Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Question for creationists and IDists

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Conspiracy of Doves

unread,
Jan 23, 2006, 11:32:02 AM1/23/06
to
Creationists often claim that evolution is not capable of producing the
level of compexity that we see in the world around us. My question is,
what level of complexity is evolution capable of producing? It has been
proven, and even admitted by come creationists, that evolution is
capable of producing some level of complexity, so what is the cutoff
point? At what point is evolution no longer able to add more complexity
to an organism, and why is the cutoff at that particular point?

I await your answer.

Denis Loubet

unread,
Jan 23, 2006, 12:45:48 PM1/23/06
to

"Conspiracy of Doves" <mark...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138033922.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

I'm guessing they're gonna say "Kind" is the cutoff point.


--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com


Conspiracy of Doves

unread,
Jan 23, 2006, 1:17:44 PM1/23/06
to

Denis Loubet wrote:
> "Conspiracy of Doves" <mark...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1138033922.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > Creationists often claim that evolution is not capable of producing the
> > level of compexity that we see in the world around us. My question is,
> > what level of complexity is evolution capable of producing? It has been
> > proven, and even admitted by come creationists, that evolution is
> > capable of producing some level of complexity, so what is the cutoff
> > point? At what point is evolution no longer able to add more complexity
> > to an organism, and why is the cutoff at that particular point?
> >
> > I await your answer.
>
> I'm guessing they're gonna say "Kind" is the cutoff point.


And, AGAIN, without ever defining what 'kind' means.

It must be convenient having a vague, nebulous term that can mean
whatever you want it to mean in any situation.

Denis Loubet

unread,
Jan 23, 2006, 3:25:52 PM1/23/06
to

"Conspiracy of Doves" <mark...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138040264.0...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Yes, it IS convenient. That's the only reason they do it.

Grrr.

Inez

unread,
Jan 23, 2006, 5:02:49 PM1/23/06
to

Wall of Sleep appears to believe that evolution is all a "corruption of
information" and cannot produce an increase in "complexity" at all. I
hope I got his position correct.

rev.goetz

unread,
Jan 23, 2006, 5:18:45 PM1/23/06
to

Well, I suppose that a YEC may say that micro-evolution can turn a
vegetarian tiger into a carnivorous tiger, but nothing more:)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/bad_things.asp

MarkA

unread,
Jan 23, 2006, 5:30:21 PM1/23/06
to
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 14:25:52 -0600, Denis Loubet wrote:

>
> "Conspiracy of Doves" <mark...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1138040264.0...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Denis Loubet wrote:
>>> "Conspiracy of Doves" <mark...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1138033922.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>> > Creationists often claim that evolution is not capable of producing
>>> > the level of compexity that we see in the world around us. My
>>> > question is, what level of complexity is evolution capable of
>>> > producing? It has been proven, and even admitted by come
>>> > creationists, that evolution is capable of producing some level of
>>> > complexity, so what is the cutoff point? At what point is evolution
>>> > no longer able to add more complexity to an organism, and why is the
>>> > cutoff at that particular point?
>>> >
>>> > I await your answer.
>>>
>>> I'm guessing they're gonna say "Kind" is the cutoff point.
>>
>>
>> And, AGAIN, without ever defining what 'kind' means.
>>
>> It must be convenient having a vague, nebulous term that can mean
>> whatever you want it to mean in any situation.
>
> Yes, it IS convenient. That's the only reason they do it.
>
> Grrr.

Too bad scientists don't have such a convenient term. OTOH, if they did,
it wouldn't be science.

--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)

MarkA

unread,
Jan 23, 2006, 5:35:03 PM1/23/06
to
I was watching a documentary the other day about army ants, and how the
colony of 1-3 million individual members acts, in many ways, like a single
organism. They all "know" when it is time to move the nest, which way to
go, where to stop, how to distribute the food, etc. All this is done with
no visible, central command/control/communications apparatus.

Obviously, such complex behavior could not arise "by chance." Ergo, there
must be some "Intelligent Director" controlling the hive. What is the ID
like? Is it human? A really smart ant? Is there an ant heaven?

Ant theologians need to get busy with some answers, here.

Denis Loubet

unread,
Jan 23, 2006, 5:34:18 PM1/23/06
to

"rev.goetz" <jimgo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138054725.3...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Yeah, tiny little changes like that...

Conspiracy of Doves

unread,
Jan 23, 2006, 6:43:31 PM1/23/06
to

I wonder how they would respond when you pointed out that it would
require completely changing the tooth structure and the digestive
system, not to mention the addition of hunting instincts.

The linked article may have covered it, but I got bored after a minute
of skimming.

rja.ca...@excite.com

unread,
Jan 23, 2006, 6:54:13 PM1/23/06
to
MarkA wrote:
> I was watching a documentary the other day about army ants, and how the
> colony of 1-3 million individual members acts, in many ways, like a single
> organism. They all "know" when it is time to move the nest, which way to
> go, where to stop, how to distribute the food, etc. All this is done with
> no visible, central command/control/communications apparatus.

Dude, don't they do it with smell?

(I have no immediate plan to buy a TV that can do that.)

> Obviously, such complex behavior could not arise "by chance." Ergo, there
> must be some "Intelligent Director" controlling the hive. What is the ID
> like? Is it human? A really smart ant? Is there an ant heaven?
>
> Ant theologians need to get busy with some answers, here.

I may not sleep tonight.

> MarkA
> (still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)

I repeat, I may not sleep tonight. ;-)

Denis Loubet

unread,
Jan 23, 2006, 7:28:15 PM1/23/06
to

"MarkA" <mant...@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.01.23....@stopspam.net...

Scientists are always at a disadvantage in that kind of argument because
they have to be ACCURATE, and be able to back up what they claim. What a
frickin' pain!

Fooj

unread,
Jan 23, 2006, 7:33:36 PM1/23/06
to
MarkA lamely typed:

>Too bad scientists don't have such a convenient term. OTOH, if they did,
>it wouldn't be science.

Why wouldn't it be a scientific term already in biological science?

Liz

unread,
Jan 23, 2006, 7:48:28 PM1/23/06
to
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 22:35:03 GMT, MarkA <mant...@stopspam.net> in
news message <pan.2006.01.23....@stopspam.net> wrote:

>I was watching a documentary the other day about army ants, and how the
>colony of 1-3 million individual members acts, in many ways, like a single
>organism. They all "know" when it is time to move the nest, which way to
>go, where to stop, how to distribute the food, etc. All this is done with
>no visible, central command/control/communications apparatus.

Ant farts. It's all done by ant farts.


Ãœberwench #658 Now a *real* atheist!

Dame Liz the Undaunted Ath.D BAAWA
Charter Member of SMASH
and Queen of the known universe

MarkA

unread,
Jan 23, 2006, 8:38:33 PM1/23/06
to
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:54:13 -0800, rja.ca...@excite.com wrote:

> MarkA wrote:
>> I was watching a documentary the other day about army ants, and how the
>> colony of 1-3 million individual members acts, in many ways, like a
>> single organism. They all "know" when it is time to move the nest,
>> which way to go, where to stop, how to distribute the food, etc. All
>> this is done with no visible, central command/control/communications
>> apparatus.
>
> Dude, don't they do it with smell?
>

Oh, sure. And a tornado blowing thru a junkyard can assemble a 747! I've
smelled a lot of things in my day, but nothing ever made me want to pick
up insect larvae in my mouth and move to a new home!


--
MarkA
(this space accidentally filled in)

.

MarkA

unread,
Jan 23, 2006, 8:40:20 PM1/23/06
to

(referring to the term 'kind', as used by creationists): Because it lacks
a precise definition.

chibiabos

unread,
Jan 23, 2006, 8:56:34 PM1/23/06
to
In article <pan.2006.01.23....@stopspam.net>, MarkA
<mant...@stopspam.net> wrote:

> I was watching a documentary the other day about army ants, and how the
> colony of 1-3 million individual members acts, in many ways, like a single
> organism. They all "know" when it is time to move the nest, which way to
> go, where to stop, how to distribute the food, etc. All this is done with
> no visible, central command/control/communications apparatus.
>
> Obviously, such complex behavior could not arise "by chance." Ergo, there
> must be some "Intelligent Director" controlling the hive. What is the ID
> like?

Quentin TerANTino with a really cool exoskeleton.

-chib

--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor

Matthew Isleb

unread,
Jan 23, 2006, 9:16:35 PM1/23/06
to

What a pointless article. They proposed two answers to the problem and
then shot them both down. Their conclusion?

" Scripture simply does not provide enough information for Christians to
insist dogmatically that one or another of these possible explanations is
totally right or wrong. Several of them may apply together."

Several of the may apply together? They only prososed *two* explanations
and both had fatal flaws. Not only were they inconsistent with science,
but also the Bible!

-matthew

Matthew Isleb

unread,
Jan 23, 2006, 9:20:45 PM1/23/06
to

Their cop-out was something along the lines of, "there might have been
latent information programmed into the DNA which revealed itself after The
Fall."

-matthew

Pithecanthropus Erectus

unread,
Jan 23, 2006, 10:00:54 PM1/23/06
to

At least it would be nice to keep track of where the goalposts are from
minute to minute. They seem to keep moving from minute to minute.

JTEM

unread,
Jan 23, 2006, 11:13:21 PM1/23/06
to

"MarkA" <to...@nowhere.com> wrote

> I've smelled a lot of things in my day, but nothing ever
> made me want to pick up insect larvae in my mouth
> and move to a new home!

Post your address. I'll send you a pair of my old socks.

Conspiracy of Doves

unread,
Jan 24, 2006, 12:05:03 AM1/24/06
to

Doesn't that imply that 'The Fall' was planned from the beginning? That
means that god WANTED adam and eve to eat the apple. Actually, that's
pretty wasy to guess anyway. Put the tree in the middle of the garden
and tell two people who don't know right from wrong not to eat from it.
Either god is a complete moron, or he actually wanted them to eat it.

David Jensen

unread,
Jan 24, 2006, 12:13:53 AM1/24/06
to
On 23 Jan 2006 16:33:36 -0800, in talk.origins
"Fooj" <deanlan...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<1138062816.5...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:

Because 'kind' means exactly what creationists want it to mean, neither
more nor less and you won't know exactly what they want it to mean this
time until they tell you, if they tell you.

Humpty Dumpty would have been proud.

How can a scientist work with a word that changes meaning every time it
is used?

Josh Hayes

unread,
Jan 24, 2006, 2:58:02 AM1/24/06
to
"JTEM" <gymr...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:zbudnV8085QEO0je...@comcast.com:

NED: We'll overpower the guards!

ECCLES: Right, I'll take my boots off!

-JAH

and don't you think the socks will force the insect larvae to flee?

Matthew Isleb

unread,
Jan 24, 2006, 3:21:41 AM1/24/06
to

I dunno. Maybe it was a "backup plan" just in case they did eat the
apple.

-matthew

rja.ca...@excite.com

unread,
Jan 24, 2006, 5:53:37 AM1/24/06
to

chibiabos wrote:
> In article <pan.2006.01.23....@stopspam.net>, MarkA
> <mant...@stopspam.net> wrote:
>
> > I was watching a documentary the other day about army ants, and how the
> > colony of 1-3 million individual members acts, in many ways, like a single
> > organism. They all "know" when it is time to move the nest, which way to
> > go, where to stop, how to distribute the food, etc. All this is done with
> > no visible, central command/control/communications apparatus.
> >
> > Obviously, such complex behavior could not arise "by chance." Ergo, there
> > must be some "Intelligent Director" controlling the hive. What is the ID
> > like?
>
> Quentin TerANTino with a really cool exoskeleton.

The only director I recongnised in an anthill is Woody Allen. Not that
he isn't intelligent...

John Wilkins

unread,
Jan 24, 2006, 6:48:35 AM1/24/06
to
They lack socks appeal?

--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
Servum tui ero, ipse vespera

Dogma Discharge

unread,
Jan 24, 2006, 7:25:33 AM1/24/06
to
"JTEM" <gymr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:zbudnV8085QEO0je...@comcast.com...

Hey Bob, I need more keyboard cleaner please ;)
--
Kind Regards
Cameron


Cubist

unread,
Jan 24, 2006, 7:28:47 AM1/24/06
to

John Wilkins wrote:
> Josh Hayes wrote:
> > "JTEM" <gymr...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> > news:zbudnV8085QEO0je...@comcast.com:
> >
> >> "MarkA" <to...@nowhere.com> wrote
> >>
> >>> I've smelled a lot of things in my day, but nothing ever
> >>> made me want to pick up insect larvae in my mouth
> >>> and move to a new home!
> >> Post your address. I'll send you a pair of my old socks.
> >
> > NED: We'll overpower the guards!
> >
> > ECCLES: Right, I'll take my boots off!
> >
> > -JAH
> >
> > and don't you think the socks will force the insect larvae to flee?
> >
> They lack socks appeal?
Arg! I'le have to make you toe the line if you persist in this
thread, darn it!

Fooj

unread,
Jan 24, 2006, 9:08:22 AM1/24/06
to
Let's just call it species.

MarkA

unread,
Jan 24, 2006, 4:08:36 PM1/24/06
to
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 06:08:22 -0800, Fooj wrote:

> Let's just call it species.

Well, that would be fine, but for the fact that 'species' means something
very specific. 'Kind', OTOH, can mean species, genus, family, or any
other level of classification, depending on the situation.

To see the morphing of the definition, ask a creationist if a house cat
and a tiger are the same 'kind'. Then ask if a chimp and a human are.

rja.ca...@excite.com

unread,
Jan 24, 2006, 7:21:55 PM1/24/06
to

MarkA wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 06:08:22 -0800, Fooj wrote:
>
> > Let's just call it species.
>
> Well, that would be fine, but for the fact that 'species' means something
> very specific. 'Kind', OTOH, can mean species, genus, family, or any
> other level of classification, depending on the situation.
>
> To see the morphing of the definition, ask a creationist if a house cat
> and a tiger are the same 'kind'. Then ask if a chimp and a human are.

Logarithmic scale of "how different from me". Microbes: one kind, I
bet. I don't think Genesis even applies to them.

Of course you want to catch them saying that A and B are the same kind,
and B and C are, but A and C aren't. And of course they don't want to
be caught.

Michelle Malkin

unread,
Jan 25, 2006, 3:58:39 AM1/25/06
to
"MarkA" <mant...@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.01.23....@stopspam.net...

If I remember right, ants do have a form of communication
with their antennae.

--
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
BAAWA Knight & Bible Thumper Thumper
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^


Iain

unread,
Jan 25, 2006, 8:29:51 AM1/25/06
to
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
> Creationists often claim that evolution is not capable of producing the
> level of compexity that we see in the world around us. My question is,
> what level of complexity is evolution capable of producing? It has been
> proven, and even admitted by come creationists, that evolution is
> capable of producing some level of complexity, so what is the cutoff
> point? At what point is evolution no longer able to add more complexity
> to an organism, and why is the cutoff at that particular point?


Plenty.

Complexity is the best argument for evolution.

An eternal state of co-ordinated fluid adaptation(by blind but steady
formula), if blind and dumb, is also fluid improvisation if its
environment is manifold and changing. This means evolution is always
co-ordinating its development the _long_ way round. Life's diversity
represents many different long ways round.

Forethought and intelligence would allow backtracking and redraughting
in order to achieve the most efficient means of achieving the goal of
reproduction and aforeneeded survival.

The fossil record shows the opposite -- Inability to backtrack or
redraught. Even if the fossil record shows the work of a designer, the
designer is obviously building upon previous slightly different designs
and never reverting to take a different route, but always forking,
forking, forking.

An ape and a worm survive equally well in the same environment, but the
ape is more needlessly complex because its history of improvisation is
far more long-winded.

~Iain

Robert J. Kolker

unread,
Jan 25, 2006, 8:49:46 AM1/25/06
to
Iain wrote:

>
> An ape and a worm survive equally well in the same environment, but the
> ape is more needlessly complex because its history of improvisation is
> far more long-winded.

The term needlessly implies a purpose for which the ape was
overdesigned. Apes evolved by accident just like everything else on this
planet. There is no purpose. All is happenstance.

Bob Kolker

Iain

unread,
Jan 25, 2006, 8:57:50 AM1/25/06
to

No, "needless" does not imply purpose, and nor do I when I say it.

Ironically, your "by accident" does imply purpose.

I mean that two species of the same environment arrive at different
forms by different histories, and the same goes for whatever you may
take a "degree of complexity" to be.

~Iain

Robert J. Kolker

unread,
Jan 25, 2006, 9:26:43 AM1/25/06
to
Iain wrote:
>
> Ironically, your "by accident" does imply purpose.

No, it does not. Accident means happenstantially.

bob Kolker

Martin Hutton

unread,
Jan 25, 2006, 1:44:12 PM1/25/06
to

On 25-Jan-2006, "Iain" <iain_i...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

> Even if the fossil record shows the work of a designer, the
> designer is obviously building upon previous slightly different designs
> and never reverting to take a different route, but always forking,
> forking, forking.

I wish I were. Oh, fORking. Never mind.

[snip]

--
Martin Hutton

"The truths of religion are never so well understood as
by those who have lost the power of reasoning."
...Voltaire, "Philosophical Dictionary" 1764

slothrop

unread,
Jan 25, 2006, 2:00:49 PM1/25/06
to
Michelle Malkin
Jan 25, 2:58 am show options

Newsgroups: talk.origins, alt.atheism
From: "Michelle Malkin" <hypati...@comcast.net> - Find messages by this
author
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 03:58:39 -0500
Local: Wed, Jan 25 2006 2:58 am
Subject: Re: Intelligent Director
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse


"MarkA" <manth...@stopspam.net> wrote in message


news:pan.2006.01.23....@stopspam.net...

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

>I was watching a documentary the other day about army ants, and how the
> colony of 1-3 million individual members acts, in many ways, like a single
> organism. They all "know" when it is time to move the nest, which way to
> go, where to stop, how to distribute the food, etc. All this is done with
> no visible, central command/control/communications apparatus.

> Obviously, such complex behavior could not arise "by chance." Ergo, there
> must be some "Intelligent Director" controlling the hive. What is the ID
> like? Is it human? A really smart ant? Is there an ant heaven?


> Ant theologians need to get busy with some answers, here.


> --
> MarkA
> (still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)

>>If I remember right, ants do have a form of communication
>>with their antennae.

--

Yeah, but check out Steve Johnson's "Emergence" for a cool account of
what the ants are doing. The hive ultimately acts like a single entity
even though each ant is only capable of responding to something like
ten or twenty individual commands, based on chemical trails it leaves
and reads. Multiply this by the millions and what emerges is something
that seems to act as a singular-willed entity.

The possible parallels to the human mind and consciousness, by the way,
are compelling, if anyone gave a crap to look past their own sacred
cows...


slothrop

rja.ca...@excite.com

unread,
Jan 25, 2006, 3:16:47 PM1/25/06
to

So your point is that if God made apes then you can see several ways he
would have made them better? (For instance, the appendix, the nerves
on the retina, etc.)

stoney

unread,
Jan 25, 2006, 4:00:17 PM1/25/06
to
On 24 Jan 2006 16:21:55 -0800, "rja.ca...@excite.com"
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in alt.atheism

But they routinely are.


--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.

stoney

unread,
Jan 25, 2006, 4:01:25 PM1/25/06
to
On 23 Jan 2006 21:05:03 -0800, "Conspiracy of Doves"
<mark...@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism

Both.

stoney

unread,
Jan 25, 2006, 4:02:18 PM1/25/06
to
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 22:35:03 GMT, MarkA <mant...@stopspam.net> wrote in
alt.atheism

>I was watching a documentary the other day about army ants, and how the
>colony of 1-3 million individual members acts, in many ways, like a single
>organism. They all "know" when it is time to move the nest, which way to
>go, where to stop, how to distribute the food, etc. All this is done with
>no visible, central command/control/communications apparatus.
>
>Obviously, such complex behavior could not arise "by chance." Ergo, there
>must be some "Intelligent Director" controlling the hive. What is the ID
>like? Is it human? A really smart ant? Is there an ant heaven?
>
>Ant theologians need to get busy with some answers, here.

/cue joystick and keyboard

stoney

unread,
Jan 25, 2006, 4:04:09 PM1/25/06
to
On 24 Jan 2006 04:28:47 -0800, "Cubist" <Xub...@gmail.com> wrote in
alt.atheism

Beware the heel.....and spread the toe jam....

stoney

unread,
Jan 25, 2006, 4:03:11 PM1/25/06
to
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 21:48:35 +1000, John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au>
wrote in alt.atheism

>Josh Hayes wrote:
>> "JTEM" <gymr...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:zbudnV8085QEO0je...@comcast.com:
>>
>>> "MarkA" <to...@nowhere.com> wrote
>>>
>>>> I've smelled a lot of things in my day, but nothing ever
>>>> made me want to pick up insect larvae in my mouth
>>>> and move to a new home!
>>> Post your address. I'll send you a pair of my old socks.
>>
>> NED: We'll overpower the guards!
>>
>> ECCLES: Right, I'll take my boots off!
>>
>> -JAH
>>
>> and don't you think the socks will force the insect larvae to flee?
>>
>They lack socks appeal?

Bet they're fumeing....

stoney

unread,
Jan 25, 2006, 4:05:54 PM1/25/06
to
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 03:58:39 -0500, "Michelle Malkin"
<hypa...@comcast.net> wrote in alt.atheism

>"MarkA" <mant...@stopspam.net> wrote in message
>news:pan.2006.01.23....@stopspam.net...
>>I was watching a documentary the other day about army ants, and how the
>> colony of 1-3 million individual members acts, in many ways, like a single
>> organism. They all "know" when it is time to move the nest, which way to
>> go, where to stop, how to distribute the food, etc. All this is done with
>> no visible, central command/control/communications apparatus.
>>
>> Obviously, such complex behavior could not arise "by chance." Ergo, there
>> must be some "Intelligent Director" controlling the hive. What is the ID
>> like? Is it human? A really smart ant? Is there an ant heaven?
>>
>> Ant theologians need to get busy with some answers, here.
>>
>> --
>> MarkA
>> (still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
>>
>
>If I remember right, ants do have a form of communication
>with their antennae.

/cue "Beam me up".....

stoney

unread,
Jan 25, 2006, 4:04:44 PM1/25/06
to
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 14:25:33 +0200, "Dogma Discharge" <s...@c.c.c> wrote in
alt.atheism

Hehehehehe. Keyboards happen....

stoney

unread,
Jan 25, 2006, 4:05:26 PM1/25/06
to
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 00:48:28 GMT, Liz <ehu...@donotspam.com> wrote in
alt.atheism

>On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 22:35:03 GMT, MarkA <mant...@stopspam.net> in


>news message <pan.2006.01.23....@stopspam.net> wrote:
>
>>I was watching a documentary the other day about army ants, and how the
>>colony of 1-3 million individual members acts, in many ways, like a single
>>organism. They all "know" when it is time to move the nest, which way to
>>go, where to stop, how to distribute the food, etc. All this is done with
>>no visible, central command/control/communications apparatus.
>

>Ant farts. It's all done by ant farts.

Ah, yes, Antonette Farticello....

z

unread,
Jan 26, 2006, 3:03:49 AM1/26/06
to
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 22:35:03 GMT, MarkA <mant...@stopspam.net> wrote:

>I was watching a documentary the other day about army ants, and how the
>colony of 1-3 million individual members acts, in many ways, like a single
>organism. They all "know" when it is time to move the nest, which way to
>go, where to stop, how to distribute the food, etc. All this is done with
>no visible, central command/control/communications apparatus.
>

>Obviously, such complex behavior could not arise "by chance." Ergo, there
>must be some "Intelligent Director" controlling the hive. What is the ID
>like? Is it human? A really smart ant? Is there an ant heaven?
>
>Ant theologians need to get busy with some answers, here.

I for one welcome our new ant Overlords.

I'll see if I can if I can find the link for teaching in ants in a
recent paper in Sciencenaturepnasjbccb. I love esubscriptions, but
the drawback to is that I can never remember which journal an article
that I found interesting but not directly relevant came from.

B Miller

Martin Hutton

unread,
Jan 26, 2006, 1:52:18 PM1/26/06
to

Douglas Hofstadter expands upon that idea in his "Goedel, Escher and
Bach". Well worth reading.

Fooj

unread,
Jan 26, 2006, 6:04:04 PM1/26/06
to
It depends on the hebrew/yiddish word for 'kind'. Any creationists out
there who want to look it up in a lexicon? They should.

rja.ca...@excite.com

unread,
Jan 27, 2006, 8:41:08 PM1/27/06
to
Fooj wrote:
> It depends on the hebrew/yiddish word for 'kind'. Any creationists out
> there who want to look it up in a lexicon? They should.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baraminology refers to a word "min". Last
time this came up that I recall seeing, we did get as far as Latin
versions which use both "species" and "genus", turn-about, but I don't
think we got as far as deciding whether that represented two words or
one in Hebrew.

0 new messages