From: http://webexhibits.org/causesofcolor/15.html
"Each scale is about 70x200 痠, and is covered with thin parallel
veins. The veins are much like ridges on a vinyl record. There are
about 1,800 veins per millimeter. The texture forms a reflection
grating. The veins are made of stacked chitine-lamellas kept
equidistant by fine braces. On the underside, the slits on the scales
are 160 nm apart, which is not a multiple of half the wavelength of
visible, and thus do not cause interference."
We added that even if by chance a butterfly acquired these scales
(which just happen to reflect the right wavelength to cause visible
colors), there is no evolutionary reason that all butterflies would
possess the exact same wing structure. In other words, blind natural
selection would tend to produce many many varieties of surviving
species, some more successful than others, rather than species that are
exactly alike in structure.
My father is not convinced that there is not a non-designer
evolutionary answer for this situation. Is there?
Mike E.
You would be wrong. ID Creationism is just a doctrine that has nothing
to do with the history of life on earth. Theistic evolution has the
advantage of actually accepting the discoveries of science.
>From: http://webexhibits.org/causesofcolor/15.html
>"Each scale is about 70x200 痠, and is covered with thin parallel
>veins. The veins are much like ridges on a vinyl record. There are
>about 1,800 veins per millimeter. The texture forms a reflection
>grating. The veins are made of stacked chitine-lamellas kept
>equidistant by fine braces. On the underside, the slits on the scales
>are 160 nm apart, which is not a multiple of half the wavelength of
>visible, and thus do not cause interference."
>
>We added that even if by chance a butterfly acquired these scales
>(which just happen to reflect the right wavelength to cause visible
>colors), there is no evolutionary reason that all butterflies would
>possess the exact same wing structure.
They don't. They certainly share a wide variety of characteristics, but
there are many different species of butterfly.
> In other words, blind natural
>selection would tend to produce many many varieties of surviving
>species,
There are.
>some more successful than others,
There are.
>rather than species that are
>exactly alike in structure.
There are not. Not only do butterflies vary by species, but moths, very
closely related, have even more differences in their presentation.
>My father is not convinced that there is not a non-designer
>evolutionary answer for this situation. Is there?
You seem to be confusing two different causations, one, the actual
physical structure of butterfly wings that allows varying colors in some
of them and the development of those wings. The actual result, as with
everything living in nature, is the filtered result of lots of tests. No
designer is necessary.
If I gave you a copy of the SAT and made you take it over and over, but
let you start with most of the right answers each time, do you think you
could manage to get a perfect score, even if you were guessing all the
time?
-- Steven J.
How is it that you and your wife are actually less educated than your
father?
> pointed out to him that butterflies' colors
> are caused by intricantly designed scales that reflect the light rather
> than by pigment. We say there is no way to evolve these (as described
> below) by natural causes.
And why would you say that?
> From: http://webexhibits.org/causesofcolor/15.html
> "Each scale is about 70x200 痠, and is covered with thin parallel
> veins. The veins are much like ridges on a vinyl record. There are
> about 1,800 veins per millimeter. The texture forms a reflection
> grating. The veins are made of stacked chitine-lamellas kept
> equidistant by fine braces. On the underside, the slits on the scales
> are 160 nm apart, which is not a multiple of half the wavelength of
> visible, and thus do not cause interference."
>
OK, yes. This is a general description of the general way in which the
non-pigment color is formed. What says "creation" about this to you?
> We added that even if by chance a butterfly acquired these scales
> (which just happen to reflect the right wavelength to cause visible
> colors),
Butterflies did not "acquire the scales by chance", of course. Like many
patterns in plants and animals, they are usually the result of minor
modifications of a relatively simple body plan segment, repeated through
development. Ones which are more successful are propagated through the
species and positively selected for.
> there is no evolutionary reason that all butterflies would
> possess the exact same wing structure.
Well, they do not. This appears to be one of your several misconceptions.
Butterfly scale color and shape vary considerably even within the same
butterfly, almost certainly as aerodynamic adaptations primarily
(secondarily as sexual attractants and identifiers, and possibly camoflage).
For example, rectangular scales may be found towards the center, and longer
hairlike scales towards the edge of the wing. Different species have very
different scale patterns.
http://newton.ex.ac.uk/research/emag/butterflies/iridesc-text.htm
> In other words, blind natural
> selection would tend to produce many many varieties of surviving
> species,
There *are* many varieties of surviving species, with different adaptations
to their particular ecological niches. In fact, reflective multilayer
structures are not shown in all the Lepidoptera. Another type of reflective
structure is comprised of a mesh of cuticle with regular, circular holes,
which predispose the material to scattering light in a particular direction,
and may create a greater consistency of color over the whole wing.
> some more successful than others, rather than species that are
> exactly alike in structure.
Yes, that is what we observe.
Even if this were the case, which it's not, why would you think that some
sort of creator were required for that? It could simply have been a matter
of more recent divergence from a common ancestor. If, for example, the
common ancestor of all living butterflies had lived only a relatively short
time ago, one would expect many features to be alike. Over time, one would
expect increasing divergence and specialization (as we observe).
> My father is not convinced that there is not a non-designer
> evolutionary answer for this situation. Is there?
>
> Mike E.
Of course there is. What I do not understand is why you would even expect
there to be an answer to this question that requires a designer. There does
not seem to be any characteristic of butterflies (including the ones you
mentioned) that even suggest a designer might be required for them. Can you
explain that?
This is silly. If butterfly colors were caused by pigment. you would
say *that* proves you are correct because only gods can create
pigments. Etc., etc.
-- Mike Palmer
That seems to be a rather curious statement. Why not butterfly scales?
> From: http://webexhibits.org/causesofcolor/15.html
> "Each scale is about 70x200 痠, and is covered with thin parallel
> veins. The veins are much like ridges on a vinyl record. There are
> about 1,800 veins per millimeter. The texture forms a reflection
> grating. The veins are made of stacked chitine-lamellas kept
> equidistant by fine braces. On the underside, the slits on the scales
> are 160 nm apart, which is not a multiple of half the wavelength of
> visible, and thus do not cause interference."
>
> We added that even if by chance a butterfly acquired these scales
It didn't obtain them "by chance". They obtained them from descent
with modification, or evolution.
> (which just happen to reflect the right wavelength to cause visible
> colors), there is no evolutionary reason that all butterflies would
> possess the exact same wing structure.
The term you are looking for is "common descent".
> In other words, blind natural
> selection would tend to produce many many varieties of surviving
> species, some more successful than others, rather than species that are
> exactly alike in structure.
What makes you think that they are exactly alike in structure?
> My father is not convinced that there is not a non-designer
> evolutionary answer for this situation. Is there?
There are two too many negatives in that sentence, but yes, there are
evolutionary answers for the development of butterfly wings.
> Mike E.
>
>
Mike Ebbers replies:
Hi Mark. My father has an BA and an MDiv. I have a BA, while my wife
has one year of college. Neither she nor I wanted more education than
that, so we are indeed less educated than he. However, I am educated
enough to know that you inserted the word "actually" in your sentence
for a reason. My educated father could probably tell me why you did.
Or maybe you would explain?
Mike originally wrote:
We pointed out to him that butterflies' colors are caused by
intricately designed scales that reflect the light rather than by
pigment. We say there is no way to evolve these by natural causes.
Mark asked:
And why would you say that?
Mike originally included this description to indicate why he would say
this. A scaling structure that meets these specifications would be
impossible to have evolved. There are no mutations or survival
characteristics indicated.
> From: http://webexhibits.org/causesofcolor/15.html
> "Each scale is about 70x200 痠, and is covered with thin parallel
> veins. The veins are much like ridges on a vinyl record. There are
> about 1,800 veins per millimeter. The texture forms a reflection
> grating. The veins are made of stacked chitine-lamellas kept
> equidistant by fine braces. On the underside, the slits on the scales
> are 160 nm apart, which is not a multiple of half the wavelength of
> visible, and thus do not cause interference."
Mike adds:
One of the amazing things about these specifications is that the scales
are created to reflect light in terms of colors, not just glare. And
the slits are spaced so as not to cause interference. Assuming that
these evolved, would we not see many butterflies without these
characteristics and just a few or just one with these desireable
characteristics? But we don't see any butterflies today that are not
suited, in this and other ways, to their environment.
Mark originally included this answer to indicate why he would say that
the scales evolved:
Butterflies did not "acquire the scales by chance", of course. Like
many patterns in plants and animals, they are usually the result of
minor modifications of a relatively simple body plan segment, repeated
through development. Ones which are more successful are propagated
through the species and positively selected for.
Mike observes:
This sounds really simple, and in high school I believed it. But now
that I am a college graduate, I need a little more scientific proof
that this happened. Have you yourself, Mark, seen this happen? Or
have you done experiments that would satisfy you that this does happen?
If so, let me know your website or publications. If not, perhaps you
are believing what someone else told you. If that is the case, then I
feel that I need to read something by the person who actually saw this
happen. You don't blame me for that, of course. Can you suggest a
site I can read about this first-hand?
Mark wrote:
What I do not understand is why you would even expect there to be an
answer to this question that requires a designer. There does not seem
to be any characteristic of butterflies (including the ones you
mentioned) that even suggest a designer might be required for them. Can
you explain that?
Mike replies:
Mark, this sounds more like a debate using logic than science. Every
time I try to use reason and logic with my dad, he is not satisfied.
He wants a scientific explanation for what I believe. (I haven't been
given a scientific explanation for what he believes, but he's the dad,
so first things first.)
Sincerely,
Mike Ebbers
BTW, my understanding is that about 90% of Americans believe in God and
creation of some kind. I hear that about 50% of Americans believe in
creation as the Bible describes it. I find it hard to believe that
these 50-90% of Americans are the uneducated, while the unbelieving 10%
are the educated and enlightened. I also hear that about 40% of
scientists believe in God (slightly under the 50-90% but still a
sizeable percentage of (hopefully) very well educated people.
Of course there are mutations and survival characteristics involved.
Genes control the development of butterfly wings during metamorphosis.
Mutations may occur in these genes. These mutations may affect
survival.
> > From: http://webexhibits.org/causesofcolor/15.html
> > "Each scale is about 70x200 痠, and is covered with thin parallel
> > veins. The veins are much like ridges on a vinyl record. There are
> > about 1,800 veins per millimeter. The texture forms a reflection
> > grating. The veins are made of stacked chitine-lamellas kept
> > equidistant by fine braces. On the underside, the slits on the scales
> > are 160 nm apart, which is not a multiple of half the wavelength of
> > visible, and thus do not cause interference."
>
> Mike adds:
> One of the amazing things about these specifications is that the scales
> are created to reflect light in terms of colors, not just glare. And
> the slits are spaced so as not to cause interference. Assuming that
> these evolved, would we not see many butterflies without these
> characteristics and just a few or just one with these desireable
> characteristics? But we don't see any butterflies today that are not
> suited, in this and other ways, to their environment.
Right, because butterflies that are badly suited to their environment
don't survive and leave descendants. So survival characteristics *are*
involved.
But we do see butterflies and related species without bright colors
(many of them are called moths). How do you explain them in terms of a
designer? And are you familiar with caddisflies (Trichoptera)? Why is
it that these insects resemble butterflies in many ways, but have hairs
on their wings instead of scales? Were they a first draft?
-- w.
See:
Bristles to Butterflies
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1998/623/2
"The similar early developmental patterns of butterfly scales and fruit
fly bristles are a strong hint that the two structures are related. To
establish the evolutionary relationship, geneticist Sean Carroll and
his collaborators at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and
Washington University in St. Louis set out to probe the masterminding
genes in action.
First off, the team searched the genome of Precis coenia butterflies
for sequences similar to the achaete-scute (AS-C) genes that guide
bristle development in Drosophila fruit flies. Once the researchers had
found a similar gene, dubbed AS-C homolog-1, they checked where it was
expressed in developing butterfly embryos and larvae. It turned out
that until the larvae entered the pupal stage, the butterfly gene was
turned on in a pattern similar to that of the bristle genes in
Drosophila, implying that the genes have similar functions during early
development and that they therefore likely came from the same ancestor.
During pupation, however, the butterfly gene was turned on in what
became the scale-forming cells, while in flies the bristle genes go on
to form bristles.
Carroll's team proposes that a common ancestor of flies and butterflies
may have had functioning bristles that over time lost their connection
to the nervous system, spread to cover the wings, and mutated into
scales. As further evidence, they note that caddisflies--a close
relative of butterflies--have wings covered by nonsensory bristles."
-- w.
As is pointed out above, butterfly scales are related to other cuticle
structures in insects. Unfortunately the site mentioned requires
registration. The closest I could find for free is "Structure of
butterfly scales: patterning in an insect cuticle."
Structural color, the kind produced by light interference or
diffraction rather than by pigments, is also a widespread phenomenon
in insect cuticle. Many insects use this kind of pattern to produce
colors. It is also found in many bird feathers (Newton knew about
interference color in peacock feathers) and even in some plants.
So neither the production of scales nor the production of structural
color is an unusual phenomenon in biology. They are not that hard to
produce by mutation and selection from pre-existing structures and
forms.
Well, the reason should be obvious. Given that the available scientific
knowledge and thus educational standards have increased in the years between
the time your father went to school and the time that you went to school, it
is a bit surprising that you actually learned less than he did.
>
> Mike originally wrote:
> We pointed out to him that butterflies' colors are caused by
> intricately designed scales
Actually, there is no evidence that the scales are "designed", unless you
would like to post it here. The scales, as I pointed out in my previous post
(but you dishonestly snipped) are just layers of epithelial cells in a
regular pattern, a modification of similar patterns found in related
organisms.
> that reflect the light rather than by
> pigment. We say there is no way to evolve these by natural causes.
>
> Mark asked:
> And why would you say that?
>
> Mike originally included this description to indicate why he would say
> this.
No, he did not. I ask again, why does he say there is no way to evolve
particularly arranged layers of epithelial cells by natural causes?
> A scaling structure that meets these specifications would be
> impossible to have evolved.
Yes, you said that and yet you have given absolutely no reasoning to support
this assertion.
> There are no mutations or survival
> characteristics indicated.
Certainly there are. The genes that control the development of the wings are
known (Notch, Wnt, UBX, Hox-type, etc.) - though the precise function of
each in developing these precise patterns in butterflies may or may not have
been precisely studied yet. These are the source of "mutations" you ask for.
The survival characteristics were well described in the reference I
helpfully included for you, but you dishonestly snipped out.
http://newton.ex.ac.uk/research/emag/butterflies/iridesc-text.htm
The scales have different shapes that modify the aerodynamic qualities of
the wing. The particular construction of some wings produces the iridescent
patterns that have become recognition characteristics (for sexual
reproduction). Some have also developed such that they act as camoflage,
etc. It is obvious how flight, sexual selection, and defense from predation
are all survival characteristics.
>> From: http://webexhibits.org/causesofcolor/15.html
>> "Each scale is about 70x200 ľm, and is covered with thin parallel
>> veins. The veins are much like ridges on a vinyl record. There are
>> about 1,800 veins per millimeter. The texture forms a reflection
>> grating. The veins are made of stacked chitine-lamellas kept
>> equidistant by fine braces. On the underside, the slits on the scales
>> are 160 nm apart, which is not a multiple of half the wavelength of
>> visible, and thus do not cause interference."
>
> Mike adds:
> One of the amazing things about these specifications is that the scales
> are created to reflect light in terms of colors, not just glare.
The scales are iridescent because their size allows particular wavelengths
of light to pass. All that is required is a regular pattern; interesting but
certainly no more suggestive of a "creator" than any other type of
epithelial covering, fur, etc.
> And
> the slits are spaced so as not to cause interference. Assuming that
> these evolved, would we not see many butterflies without these
> characteristics and just a few or just one with these desireable
> characteristics? But we don't see any butterflies today that are not
> suited, in this and other ways, to their environment.
And I replied (and you dishonestly snipped):
There *are* many varieties of surviving species, with different adaptations
to their particular ecological niches. In fact, reflective multilayer
structures are not shown in all the Lepidoptera. Another type of reflective
structure is comprised of a mesh of cuticle with regular, circular holes,
which predispose the material to scattering light in a particular direction,
and may create a greater consistency of color over the whole wing.
Of course we do not see butterfiles that are not suited to their
environment, because natural selection eliminates them.
>
> Mark originally included this answer to indicate why he would say that
> the scales evolved:
> Butterflies did not "acquire the scales by chance", of course. Like
> many patterns in plants and animals, they are usually the result of
> minor modifications of a relatively simple body plan segment, repeated
> through development. Ones which are more successful are propagated
> through the species and positively selected for.
>
> Mike observes:
> This sounds really simple, and in high school I believed it. But now
> that I am a college graduate, I need a little more scientific proof
> that this happened.
Excellent. You should start by reading the references in the paper I
included above. Those papers themselves have further references. The entire
evolutionary history of Lepidoptera is not something I am getting into here.
> Have you yourself, Mark, seen this happen?
Not in butterflies, but I have observed and manipulated (and worked with
others who manipulate) similar processes in drosophila. I usually work in
mice and in cell culture systems personally.
> Or
> have you done experiments that would satisfy you that this does happen?
Yes.
> If so, let me know your website or publications.
You can do a pubmed search with my name and 'notch' for some info on my work
on the role of Notch signaling in evolution; this pathway is involved in
making wings and such. However, this particular pathway in butterflies is
not my area of concentration so I suggest you start with some of the
Lepidoptera-specific literature.
> If not, perhaps you
> are believing what someone else told you.
Of course, I am in part believing what others have studied and published
because no one can perform every experiment himself. However, the results
are available for anyone to see and understand. Perhaps you, with only a
limited education, need the results explained to you better?
> If that is the case, then I
> feel that I need to read something by the person who actually saw this
> happen. You don't blame me for that, of course. Can you suggest a
> site I can read about this first-hand?
Absolutely!
http://flutterby.bio.buffalo.edu/monteiro-pdfs/TREE2002.pdf
Development and evolution on the wing
WO McMillan, DD Kapan - Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2002
Ultrabithorax function in butterfly wings and the evolution of insect wing
patterns
SD Weatherbee, HF Nijhout, LW Grunert, G Halder, R . - Curr. Biol, 1999
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VRT-3Y2N4BY-41&_coverDate=02%2F11%2F1999&_alid=461217650&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=6243&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000002898&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=27541&md5=ed3523e88c4a4e56cb98aa205b65d42b
Grimaldi, D, and MS Engel, 2005. Evolution of the Insects. Cambridge
University Press.
Kristensen, NP (Ed.). 1999. Lepidoptera, Moths and Butterflies. Volume 1:
Evolution, Systematics, and Biogeography. Handbuch der Zoologie. Eine
Naturgeschichte der Stämme des Tierreiches / Handbook of Zoology. A Natural
History of the phyla of the Animal Kingdom. Band / Volume IV Arthropoda:
Insecta Teilband / Part 35: 491 pp. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, New York.
>
> Mark wrote:
> What I do not understand is why you would even expect there to be an
> answer to this question that requires a designer. There does not seem
> to be any characteristic of butterflies (including the ones you
> mentioned) that even suggest a designer might be required for them. Can
> you explain that?
>
> Mike replies:
> Mark, this sounds more like a debate using logic than science.
No, I want your scientific evidence which indicates that some part of the
butterfly (or, frankly, anything else) was designed. Note that I am not
asking for your explanation of why you don't understand how something could
have evolved; what is required for you to make your point is some sort of
positive indication of design, which can be observed (at least) and studied.
> Every
> time I try to use reason and logic with my dad, he is not satisfied.
Presumably, your reason and logic are faulty then.
> He wants a scientific explanation for what I believe. (I haven't been
> given a scientific explanation for what he believes, but he's the dad,
> so first things first.)
If you read the references I've supplied, you will find they essentially
support what appears to be his position with extensive observation and
specific experiments.
>
> Sincerely,
> Mike Ebbers
>
> BTW, my understanding is that about 90% of Americans believe in God and
> creation of some kind. I hear that about 50% of Americans believe in
> creation as the Bible describes it. I find it hard to believe that
> these 50-90% of Americans are the uneducated, while the unbelieving 10%
> are the educated and enlightened.
Why do you find that hard to believe? That is, actually, what one would
expect. There are fewer and fewer people as you progress to higher levels of
education. What percentage of Americans hold a PhD in a scientific
discipline?
> I also hear that about 40% of
> scientists believe in God (slightly under the 50-90% but still a
> sizeable percentage of (hopefully) very well educated people.
Many scientists do believe in some kind of god. Virtually none believe in
any kind of specific creation of biological organisms as you apparently do.
You should consider why that might be.
Whoops. I quoted most of it though, and they are referring to this
article (which is probably restricted too):
Galant, R., J. B. Skeath, S. Paddock, David L. Lewis and S.B. Carroll
(1998) Expression of an achaete-scute homolog during butterfly scale
development reveals the homology of insect scales and sensory bristles.
Current Biology,8:807-813
> Structural color, the kind produced by light interference or
> diffraction rather than by pigments, is also a widespread phenomenon
> in insect cuticle.
The designer must be inordinately fond of all those shiny flies as well
as beetles.
-- w.
And let's not forget mother-of-pearl....
Ken
>
> -- w.
Oh, that was obviously designed for the enjoyment of humans. The reason
it appeared hundreds of millions of years before humans inside smelly
molluscs was probably just bad logistics or something.
-- w.
Not to mention that the opalescence is usually on the inside of the
shell where nobody including the mollusc inhabiting the shell can see
it.
There can be only one conclusion: it is obviously for the enjoyment of
hermit crabs.
You know, I started with three hypotheses to pick from about this
guy:
- He is a troll.
- He is a DI 'researcher' doing a little 'test-marketing'.
- It is a clever promo for Sean Carroll's last book.
Hmmm. But perhaps the guy really *is* confused. But it is really
hard for me to conceive of a guy who is so stupid as to think that
the scale structure on butterfly wings is something that evolved
*after* there were already lots of species of butterfly. Rather
than something that evolved once in the ancestral butterfly and
hence is evidence *for* the ToE. Or someone who doesn't even read
deeply enough into the web site he is quoting to learn that beetle
colors are produced using the same kind of interference patterns
due to thicknesses and spacings of scales.
maybe another species evolved earlier, ate the shiny mollusc and died
out from bad clams ?
"Mike E" <mik...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159933271.9...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> My 80 year old father is a believer in theistic evolution. My wife and
> I (believers in creation) pointed out to him that butterflies' colors
> are caused by intricantly designed scales that reflect the light rather
> than by pigment. We say there is no way to evolve these (as described
> below) by natural causes.
Interesting "theory", but you know the World Wide Web is a marvelous piece
of work. Search engines like Google make the acquiring of knowledge
appallingly easy compared to any time or place in the past. As a result of
your post, I wondered what was the nature of pigmentation in insects in
general, since chitin would seem to lend itself better than any other animal
covering to diffractive coloring. But before I found anything definitive
about that I found this about butterflies.
http://www.duke.edu/~reed/research.html
Many of the colors we perceive in butterfly wings are due to pigments.
Several classes of pigments are found in butterfly wings including melanins,
pterins, papiliochromes, and ommochromes. My current work is focused
primarily on the ommochrome pigments - tryptophan-derived molecules that
typically appear orange or red. Ommochromes are utilized throughout the
insects as eye pigments, but have gained a novel function in wing coloration
in brush-footed butterflies (Nymphalidae). These pigments provide a nice
model for exploring how a complex biochemical process may be redeployed
during evolution in a novel developmental context. I am studying the
regulation of genes encoding transporters and enzymes required for
ommochrome synthesis, and working to determine how the regulation of
ommochrome genes is modulated by adaptive color pattern "switch genes" in
polymorphic Heliconius butterflies.
Second the nomination
Not in the least, Desertphile.
Let me clarify my question. My wife and I can believe, from genetic
experiments, that various cells or even body parts have enough
information to adapt to environmental situations (finches' beaks).
What we don't believe is that the first butterfly could evolve from
some other organism and possess unique scales that do such a perfect
job of reflecting light waves that they all appear as colors rather
than just glare (or a mix of colors and glare). A resource or link
that describes the scientific findings of how the first butterfly
scales evolved would be helpful here and why they are all perfect in
their function.
For those who have no doubt that this did happen, I have another
question. Are we seeing evolution today (in butterflies or in
anything)? Not adaptation as has been described in this thread, but
actual morphing of one life form or species to another. I realize that
some believe that there is punctuated equilibrium, where morphing
happens so fast that no fossils can be found. But for those who don't
use that explanation, but feel that time and chance and natural
selection can make excellent decisions in the long haul, wouldn't there
be millions of failed morphs around (that will not survive) for every
speciman that morphed into something that works very well and has
become one of the fittest?
Sincerely,
Mike
Others will say this.....your understanding of evolution is just
wrong....I was going to say that what you think happens is a cartoon
version of what really happens, but that would be too kind.
You have been victimized by the creationist propaganda machine.....read
some quality material about biology and evolution and you will see
[hopefully] where you are going horribly wrong.
Ken
>
> Sincerely,
> Mike
Mike apologizes:
Mark,
I am sorry that my snipping came across as dishonesty. I am used to
including only comments that I am answering in a post and snipping the
rest, out of courtesy to the reader. Plus anyone interested can scan
the entire thread and see each post in its entirety. However, I see
that this listgroup has a condensing feature to show or hide text, that
I could have used if I had known.
Mike wrote:
BTW, my understanding is that about 90% of Americans believe in God and
creation of some kind. I hear that about 50% of Americans believe in
creation as the Bible describes it. I find it hard to believe that
these 50-90% of Americans are the uneducated, while the unbelieving 10%
are the educated and enlightened.
Mark replied:
Why do you find that hard to believe? That is, actually, what one would
expect. There are fewer and fewer people as you progress to higher
levels of education. What percentage of Americans hold a PhD in a
scientific discipline?
Mike wonders:
So can we can apply that logic in other ways?
- The top military minds of the United States and Britain studied Iraq
for 12 years and decided to attack. The ensuing protests from a large
number of citizens of these and other countries are uneducated and
uninformed.
- Some of the premier historians with PhDs have decided that the
holocaust did not really happen.
- Some of the highest-ranking sociologists with PhDs have decided that
mercy killings of all kinds are ethically and morally sound practices
(except when it comes to their mothers)
- Most or all of the highest educated theologians with multiple
doctorates believe in God. Who are we less educated people to disagree
with them?
Since absolute power corrupts, the people at the top have to be watched
closely to ensure that they don't use that power for their own
self-centered reasons.
Mike added:
I also hear that about 40% of scientists believe in God (slightly under
the 50-90% but still a
sizeable percentage of (hopefully) very well educated people.
Mark replied:
Many scientists do believe in some kind of god. Virtually none believe
in any kind of specific creation of biological organisms as you
apparently do. You should consider why that might be.
Mike disagrees:
Since I know a number of degreed scientists and teachers who do believe
in God and in creation by him, I don't buy your "virtually none" fact.
If I were able to research a number that would show that a sizeable
number of degreed scientists believe in creation, would you be
interested? Probably not, since the accuracy of creation/evolution is
not a voting matter. But I'm willing to check it out.
Sincerely,
Mike
<snip>
> For those who have no doubt that this did happen, I have another
> question. Are we seeing evolution today (in butterflies or in
> anything)? Not adaptation as has been described in this thread, but
> actual morphing of one life form or species to another. I realize that
> some believe that there is punctuated equilibrium, where morphing
> happens so fast that no fossils can be found.
I am curious about what you mean by 'morphing'. Could you tell me what
you mean by this?
I ask because other creationists have used the term 'morph' in various
ways, one of which is essentially 'dog giving birth to cat' in one, or
a very few, generation(s).
> But for those who don't
> use that explanation, but feel that time and chance and natural
> selection can make excellent decisions
It is not postulated that evolution makes 'decisions' in the sense of
stroking its (nonexistent) chin and deliberately making a choice. It is
postulated that some variants of a living species will produce more
offspring that themselves have offspring than other variant; but this
is not thought to be teleological, but rather contingent on events in
the living environment at the time. A variant which would have been
wildly successful during the next ice age may well die out in a few
generations if it is not well suited for the present interglacial
environment.
And, of course, you need to add 'mutations' to you schema. Evolution
works on existing structures, so there has to be (and, wonderfully!,
is) a source of novelty to work with.
> in the long haul, wouldn't there
> be millions of failed morphs around (that will not survive) for every
> speciman that morphed into something that works very well and has
> become one of the fittest?
Evolution doesn't happen with individuals, but rather with populations.
The 'morphs' (accepting for the moment that you mean 'variants', not
'monsters') of a species existing at one time are not generally
'successes' or 'failures'. They generally show an often very, very
slight tendency to differential reproductive success. IOW, it's a
matter of one 'morph' set having somewhat more offspring that
themselves survive to have offspring of their own than another, rather
than one 'morph' surviving and another 'morph' dying out toot sweet.
I have to respond....individuals do not evolve [as you seem to imply],
populations do. The individuals have to play the cards they are already
dealt. If the environment changes, then some previously *fit*
individuals will find that they are now less fit...and some previously
less fit individuals may find that they are now the more fit.....and
the alleles in the population change in frequency over the generations.
> What we don't believe is that the first butterfly could evolve from
> some other organism and possess unique scales that do such a perfect
> job of reflecting light waves that they all appear as colors rather
> than just glare (or a mix of colors and glare).
You have not said why you believe this. Once scales are capable of
relfectling and refracting light....by chance....if there is a
reproductive benefit to those butterflies that do the just just a tiny
bit better than others....then they will pass more of their genes to
the next generation.
> A resource or link
> that describes the scientific findings of how the first butterfly
> scales evolved would be helpful here and why they are all perfect in
> their function.
>
> For those who have no doubt that this did happen, I have another
> question. Are we seeing evolution today (in butterflies or in
> anything)?
It happens today as it always has.
> Not adaptation as has been described in this thread, but
> actual morphing of one life form or species to another.
This is the cartoon version I was alluding to.....this never
happens....the changes are small and gradual in the timescale of human
lives and history.
> I realize that
> some believe that there is punctuated equilibrium, where morphing
> happens so fast that no fossils can be found.
Again....you do no understand what happens....even *fast* evolution
takes many, many generations and timescales in tens of thousands of
years.
> Not in the least, Desertphile.
Please let me clarity my query then. Color from objects is caused by
photons striking a surface and some of the wavelengths being absorbed
and others being reflected; the reflected light registers upon the eye,
with the absorbed spectrums having been filtered out. Ergo "pigment"
and "reflected light" are the same thing. Your query was along the
lines of arguing an orange isn't a fruit because it is citrus.
Also, in talk.origins it is rather common for people to post trick
questions out of fun.
> Let me clarify my question. My wife and I can believe, from genetic
> experiments, that various cells or even body parts have enough
> information to adapt to environmental situations (finches' beaks).
That is certainly what one observes, though "information" is
meaningless in that context.
> What we don't believe is that the first butterfly could evolve from
> some other organism and possess unique scales that do such a perfect
> job of reflecting light waves that they all appear as colors rather
> than just glare (or a mix of colors and glare).
Well let's see. At the moment, evolution is the only known hypothesis
that explains butterflies, so I for one cannot help you find any other
explanation.
Chiefly, your lack of "belief" also applies to Earth's atmosphere. It
does a perfect job of turning yellow light into blue, via nitrogen
refraction ("scattering"). Last night's sunset had a very fine gold,
red, burnt umber, and burgundy: am I to believe the atmosphere is not
responsible for "perfectly reflecting" the non-gold, non-red, non-burnt
umber, and non-burgundy in the sun's yellow light?
> A resource or link
> that describes the scientific findings of how the first butterfly
> scales evolved would be helpful here and why they are all perfect in
> their function.
"Perfect," however, does not apply. "Adequate" is the word. However, I
have no idea how butterflies evolved.
You somehow have the impression that the "first" butterfly must have
had perfectly formed scales along with complex and brilliant color
patterns. As others have already pointed out, there are a large
number of insects that fly perfectly well without scales and there are
a large number of insects with scaly wings that do not produce
brilliant colors. The form of the scales you talk about was the
result of a very long period of evolutionary development. It was not
necessary to evolve the whole thing at one go for the first butterfly.
Second, you don't appreciate the distinction and the relation between
microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolutionary processes that
you dismiss as "mere adaptation" are truly evolutionary processes.
You deny macroevolution which involves processes like the development
of complex body forms and "novel characters" and such. No, we do not
see that unfolding in front of us as we watch but there is such an
enormity of evidence for the process, from a comparison of modern
forms, from the fossil record, from the analysis of gene sequences,
that there is no doubt that it occurs whether or not you believe it.
And the evidence also indicates the pace at which macroevolution
occurs to show why we do not see it as an everyday event.
It has excellent information, but please, please take a moment to
examine someone's posting history before accusing them of dishonesty.
MikeE was _not_ a name I recognized, and just s moment's worth of
looking showed that this bit about butterflies was indeed his very
first post- not just to talk.origins, but anywhere on USENET.
He came here with a legitimate question, and has been polite throughout
the exchange. I don't think he's dishonest; I think he isn't familiar
with t.o. etiquette. Give the guy the benefit of the doubt before
accusing him of dishonesty, please. At least take a moment to explain
_why_ those rules evolved.
Chris
Howdy Mike. I would like to comment on your comment below, snipping
other portions I am not in any way informed about.
> BTW, my understanding is that about 90% of Americans believe in God and
> creation of some kind. I hear that about 50% of Americans believe in
> creation as the Bible describes it. I find it hard to believe that
> these 50-90% of Americans are the uneducated, while the unbelieving 10%
> are the educated and enlightened.
But that is the case in almost every area of human knowledge. How well
can you perform sum-over-histories calculations with the calculus? I
for one could not do it to save my life: hell, I do not even know what
it MEANS, and could not explain what it means to save my life (or even,
a much better prize, to win a free pizza).
How many people know why the electron has the charge it does, and how
it interacts with other sub-atomic particles and fields? I dare say
some "50-90% of Americans" cannot answer the question, but a few per
cent can.
You said you find it hard to believe that a small portion of a human
population is better educated than the greater portion. Frankly, I
cannot imagine how anyone can find that difficult to believe. I have no
idea at all what a pericardium and a pericranium are and how they
"work," but I'm quite sure most general practitioner physcians do know:
must I find it "hard to believe" they are better educated and informed
than I?
I can ride a horse, rope throw and brand a calf, doctor a cow, and
round up strays: I suspect the large majority of Americans cannot (and
certainly would not if given the choice). Do you find it hard to
believe I can do these things?
Er, what else? Oh. I have sailed single-handed in a 30-foot sloop from
California to Hawaii', twice. Less than 10% of Americans, I suspect,
cannot do so.
It is in no way surprising to observe that a small portion of the USA
population understand how evolution works (and more importantly, what
evolution is not and how it does not work).
Several years ago there was a survey of Harvard University graduates
who, upon leaving the University, were asked why summer is hotter than
winter; a bit over half could not answer the question correctly. If I
recall correctly, most did not know how the phases of Luna happen.
The problem is that ignorance is the default; ignorance, therefore, is
not something to be ashamed of, and it is not a mark of weakness to ask
a question or to say "I do not know" or "I did not know that."
Unfortunately, a large portion of the USA human population appear to be
either unconcerned with ignorance (which is understandable), or they
are embarassed at their ignorance so they speak up on subjects they
know little about, to mask that ignorance: such as myself, as an
example: I am vastly ignorant about almost everything--- therefore I
constantly give my opinions on those subjects, and demand people accept
them. :-)
Yes. Would you like some examples of speciation that has observed?
But first, let's be clear about this. When you say "one life form or
species to another", does that mean some version of the biblical
"kind"? Is "kind" the same as species? Will one species giving rise to
another, by whatever means, satisfy the question?
Looking forward to your answer.
Chris
PS: If you are posting through Google Groups, the best thing to do is
to
1. Click "show options"
2. Click "Reply"
That will open a window that has the previous material already quoted.
It automatically inserts those >>> marks to delineate the previous
posts.
Chris
I thought I would add a post script. Butterflies seem to me to be
magical things, and if there were any evidence that gods were involved
in living organisms, I suppose butterflies would be the epitome
evidence. But that is because I cannot fathom how a caterpillar turns
into a butterfly. I can accept the fact that a caterpillar is the larva
of a butterfly (or a moth); my mind boggles at the transformation,
however. My ignorance could lead me to suspect a divine hand in
butterfly production, since that production is so astonishing.
However, ignorance is a poor foundation to stand upon. Belief based on
ignorance is far too often wrong.
I think you are wrong here, Desertphile. The web site that Mike
referenced clearly argues that at least some butterfly (and beetle)
color is an interference phenomenon, rather than a differential
absorption phenomenon (pigments). You can see the same phenomenon
in oil-slicks or in CDs. Reflection is involved, but not differential
absorbtion.
As someone else pointed out, Mike was wrong to suggest that all of
the color in butterflies is due to this interference phenomena.
Pigments do play a big role. But not the only role.
I might add that there are at least two other natural phenomena
producing colors from objects. One is refraction, as in rainbows.
Another is direct production of light, as in fireflies and LEDs.
>Please let me clarity my query then. Color from objects is caused by
>photons striking a surface and some of the wavelengths being absorbed
>and others being reflected; the reflected light registers upon the eye,
>with the absorbed spectrums having been filtered out. Ergo "pigment"
>and "reflected light" are the same thing. Your query was along the
>lines of arguing an orange isn't a fruit because it is citrus.
>
Sorry, this is just one way of producing color. And "pigment" and
"reflected light" are two quite different things.
A prism generates colors by dispersion because the index of refraction
of glass varies with wavelength. There is no absorbtion of some
wavelengths. An oil slick or soap bubble generates color because of
interference between two reflected beams. There is no absorption of
some wavelengths. A diffraction grating also generates color because
of interference. The sky is colored blue during the day with
brilliant reds at dawn and dusk because of differential scattering of
light of different wavelengths. There is no absorption of some
wavelengths. The original poster was asking about so-called
"structural" colors in butterfly wings produced by interference, not
by pigments, although many butterflies also do produce colors with
pigments.
I have no problem with giving someone the benefit of the doubt, but a
dishonest practice is dishonest regardless of intent. When someone snips out
your argument/explanation and then says or implies that your answer was
inadequate, that's dishonest regardless of intent.
Allow me to explain why what you did is considered dishonest. You removed my
links and explanation and further asked another question, making it appear
as if I did not already respond to this point. You did that while leaving
your own link and explanation intact. While I appreciate and accept your
apology, you have to see why leaving your own quoted text and snipping mine
makes it look like the conversation is unfolding differently than it is.
> However, I see
> that this listgroup has a condensing feature to show or hide text, that
> I could have used if I had known.
No. You are posting to the usenet, which is not a 'listgroup', and it has no
such feature. We are not on the world wide web. What you are talking about
is the particular interface that you're using to access the newsgroups (I am
guessing Google groups), which most people probably do not use (I don't).
Long story short, these messages we are writing are propagated to different
servers all over the world to greater or lesser degrees of efficiency; in
that respect it is more like email than a listgroup. It may be better now,
but in the past it was not uncommon for many messages to not get distributed
to all servers (or to arrive out of order, etc.). For this and other reasons
it is customary to leave most relevent text in place, although you're
correct that snipping out things you aren't responding to is also considered
good form. It would probably be a good idea to search for information on
'usenet' and 'newsgroups' to know more.
>
> Mike wrote:
> BTW, my understanding is that about 90% of Americans believe in God and
> creation of some kind. I hear that about 50% of Americans believe in
> creation as the Bible describes it. I find it hard to believe that
> these 50-90% of Americans are the uneducated, while the unbelieving 10%
> are the educated and enlightened.
>
> Mark replied:
> Why do you find that hard to believe? That is, actually, what one would
> expect. There are fewer and fewer people as you progress to higher
> levels of education. What percentage of Americans hold a PhD in a
> scientific discipline?
>
> Mike wonders:
> So can we can apply that logic in other ways?
Certainly, with varying degrees of validity. But I think from your response
that you misunderstand my point. All I am saying is that, in any field and
by necessity, the people who are experts are *vastly* outnumbered by people
who are not experts. That doesn't make the experts wrong, since reality is
not open to a vote. I would bet that 50-90% of Americans can't fix an
automatic transmission or explain how it works. That's not an argument that
automatic transmissions can't work and that AAMCO is a fraudulent business.
Do you understand?
> - The top military minds of the United States and Britain studied Iraq
> for 12 years and decided to attack. The ensuing protests from a large
> number of citizens of these and other countries are uneducated and
> uninformed.
This is an extremely confused analogy. The protestors were not objecting
necessarily to the tactics, logistics, and planning of the attacks (which is
what "military minds" study); they were objecting to the political decision
to attack. You may or may not know this, but the decision to attack is not
made by these "top military minds" but their civilian leadership. And,
certainly, it's possible that *those* people (who are supposed to be privy
to all sorts of secert intelligence data, the specifics of which are not
generally known to the public) *did* know something that the citizens in
general did not which made it imperative to attack. It would appear that
this was not actually the case, but it's possible. In actuality, the
civilian leadership had decidedly non-military reasons to attack, it
appears, and the "top military minds" were at odds with their proposed
strategy anyway. Poor analogy.
> - Some of the premier historians with PhDs have decided that the
> holocaust did not really happen.
An extremely tiny minority of basically discredited historians have, yes,
based on what most historians consider to be poor work. This is similar to
how an extremely tiny minority of basically discredited scientists have
decided that "goddidit" is better than a scientific explanation for the
origins of species based on poor science. Just having a degree doesn't
guarantee you're good at your job, or that you're right all the time, and
you'll note that I didn't say that. Just that the experts in any field are
bound to be the minority and that your telling me what "most people" think
is basically not very convincing that you're right.
> - Some of the highest-ranking sociologists with PhDs have decided that
> mercy killings of all kinds are ethically and morally sound practices
> (except when it comes to their mothers)
I have no idea what you're talking about here, but most people I know who
are supporters of the concept of euthanasia support it for themselves and
their family members. You've apparently never heard of DNR orders, living
wills, etc. Either way, this point is basically meaningless.
> - Most or all of the highest educated theologians with multiple
> doctorates believe in God.
Are you 100% sure of that? I personally know several clergymen who privately
admit they're atheists but believe they are doing good social work through
their churches.
> Who are we less educated people to disagree
> with them?
As soon as they publish their evidence openly, like scientists do, for
debate, there will be something to discuss. Until then, it's all opinion,
including the PhD in theology. Note that proving gods exist is not a
requirement for such a degree. Even still, this doesn't address my point
which is simply that what 'most people' believe is hardly good evidence.
> Since absolute power corrupts, the people at the top have to be watched
> closely to ensure that they don't use that power for their own
> self-centered reasons.
Umm, OK. Do you live somewhere where someone has "absolute power"? Mind
explaining what on earth this has to do with anything whatsoever?
>
> Mike added:
> I also hear that about 40% of scientists believe in God (slightly under
> the 50-90% but still a
> sizeable percentage of (hopefully) very well educated people.
>
> Mark replied:
> Many scientists do believe in some kind of god. Virtually none believe
> in any kind of specific creation of biological organisms as you
> apparently do. You should consider why that might be.
>
> Mike disagrees:
> Since I know a number of degreed scientists and teachers who do believe
> in God and in creation by him, I don't buy your "virtually none" fact.
Well, it's been studied, and it's a fact. Feel free to look it up.
> If I were able to research a number that would show that a sizeable
> number of degreed scientists believe in creation, would you be
> interested?
Definitely, I would be. But you would have to be very specific in your
question. Also, it's really only relevent if they're biologists who believe
in "special creation" of species by gods, wouldn't you agree? If you can
show me a sizeable percentage of scientists (not "teachers") who share this
unscientific belief, I will be very surprised indeed.
> Probably not, since the accuracy of creation/evolution is
> not a voting matter.
Indeed. Glad you've come around.
> But I'm willing to check it out.
Good luck. Start checking with something called "Project Steve" :)
Nonsense. Did you notice he's going through the laborious practice of
cutting and pasting (or worse, transcribing) the majority of your post?
I just re-read his reply to you, and he acknowledged everything you
wrote, even though it was snipped. He then asked for more information.
Granted, it was in the form of the worn-out "Were you there?" tripe,
but this isn't a drunk driver running someone over- a case where lack
of intent would be relevant. As I said, this is his first post on
USENET. Correct, then berate. Or start bitching out everyone who makes
a mistake.
Chris
So what do you and your wife call it when there is another adaptation to
another environmental situation? And then another? And then another one? And
then another one? And then a few million more?
Do you not understand that, after enough such adaptations, you end up with
one group that does not resemble the first group much at all, and that this
is (a simplified but essentially correct version of) speciation?
How long do you think life has existed on Earth?
> What we don't believe is that the first butterfly could evolve from
> some other organism
If you believe the part about genetic variability allowing adaptation to
changing environments, you have no plausible reason to not believe this.
What is the genetic mechanism that would prevent one population of insects
from eventually becoming so different- just from a series of what you're
calling "adaptations"- from another population that they would be classified
as different organisms? I will tell you that no one has ever even proposed
such a mechanism (which would be required for your two beliefs to be
mutually compatible), so your idea will be the first if you have one.
I suspect that you choose not to believe this only because you don't want
to, not because of any scientific evidence.
> and possess unique scales that do such a perfect
> job
What makes you think that even butterfly wings now do a "perfect job", never
mind whatever organisms first developed this property?
> of reflecting light waves that they all appear as colors rather
> than just glare (or a mix of colors and glare). A resource or link
> that describes the scientific findings of how the first butterfly
> scales evolved would be helpful here and why they are all perfect in
> their function.
I actually provided such a link in my previous message. I assume you read it
already?
>
> For those who have no doubt that this did happen, I have another
> question. Are we seeing evolution today (in butterflies or in
> anything)?
Of course.
> Not adaptation as has been described in this thread, but
> actual morphing of one life form or species to another.
There is no difference. No species is the same from one generation to the
next. Adaptation over time will eventually give you what can only be called
a different species. Yes, this has been observed in nature and
experimentally induced (though of course extreme examples- like how you get
to the point where butterflies and humans have a common ancestor) take such
an extremely long time that no human could directly observe that.
Nevertheless, we have excellent evidence it happened, of essentially the
same type that we use for DNA evidence in forensic trials. Do you believe in
paternity tests? DNA testing of crime scenes? If so, you have to accept this
type of evidence.
Please read this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
It is very readable even to non-experts :-)
And as it says, it's incomplete, there is always more data coming in. In the
last year I can recall reading at least a few papers about observed
speciation events.
(I assume you already understand that "morphing" doesn't happen to
individuals.)
> I realize that
> some believe that there is punctuated equilibrium, where morphing
> happens so fast that no fossils can be found.
I don't think so, no (IOW, I think you've misrepresented what punctuated
equilibrium means).
"Morphing" doesn't happen. Traits develop, become widespread because they
help a species survive, or become rare because they do the opposite.
Sometimes, under extremes of environmental change for example, this happens
"relatively" quickly, but even then the timescales are millions of years.
The probability of any organism forming a fossil is rather small, so even
with millions of years there aren't necessarily all that many, and of course
we then have to find them. But it is hardly the case that "no" fossils are
found. There are many, many fossils that combine traits of current species
that are distantly related but share a common ancestor in the past, commonly
called "transitionals".
> But for those who don't
> use that explanation, but feel that time and chance and natural
> selection can make excellent decisions in the long haul,
These things do not "make decisions". Species simply develop traits that
lead to increased or decreased reproductive success. Separation of
populations (geography, territory, etc.) means that there are many such
populations developing lots of different ways. Hence, diversity.
> wouldn't there
> be millions of failed morphs around (that will not survive) for every
> speciman that morphed into something that works very well and has
> become one of the fittest?
Your terminology is poor, but you do know that the vast, vast majority of
species that have ever existed are extinct now, right?
I think not.
>Did you notice he's going through the laborious practice of
> cutting and pasting (or worse, transcribing) the majority of your post?
Yeah. And selectively leaving out the critical points.
> I just re-read his reply to you, and he acknowledged everything you
> wrote, even though it was snipped.
Not really, no.
> He then asked for more information.
> Granted, it was in the form of the worn-out "Were you there?" tripe,
> but this isn't a drunk driver running someone over- a case where lack
> of intent would be relevant.
Not sure what you mean. Paraphrasing someone and leaving out their main
point may or may not be a mistake, but it's not an honest representation of
what they said.
>As I said, this is his first post on
> USENET. Correct, then berate. Or start bitching out everyone who makes
> a mistake.
OK, no sweat.
You are doing no one any courtesies. Get a proper newsreader that allows you
to follow Usenet conventions for replying.
>[snip questions from ignorance]
What on Earth possesses you to think that "scientific" information
from religious sources is reliable? Where do you get the hubris to go
on the internet armed with the pronouncements of fundamentalist
preachers and challenge the consensus of virtually all the scientists
in the world? Your judgement has apparently been severely damaged by
your belief.
CT
>"Mike E" <mik...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1160060606.3...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> Mark Stahl wrote:
>> And I replied (and you dishonestly snipped):
>> I am sorry that my snipping came across as dishonesty. I am used to
>> including only comments that I am answering in a post and snipping the
>> rest, out of courtesy to the reader.
>
>You are doing no one any courtesies. Get a proper newsreader that allows you
>to follow Usenet conventions for replying.
Usenet conventions, at least the old-fashioned ones in use for years
and years and that completely ignored here on talk.origins, is most
definitely to snip out everything in the original that is not germane
to your response. In particular " Content of a follow-up post should
exceed quoted content." (RFC 1855). That is something you fail to do
just now.
>
They've fixed that (I used the lower Reply link to type this).
[snip]
> Usenet conventions, at least the old-fashioned ones in use for years
> and years and that completely ignored here on talk.origins, is most
> definitely to snip out everything in the original that is not germane
> to your response.
Great. Thanks a lot Dr. Norman. I was just whining to someone about
hold old and creaky I've become and after much reassurance, that the
bits that are beginning to fall off my body aren't really necessary
anyway, I began to feel a bit better. Only to come back to my office at
lunch to read a bit of TOness to find that Usenet users who remember
the early days are now "old fashioned". Or at least their conventions
are. Have I really been lurking here for "years and years"?
*sigh* I need a life.
<snip>
EVERYBODY who participates in talk.origins needs a life!
Still, you don't qualify as a real "old codger" until you finally
throw away that old draft classification card from your wallet and
substitute a Medicare card.
If you are using Google Groups, try the following. Instead of clicking
on the "Reply" at the bottom, click on "show options" and then on
the "Reply" that appears from that. Much easier to use with the
conventions of this newsgroup.
> Usenet conventions, at least the old-fashioned ones in use for years
> and years and that completely ignored here on talk.origins, is most
> definitely to snip out everything in the original that is not germane
> to your response. In particular " Content of a follow-up post should
> exceed quoted content." (RFC 1855). That is something you fail to do
> just now.
So if I snip out everything from the original that is not, in my humble and
frequently misguided opinion, germane and then my response is somewhat
shorter, what should I do?
Should I go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and
on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and
on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and
on and on until I have just enough lines such that my content exceeds the
quoted portion?
Or should I just post it realizing that conventions are not hard and fast
rules and are sometimes conflicting?
Thanks for making me a better person.
>"r norman" <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:f8nai2564kpfv9a42...@4ax.com...
>
>> Usenet conventions, at least the old-fashioned ones in use for years
>> and years and that completely ignored here on talk.origins, is most
>> definitely to snip out everything in the original that is not germane
>> to your response. In particular " Content of a follow-up post should
>> exceed quoted content." (RFC 1855). That is something you fail to do
>> just now.
>
>So if I snip out everything from the original that is not, in my humble and
>frequently misguided opinion, germane and then my response is somewhat
>shorter, what should I do?
>
>Should I go on and on and
<snip more examples of "on and on">
>on and on until I have just enough lines such that my content exceeds the
>quoted portion?
>
>Or should I just post it realizing that conventions are not hard and fast
>rules and are sometimes conflicting?
>
>Thanks for making me a better person.
>
The convention is that you should include just enough quoted material
to provide a context for your reply and no more. And you should add
just enough new material to make an actual relevant point and no more.
There did exist news servers that really did enforce the "new material
must exceed quoted material" rule, though. The convention was
established back in the days of slow connections and limited bandwidth
and memory. Can you imagine waiting for a message to get typed out at
110 baud teletype (ten characters per second)? I can! OK, I didn't
really get internet connectivity until after I had a 300 baud (30
char/sec) DecWriter which matched the 300 baud acoustical modem.
Still, making people wade through pages and pages of trash was the
height of inconsideration.
We, at least most of us, have faster and more powerful systems and
connections now. Still the practice of including all previous
material no matter how old and irrelevant is still quite
inconsiderate. OK, it is just plain rude.
And I am very pleased that I could raise your consciousness so easily.
> Desertphile wrote:
>> Mike E wrote:
>> > My 80 year old father is a believer in theistic evolution. My wife and
>> > I (believers in creation) pointed out to him that butterflies' colors
>> > are caused by intricately designed scales that reflect the light rather
>> > than by pigment.
>>
>> Is that meant to be a joke?
>
> Not in the least, Desertphile.
>[...]
Here's a suggestion: Study enough entomology so that you can recognize a
caddisfly and can mount a moth with its wings spread. Then, catch an
adult caddisfly and spend ten minutes or so examining it under a decent
disecting microscope. Then, spend a few minutes examining one of your
moths under the same scope.
What you will see is that there is not a whole lot of difference,
especially if you look at one of the smaller, drabber moths. The one
difference relevant to your question is that caddisflies have hairs, while
moths have scales. Also relevant is the fact that the moth's scales are
drab (usually; there are a few colorful ones), while the butterfly's
scales are colorful (usually; there are some drab ones).
So your question boils down to, how can a hair, which is round, change
into something flat? And how can something brown change into something a
different color?
My question to you is: Why would you think such minor differences are such
a big deal?
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
> Can you imagine waiting for a message to get typed out at
> 110 baud teletype (ten characters per second)? I can! OK, I didn't
> really get internet connectivity until after I had a 300 baud (30
> char/sec) DecWriter which matched the 300 baud acoustical modem.
> Still, making people wade through pages and pages of trash was the
> height of inconsideration.
Baud rates that low...I remember that...barely.
> We, at least most of us, have faster and more powerful systems and
> connections now. Still the practice of including all previous
> material no matter how old and irrelevant is still quite
> inconsiderate. OK, it is just plain rude.
No shit...I love these twits that quote an entire 50kb post just to tell
that person they're an idiot.
Mike E's style of reply was annoying as hell.
> And I am very pleased that I could raise your consciousness so easily.
Right on...I am a slow learner though.
Thanks to those of you who told me about the "show options then reply"
method of replying on Google groups. I'm using it here and hopefully
it will mesh in with what the rest of the group does. Does that make
me a quick learner?
I think we can all agree that my style of reply was annoying. Even me,
now that I see what other styles are in use here. However, I'm
estimating that 50% of you gave me the benefit of the doubt as a new
"usenet" poster, while 25% think I did it on purpose to be annoying (I
didn't; I was really trying to be courteous and clear) and another 25%
don't know (and probably don't care).
BTW, I also can remember 300 baud, and the recommendation that people
call it 300 bps since a baud could contain more than one bit in some
implementations. So at least a couple of you are old codgers like me
(55 in my case), and are not all young "whippersnappers" who need a
life.
I'll need a break to digest all these posts (sheesh, over 50 in 48
hours), so I can figure out what to ask next. All of your information
is helpful, but I do have to say that it's a lot easier to take when it
is politely phrased.
Sincerely,
Mike
> So at least a couple of you are old codgers like me
>(55 in my case), and are not all young "whippersnappers" who need a
>life.
Sorry, buddy, 55 is a "young whippersnapper"!
>I'll need a break to digest all these posts (sheesh, over 50 in 48
>hours), so I can figure out what to ask next. All of your information
>is helpful, but I do have to say that it's a lot easier to take when it
>is politely phrased.
>
And welcome! This news group moves very fast and has a tendency to
quickly get brutally personal all too often. There is some really good
stuff carefully hidden but we make you work for it!
(snip)
>
> Mike wonders:
> So can we can apply that logic in other ways?
> - The top military minds of the United States and Britain studied Iraq
> for 12 years and decided to attack.
Not true. The decision to attack Iraq was done by politicians whose
opinions about attacking Iraq were worse than those of 80% of the
people you know personally. That being done, it is the job of "top
military minds" to say "yes, sir!" and try to make a silk purse out
whatever sow's ear they've been handed.
> The ensuing protests from a large
> number of citizens of these and other countries are uneducated and
> uninformed.
They are obviously more educated and informed than the politicians who
thought up the war.
> - Some of the premier historians with PhDs have decided that the
> holocaust did not really happen.
Can you cite? My understanding is that everyone who is denying the
Holocaust is some kind of serious crank.
(snip)
Eric Root
Please include some references as to why the nation which is accused of this
alleged hoax is so supportive of it?
I'd also like to know why they spent all that time and money documenting the
early days of the event. The big death camps came later.
Who pays for all this?
Are They the same ones who paid for the moon landing hoax and are hiding the
hole at the top of the earth?
> On 5 Oct 2006 20:49:20 -0700, "Mike E" <mik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > So at least a couple of you are old codgers like me
> >(55 in my case), and are not all young "whippersnappers" who need a
> >life.
>
> Sorry, buddy, 55 is a "young whippersnapper"!
Gack! That makes me an *infant* (terribile).
>
> >I'll need a break to digest all these posts (sheesh, over 50 in 48
> >hours), so I can figure out what to ask next. All of your information
> >is helpful, but I do have to say that it's a lot easier to take when it
> >is politely phrased.
> >
>
> And welcome! This news group moves very fast and has a tendency to
> quickly get brutally personal all too often. There is some really good
> stuff carefully hidden but we make you work for it!
And puns.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
.......... snip.......
>
> I'll need a break to digest all these posts (sheesh, over 50 in 48
> hours), so I can figure out what to ask next. All of your information
> is helpful, but I do have to say that it's a lot easier to take when it
> is politely phrased.
Actually, 50 replies in 48 hours is a tad slow in this group.
If you were a contender for a "busy thread" award you have to
be hitting triple figures in a day and keep that up for at least
a couple of days in a row. It takes practice, but you'll get there.
When I e-mailed "alex branning" to defend himself here it was
about 1am sydney time and I then went to bed. He posted into
this group at about 2am my time, and when I woke up around 8,
there were over 70 posts in the thread he started six hours earlier.
The next thing to strive for is to keep a thread going for more than
a thousand posts without giving up your basic point of view.
(signed) marc
I third the nomination for POTM, because of the informative content. I
had started to craft a response to the original post based on Carroll's
book (the reading of which constitutes pretty much my entire
understanding of butterflies), but your post went well beyond the
information I could have supplied. I do think you may have overreacted
to the snip. From personal experience, the thing I consider my main point
is often ignored or marginalized in the response. And when someone
paraphrases a marginal point, I am generally not offended. There are
enough deliberate insults on usenet without assuming insults. Having said
that, inappropriate snips require a response, just as cutting in line
does.
Yours,
Bill Morse
> On 4 Oct 2006 12:55:09 -0700, "Windy" <pik...@spray.se> wrote:
>
> >
> >Ken Shackleton wrote:
> >> Windy wrote:
> >> > r norman wrote:
> >> > > Structural color, the kind produced by light interference or
> >> > > diffraction rather than by pigments, is also a widespread phenomenon
> >> > > in insect cuticle.
> >> >
> >> > The designer must be inordinately fond of all those shiny flies as well
> >> > as beetles.
> >>
> >> And let's not forget mother-of-pearl....
> >
> >Oh, that was obviously designed for the enjoyment of humans. The reason
> >it appeared hundreds of millions of years before humans inside smelly
> >molluscs was probably just bad logistics or something.
> >
>
> Not to mention that the opalescence is usually on the inside of the
> shell where nobody including the mollusc inhabiting the shell can see
> it.
>
> There can be only one conclusion: it is obviously for the enjoyment of
> hermit crabs.
starfish perhaps.
--
Divided we stand!
>starfish perhaps.
And we all know that starfish have very high visual acuity, not to
mention color vision!
There is really only one acceptable explanation for the iridescences
of nacre -- the Creator really liked mother-of-pearl buttons on his
dress shirts!
>
> Mike E wrote:
>> My 80 year old father is a believer in theistic evolution. My wife and
>> I (believers in creation) pointed out to him that butterflies' colors
>> are caused by intricantly designed scales that reflect the light rather
>> than by pigment. We say there is no way to evolve these (as described
>> below) by natural causes.
>>
>> From: http://webexhibits.org/causesofcolor/15.html
>> "Each scale is about 70x200 痠, and is covered with thin parallel
>> veins. The veins are much like ridges on a vinyl record. There are
>> about 1,800 veins per millimeter. The texture forms a reflection
>> grating. The veins are made of stacked chitine-lamellas kept
>> equidistant by fine braces. On the underside, the slits on the scales
>> are 160 nm apart, which is not a multiple of half the wavelength of
>> visible, and thus do not cause interference."
>>
>> We added that even if by chance a butterfly acquired these scales
>> (which just happen to reflect the right wavelength to cause visible
>> colors), there is no evolutionary reason that all butterflies would
>> possess the exact same wing structure. In other words, blind natural
>> selection would tend to produce many many varieties of surviving
>> species, some more successful than others, rather than species that are
>> exactly alike in structure.
>>
>> My father is not convinced that there is not a non-designer
>> evolutionary answer for this situation. Is there?
>>
>> Mike E.
> If they did not have scales, how would the weigh things ?
They'd go to a whale-weigh station - sorry, wrong joke...
--
Robin "where do you weigh whales" Levett
rle...@rlevett.ibmuklunix.net (unmunge by removing big blue - don't yahoo)
> Thanks to those of you who told me about the "show options then reply"
> method of replying on Google groups. I'm using it here and hopefully
> it will mesh in with what the rest of the group does.
Indeed. It is now a veritable pleasure to read your posts.
Makes sense. we can cut up starfish, toss them back and get more starfish.
Even cutting an arm off a human can have fatal consequences.
God loves starfish almost as much as beetles.