the factors is zero. In order for the theory of evolution to “pass the test” all its claims must be proven true. If ten or fifty of its claims pass the test but one fails, it means evolutionists should go back to the drawing board and write their theory again.

No, it means that that specific claim needs to be revised, our understanding of it needs to be expanded, et cetera. What you are doing is nothing less than picking a rock - or even twenty rocks - up off the slope of Everest and claiming that you have brought down a mountain.

Quote:As you probably know, the bat–the only flying mammal–is a blind animal.

No, it isn't.

Quote:This is where the brown thing hits the fan for the evolutionists–something they either don’t realize themselves or they don’t want to admit–because there is no way in the world you can explain that. If you say, “They developed this amazing ability over millions of years of small improvements generation after generation,” you can’t answer the simple questions, “How did they catch their prey in the meantime, before the echolocation system was perfected? What did the millions of generations of bats-to-be eat before they could afford a decent, juicy, flying insect?”

While the answer to that question is, “definitely not juicy, flying insects,” I have a hard time understanding how those animals survived the “transition.”

Again, argumentum ad ignorantum is a fallacy. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that it isn't true.

In other news, not all bats are insectivorous. Nor are bats helpless without echolocation, as they can still see. And bats hunt during the dusk and day as well as during the night, though not as often. It's entirely possible that bats became more active at night as their hearing improved.

Quote:The more obstinate evolutionists, the ones who claim there is no fan in the room, will probably say, “They temporarily fed on insects they could catch with their old, primitive methods.”

And they very well could have.

Quote:Whoa, wait a minute! So now you’re saying that they were able to survive for millions of years using their outdated method of catching prey?

Yes. Just because their old methods of hunting aren't used today doesn't mean that they didn't work. It would have been perfectly functional. The thing is that echolocation works better, and so eventually replaced their old methods.

Your argument is basically that we couldn't have gone to the moon using old computers because the ones we have today are so much better.

Quote:Then where is the survival of the one who improved and the disappearance of the one who failed to improve?

Do you see bats hunting insects without echolocation today?

Quote:At this point your theory contradicts itself!

No. No, it doesn't. Your argument, however, implodes in upon itself.

Quote:The chemicals inside the brains and subsequently the DNA of the first generation of bats-to-be would have had no logical reason to start (this is the key word!) arranging and combining themselves a little differently so that millions of years later they would make up the very complex mini-radar inside the brains of real bats.

So? The thing about mutation is that it's random, tudor. And, as I explained above, the intermediary steps in the formation of the bats' current echolocation systems weren't necessarily neutral mutations.

Quote:This is like saying, “Let’s start on a very long journey to… nowhere, for now. We’ll figure out where when we get there.” Would you embark on such a journey? “But the chemicals making up the DNA don’t think for themselves,” some very intelligent evolutionists might point out. “Those changes were purely accidental at first, and happened to lead the bat-to-be on the long evolutionary journey to the modern bat.”

No kiddin’! Just like that!

Yep.

Quote:How convenient that genetic accidents can occur when we need them the most

It isn't that they happen when we need them the most. They happen all the time. It's just that outside pressure means that the ones that we need the most flourish, whereas the others disappear.

Try again.

Quote:Suppose there were some accidental genetic changes in the DNA of the first bat-to-be. I’m not going to argue with that. But then, why would the intermediate generations between that one and the first real bat keep those useless (at that time!) changes in their tiny brains for millions of years?

Why wouldn't they? Assuming that the bat survived to pass on its DNA, the useless mutations would remain. As long as they didn't become harmful, they'd persist. You have to come up with some reason for it to disappear, tudor. It doesn't just magically vanish.

Quote:I don’t think there is an evolutionist who can answer that.

Which only goes to show how little you understand about evolution.

Quote:At this point it should be clear to everybody that the bat had this amazing echolocation system from day one, or–logic tells me–it should not have it at all.

Nope.

Quote:Change for the sake of change, maybe something good will come out of it later (the only way the echolocation system can be explained) and the claim that all the good changes were kept and perpetuated from generation to generation, while the bad ones were discarded are two very incongruous statements.

No, they aren't. The changes are random (not quite "for the sake of change"), but those which are "good" are kept while those that are "bad" die out. Those which are neutral might persist or vanish depending on whether or not they happen to end up being passed on with good or bad traits.

Quote:But what Darwinians don’t realize is that the very thing they use to explain their theory (the long time it took) is the exact thing that makes it illogical: since the alleged changes had no immediate impact on the intermediate species, there is no logical reason for those changes to have been diligently preserved for millions of years before they were good enough to provide a service.

Except that there's also no reason that they would necessarily have been lost.

Quote:He claims that feathers appeared as random genetic mutations on the scales of reptiles, which initially ended up being used (and thus preserved!) as body insulation. I mean, since they occurred and happened to be good at something, why not keep those changes for a few million years? Evolutionists badly needed a reason for those changes to be preserved and they found one! Later, over yet more millions of years, a series of even more amazing genetic mutations changed the feather-to-be into the real thing, and the fortunate animal that possessed it (the first bird) realized it could use it for flight.

Again, how convenient that genetic mutations can occur all of a sudden and give the much needed nudge to evolution! Where would we be without them today?

So you see some problem with this? Care to tell us what it is?

Quote:Probably few people realize it, but the theory of evolution is based entirely on those random genetic mutations that allegedly occurred in the millions of years of living, dying, fighting for survival and passing on your genes to the next generation.

Everyone realizes this, tudor. It's basic biology. Maybe it was news to you, but that's not all that surprising, really.

Quote:But what the scientists don’t eagerly tell us is why those genetic mutations seemed to have occurred only to “improve” the species. They let natural selection do the dirty job of burying the dead cat this time. They say, “The genetic mutations were numerous and completely random, which means some of them were good, while others were not so good. The animals that had beneficial mutations were able to survive longer and consequently mate more frequently than the ones that had useless mutations, and thus, in time through natural selection, only the good mutations endured.”

Incorrect. The ones who had good mutations mated more frequently than the ones who had actively harmful mutations. Neutral mutations have no impact on the suvivability of a species, and can persist for just as long as actively helpful ones.

Quote:What they actually mean is this:

I'd be cautious about saying "what they actually mean is this" if I were you, tudor.

Quote:Imagine animal X of a certain species finds itself to be a little different at birth from its mom and dad. In our beloved evolutionists’ terms, that baby animal has just been the “victim” of a genetic mutation. Because this is supposed to be a random change in the DNA (triggered by nobody knows what)

No, by known flaws in the DNA replication systems inherent in reproduction. It's hardly magic. It's perfectly well understood.

Quote:there is one chance in a million that animal X is better at surviving than his mom and dad. In the 999,999 cases the mutation is not constructive, animal X–according to the concept of natural selection–doesn’t get to mate and to pass on its “degraded” genes. It simply lives its anonymous life, dying without any contribution to the “evolution” of its species.

Uh, no.

Unless those 999,999 other times are actively harmful (and that's a staggeringly large figure, extremely exaggerated over what there actually would be), those 999,999 people will get to mate just fine. That one person, however, will pass on his positive mutation, and thus his slightly-superior children will have a slightly-higher chance of passing on their slightly-more-effective mutations (and this process continues with every generation, so the positives add up). Eventually the "stale" genes will be crowded out by more effective code, but it won't be for a long time unless some catastrophic outside influence steps in and wipes out everyone without that improved gene. It's a matter of statistics - huge sample sizes and huge amounts of repetition - rather than single instances.

Quote:Yet, there is something that doesn’t add up in this seemingly valid mechanism, something that actually refutes its validity: how significant would the genetic mutation have to be to insure that animal X will mate and have offspring while his peers–the ones that didn’t improve and are in direct competition with him in the evolutionary race–won’t?

You're still proposing a false dichotomy. Try again.

Quote:But wait, there’s a problem. It’s kinda hard to imagine something that was neither small nor big, neither tall nor short, neither gray nor yellow with orange spots, and had both hoofs and claws or something in between. Can you imagine the genetic mutations required by the “evolutionary process” to go from that prehistoric animal to the mouse and the giraffe? I can’t. That poor animal would have had too much evolving to do to pull it off.

Argumentum ad ignorantum again.

Quote:The mammal species are so amazingly diverse today that it is literally impossible to even imagine the first branch from which they all detached.

And again.

Quote:Unless somebody stops me, I’m going to pair up all the mammals in the world, to prove that they cannot have evolved from one single species.

Or to prove that you're going to beat the argument ad ignorantum dead horse until it's just a smear on the dirt, in any case.

Quote:For those of you who still believe evolution is a valid theory for our existence, I have very bad news: what I’ve told you so far is just the tip of the iceberg.

Oh no you guys he might have an entire ice cube under that speck what do we doooooo

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 03:19 PM
RE: A Message to Creationists
(29-03-2012 02:34 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  
(29-03-2012 02:22 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Please don't waste your time. You don't understand it.

Now I understand why the world is the way it is. Because it is filled with people like you who would do anything but see the truth.

Oh. So you can't defend your assertions, then. Well, at least you admit it.

(29-03-2012 02:34 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  I have nothing more to say to you, my friend, because I have the feeling that whatever I say you will come up with a much better explanation.

Yeah, I would. But that's not hard.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
29-03-2012, 03:26 PM (This post was last modified: 29-03-2012 03:31 PM by tudorthetutor.)
RE: A Message to Creationists
(29-03-2012 02:22 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Bats are nocturnal creatures. Because there is so little light available at night, they had to depend largely on their hearing to both find prey and to avoid predators. Thus, bats with better hearing were better able to do both of those things, and thus flourished. Over thousands of years, the average bat's hearing improved to the point that it could hear echoes from other noises. It's a natural consequence of having such sensitive ears. Echolocation isn't actually sight. It's just the ability to listen to a sound and figure out about how far away it is by intensity. Humans can do this as well. The only thing that bats have over us in this area is that their hearing is so much more sensitive, so they can detect smaller and smaller sounds - including echoes from other sounds made. So they make their own noises to listen to the echoes. There's nothing mysterious about it; it's just really, really powerful hearing.

On second though, I think you deserve a little correction for your arrogance. You think you have the answer to everything, and yet you write
Quote:So they make their own noises to listen to the echoes. There's nothing mysterious about it; it's just really, really powerful hearing.

If echolocation to you means just having very powerful hearing, then you don't really understand anything from this debate. With just very powerful hearing, the bat would be in serious trouble of starving to death. No bat would be able to catch prey and they would all die. Actually, they would not exist as a species.
I'll tell you what echolocation means, my friend, so that you can tell your children, and they can tell their children, and so on, so that your species of nonbelievers might have a clue about this phenomenon.
The hole process takes place in the brain of the bat, not in the ears. Their brain has something few other creatures have (dolphins have it too but in a different form, for example) and that something allows them to "see" with their ears. By the reflecting sounds they perceive, their brain makes an accurate map of the surroundings that is updated several times a second. In other words, my limited friend, the bat's brain has a software that does all those precise calculations in a split second allowing it to catch moths or other insects while they themselves are flying. Have you ever tried to catch a flying fly? You have sight, and can barely do that, while the bat does it with its eyes "closed" much better than you. And you have the audacity to tell me there's nothing mysterious about it; it's just really, really powerful hearing? What planet did you come from? The planet where insects fly in slow motion?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 03:29 PM
RE: A Message to Creationists
(29-03-2012 03:26 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  I'll tell you what echolocation means, my friend, so that you can tell your children, and they can tell their children, and so on, so that your species of nonbelievers might have a clue about this phenomenon.
The hole process takes place in the brain of the bat, not in the ears. Their brain has something few other creatures have (dolphins have it too but in a different form, for example) and that something allows them to "see" with their ears. By the reflecting sounds they perceive, their brain makes an accurate map of the surroundings that is updated several times a second.

Yes. Congratulations. Again, this is something that humans can do as well. It is just hearing. Your brain is interpreting the sounds - specifically, the intensity of them and the time it takes for them to reach your ears - and thus builds a mental map of where they are located. Bats have much more of their brains dedicated to this than humans do, but it's still the same principle.

Or have you not heard of human echolocation?

(29-03-2012 03:26 PM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  In other words, my limited friend, the bat's brain has a software that does all those precise calculations in a split second allowing it to catch moths or other insects while they themselves are flying. Have you ever tried to catch a flying fly? You have sight, and can barely do that, while the bat does it with its eyes closed much better than you. And you have the audacity to tell me there's nothing mysterious about it; it's just really, really powerful hearing? What planet did you come from? The planet where insects move in slow motion?

Yes, I do have that "audacity", because it's true. It's extremely powerful, extremely sophisticated hearing, but it is just hearing.

But you don't have to take my word for it. Here you are.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 03:39 PM (This post was last modified: 29-03-2012 03:55 PM by germanyt.)
RE: A Message to Creationists
(29-03-2012 05:00 AM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  Alright. So you've got a better magnifying glass. Care to share it or you gonna hog it all to yourself? Or is this the point where you tell me I'm too stupid to use it?


I am currently working on posting my "zooming device" on a blog. There are several parts to it with more parts to come. You are all welcome to read it if you really want to know the truth. Not my truth, but the truth, which unfortunately is not what you guys think. I'm not saying this to offend you, just to inform you. Go ahead and read what I wrote and draw your own conclusions.

The blog is http://tudorthetutor.blogspot.com/

PS. If you really don't want to change your conviction about "evolution" don't read by blog!
I'm gonna go smoke first but I'll be back to pick apart your webpage. Tongue My hunch is that everything you think you know about thermodynamics, molecular biology, and Darwin was learned from ID, creationist, or Christian sources.

edit. I read about half and scanned the rest. Most if not all of it is speculation based on lack of knowledge. You presented no facts, only anecdotal evidence. I'm not going to address each item because, quite frankly, I don't have the time before I clock out from work. I don't mean this to sound insulting but you really don't seem to understand evolution and are nitpicking things you can't explain or don't understand in order to take down a theory that hundreds of phds have developed and contributed to. Many of whom are theists.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 03:43 PM
RE: A Message to Creationists
(29-03-2012 03:39 PM)germanyt Wrote:  I'm gonna go smoke first but I'll be back to pick apart your webpage. Tongue My hunch is that everything you think you know about thermodynamics, molecular biology, and Darwin was learned from ID, creationist, or Christian sources.
Be careful not to cut yourself in the sharp contrast between fact and fiction! Enjoy your reading!
Your hunch is wrong. I thought them up myself, after being taught by someone else much smarter than me, of course.Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: