GOD ? or Evolution?

So . . . you ignore both because you think they contadict each other, but they dont even necesarrily do that.

 

Than how did creatures develop organs (especially the Brain)?

Because God created them taller, according to their genes. Simple as that.

You still didn't give me an evolutionary explenation for it though, how DID the first giraffe become taller if it didn't have the genes to be? Most of all, a giraffe's design is way to perfect to have evolved, IMO. One evolutionary flaw and it'd be dead.

 

the real leap is from procaryotic organisms (bacteria & their allies) & the eucaryotes (everything else - protists (amoebae, paramecia, volvox...), fungi, plants, & animals...)

& remember, the total biomass of the prokaryota is greater than that of all eukaryota combined!

now, as for the evolution of giraffes & eyeballs & hummingbirds & blue whales & duckbilled platypi... & the primate & great ape family (including the crown of creation, Homo sapiens sapiens)...
please do some basic science reading (or watch dr carl sagan's totally excellent video series "cosmos" for a li'l intro, dearie...()

 

Point taken to consideration...
We have left these talks about the giraffe long time ago(even though some arguments are still valid, its still possible for evolutionsts to offer what I call CE -conjecture evidence-)

If we would instead reach the level of molecule machines and irreducibly complex systems then the theory of evolution is as dead as its founder! According to whom, one may ask? Darwin him self said this:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Behe was right when he wrote that people are afraid of this subject, otherwise we would have found some evolutionsts trying to explain these extrodinary systems within us such as blodclotting and our immunsystem, but no...
Its either publish or PERISH! They havent published so now they are compelled to perish...

And say: "Truth has (now) arrived, and Falsehood perished: for Falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish."[Quran 17.81]

 

I know about apes and humans and all that.

But everyone so far has not been able to tell me how this happened with the giraffe. And noone could explain how your brain just so *happened* to develop.

Now there's another thing: how can bumble bees fly if it would actually be physicly impossible for them?
A bumble bee shouldn't be able to fly. For it has a very 'heavy' body for those small and short wings.

I bet I could list quite a few creatures that defy evolution.

 

We've only been seriously working at this problem for a short 100 years. Scientists can't be expected to concentrate on every bit of minutiae in their field; or perhaps you would prefer that all scientists become evolutionary biologists, rather than physicists or cancer researchers?

 

Fine, you want to believe that God directs evolution, I have no problem with that. Just don't willfully deny the fact that it happens.

And no animal is perfect.

 

Your blaming it on time, as did Darwin. You know what, it has almost passed 150 years and we still havent found all these fossils Darwin was so sure we would find. Interesting...

ryu, considering the fact that this animal slaps its wings hundreds of times per sec it should be able to fly, then again I'm no biologist. In which way isn't it supposed to be able to fly, you probably know more than me on this subject?
The fact it does fly is a clear sig for creation, indeed this little working machine is amazing!

 

True, but what I meant with that statement is that Giraffes are among the animals that confuse evolutionist.

 

I'll get back to you on that one. I'm not quite sure. Bees truely are fascinating, though. I agree with you on that! . They defy evolution in some ways

To evolutionists:
While collecting the precious nectar that provides their hives with food, bees pollinate dozens of species of flowers and agricultural crops. Without this vital pollination, orchards could produce little if any fruit, and fruit trees would not survive for long. How can these plants exist without first being pollinated by bees? On the other hand, how could bees exist without first being provided with the necessary nectar as food? Which came first?

 

Good question, try this one:
DNA is composed of protein. In DNA lies the information about which protein to be built, which came first. DNA or proteins?
Do not give me the fake "RNA world", rna is like the blueprint. How can a blueprint come about if there is nothing to print it?

 

First of all, DNA isn't protein.

DNA stands for deoxyribose nucleic acid.

Ribose is a sugar.

That's why DNA is its own category.

And whether you like it or not, RNA most likely came first. You're asking how the first printing press came about when there were no printing presses to print the instructions for it.

 

I'm only posting this so that I won't be accused of ignoring your question; I would be entering a world of conjecture in order to answer this, as I have little to no background in entymology. The best I can do at this time (hopefully someone with more knowledge will pick up on this thread) is offer you an excerpt from Chatper 4 of The Origin of Species, in which Darwin discusses the bee/flower relationship.

"Let us now take a more complex case. Certain plants excrete a sweet juice, apparently for the sake of eliminating something injurious from their sap: this is effected by glands at the base of the stipules in some Leguminosae, and at the back of the leaf of the common laurel. This juice, though small in quantity, is greedily sought by insects. Let us now suppose a little sweet juice or nectar to be excreted by the inner bases of the petals of a flower. In this case insects in seeking the nectar would get dusted with pollen, and would certainly often transport the pollen from one flower to the stigma of another flower. The flowers of two distinct individuals of the same species would thus get crossed; and the act of crossing, we have good reason to believe (as will hereafter be more fully alluded to), would produce very vigorous seedlings, which consequently would have the best chance of flourishing and surviving. Some of these seedlings would probably inherit the nectar-excreting power. Those in individual flowers which had the largest glands or nectaries, and which excreted most nectar, would be oftenest visited by insects, and would be oftenest crossed; and so in the long-run would gain the upper hand. Those flowers, also, which had their stamens and pistils placed, in relation to the size and habits of the particular insects which visited them, so as to favour in any degree the transportal of their pollen from flower to flower, would likewise be favoured or selected. We might have taken the case of insects visiting flowers for the sake of collecting pollen instead of nectar; and as pollen is formed for the sole object of fertilisation, its destruction appears a simple loss to the plant; yet if a little pollen were carried, at first occasionally and then habitually, by the pollen-devouring insects from flower to flower, and a cross thus effected, although nine-tenths of the pollen were destroyed, it might still be a great gain to the plant; and those individuals which produced more and more pollen, and had larger and larger anthers, would be selected.

When our plant, by this process of the continued preservation or natural selection of more and more attractive flowers, had been rendered highly attractive to insects, they would, unintentionally on their part, regularly carry pollen from flower to flower; and that they can most effectually do this, I could easily show by many striking instances. I will give only one not as a very striking case, but as likewise illustrating one step in the separation of the sexes of plants, presently to be alluded to. Some holly-trees bear only male flowers, which have four stamens producing rather a small quantity of pollen, and a rudimentary pistil; other holly-trees bear only female flowers; these have a full-sized pistil, and four stamens with shrivelled anthers, in which not a grain of pollen can be detected. Having found a female tree exactly sixty yards from a male tree, I put the stigmas of twenty flowers, taken from different branches, under the microscope, and on all, without exception, there were pollen-grains, and on some a profusion of pollen. As the wind had set for several days from the female to the male tree, the pollen could not thus have been carried. The weather had been cold and boisterous, and therefore not favourable to bees, nevertheless every female flower which I examined had been effectually fertilised by the bees, accidentally dusted with pollen, having flown from tree to tree in search of nectar. But to return to our imaginary case: as soon as the plant had been rendered so highly attractive to insects that pollen was regularly carried from flower to flower, another process might commence. No naturalist doubts the advantage of what has been called the 'physiological division of labour;' hence we may believe that it would be advantageous to a plant to produce stamens alone in one flower or on one whole plant, and pistils alone in another flower or on another plant. In plants under culture and placed under new conditions of life, sometimes the male organs and sometimes the female organs become more or less impotent; now if we suppose this to occur in ever so slight a degree under nature, then as pollen is already carried regularly from flower to flower, and as a more complete separation of the sexes of our plant would be advantageous on the principle of the division of labour, individuals with this tendency more and more increased, would be continually favoured or selected, until at last a complete separation of the sexes would be effected.

Let us now turn to the nectar-feeding insects in our imaginary case: we may suppose the plant of which we have been slowly increasing the nectar by continued selection, to be a common plant; and that certain insects depended in main part on its nectar for food. I could give many facts, showing how anxious bees are to save time; for instance, their habit of cutting holes and sucking the nectar at the bases of certain flowers, which they can, with a very little more trouble, enter by the mouth. Bearing such facts in mind, I can see no reason to doubt that an accidental deviation in the size and form of the body, or in the curvature and length of the proboscis, &c., far too slight to be appreciated by us, might profit a bee or other insect, so that an individual so characterised would be able to obtain its food more quickly, and so have a better chance of living and leaving descendants. Its descendants would probably inherit a tendency to a similar slight deviation of structure. The tubes of the corollas of the common red and incarnate clovers (Trifolium pratense and incarnatum) do not on a hasty glance appear to differ in length; yet the hive-bee can easily suck the nectar out of the incarnate clover, but not out of the common red clover, which is visited by humble-bees alone; so that whole fields of the red clover offer in vain an abundant supply of precious nectar to the hive-bee. Thus it might be a great advantage to the hive-bee to have a slightly longer or differently constructed proboscis. On the other hand, I have found by experiment that the fertility of clover greatly depends on bees visiting and moving parts of the corolla, so as to push the pollen on to the stigmatic surface. Hence, again, if humble-bees were to become rare in any country, it might be a great advantage to the red clover to have a shorter or more deeply divided tube to its corolla, so that the hive-bee could visit its flowers. Thus I can understand how a flower and a bee might slowly become, either simultaneously or one after the other, modified and adapted in the most perfect manner to each other, by the continued preservation of individuals presenting mutual and slightly favourable deviations of structure."

-The Origin of Species (Chapter 4), Charles Darwin.

 

GOD ? or Evolution?

I heard of religiosity being in our genes.

Speaking of God’s existence, it depends on your definition of God. Do we speak of the God like Spinoza described? In an other definition of God he could be too big to understand him. In got some puzzle: We are in a kidney. Kidney is our God. Everything is of kidney. The kidney cells are discussing the existence of God. Some say: “Kidney is everywhere, therefore he exists.” Others say: “Where can we find kidney? We can’t see him.”

Some pen pal of me thought that there are various levels of existence. These could be experienced by people who are into paranormal stuff, Christians, suffis, atheists, etc.

 

What if evolution..
Is how god creates?

You all seem to be making the assumption that god exists
'In our time frame'.

Yes.The period over which man evolved might be several million
human years.
But who says 'a' god counts our seconds as it's?
If the 'speed of thought' is wildly variable on earth itself.
Why not everywhere?

Thus what looks like a long process full of holes [evolution]
Is in fact a short process of manipulation. [to a god]

Occam

 

Not really. Biologists do certainly argue about the details and the mechanisms, but the idea of evolution in the broad sense: "life changes over time via heritable changes" is not in question among them. Thus, evolution is a fact, but also a Theory (or really, several competing theories).

First, bees and flies shouldn't be able to fly based on airfoil flight dynamics. That is to say, their bodies are too heavy and wings too small for an airfoil to give them flight. HOWEVER, they have evolved to make use of the properties of moving air, namely vortexes of air currents, with bouy them up. Thus, it is simply a different form of flight than birds, bats, and airplanes make use of, and only works because of their small size.

Second, you guys in saying "which came first, the bee or the nectar" or "protein or DNA" assumes that life can only exist as it is. If life in the past were different, maybe that nectar had a different purpose originally (like the quoted Darwin text says, perhaps an excretory function). And maybe the bee was eating pollen (they do that). Like the quoted text says, in the long run, certain plants will survive better and reproduce more, eventually coming to dominate the gene pool thanks to the use of insect polination (the same is true for the bees, in the long run).

DNA is harder and I'm less familiar with it, but you throw out RNA as if it's just a blueprint, but it is likely it was the percursor to DNA. It is simpler for sure, and maybe it wasn't always a "middleman" between DNA and protein formation. Maybe DNA evolved because it is more stable and gave a survival advantage to organisms. I think the problem with you and Cab's thinking is that you think about space, but leave out time.

Third, giraffes are not very perfect at all (they are very vulnerable when drinking because their necks are too short and legs too long. Also they can pass out if they keep their head down too long). And I don't see what about them would confound evolutionists, as they are just another species.

Info on RNA origins of life:
http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SUA03/RNA_origins_life.html
http://www.postmodern.com/~jka/rnaworld/nfrna/nf-index.html

 

Thanks
And about the Giraffe:


Because the neck of the Giraffe extends so high into the air, the heart must contain an extraordinarily strong pump to force the blood from the lower body to the highest reaches of the brain. Thus, the first capability unique to the giraffe is a heart that is also a most powerful pump.

However, when the giraffe lowers its neck to drink, the blood that is circulating in its neck will suddenly come rushing down by the force of gravity. This sudden rush of blood is so strong, it would quickly cause the giraffe to suffer a brain aneurysm, killing the animal instantly. Therefore, the second capability is that spigots are built into his neck arteries that instantly close down whenever the animal lowers its neck to drink water.

However, when the giraffe abruptly raises its head after drinking, the blood would flow so rapidly downward through the force of gravity that the animal would suffer a sudden loss of blood to the brain, thus causing him to pass out cold. However, God has built a third capability that prevents this from occurring. The brain has a sponge-like material just behind the brain that has gradually been absorbing blood all the time the giraffe has been drinking. When the giraffe suddenly raises his head, that blood very slowly drains out of the brain, thus keeping the giraffe from passing out, while the spigots open up and the blood begins to flow naturally.

Three very complicated, but cooperating capabilities had to come together at once in the giraffe.

The Giraffe by itself utterly disproves Evolution.

 

First, thanks for ignoring the rest of my post in your response. I hope you at least read it.

Second, it doesn't disprove anything. We humans have similar adaptations, not all of them, but some. First, all hearts are pumps, and the longer the neck, the stronger the pump will need to be. All of the features you find so singular and unlikely would have slowly formed, together, so a semi-long-necked giraffe would have had a smaller capilary net in it's head, a smaller heart, partial "spigots" to slow the blood rush. For every inch of neck growth, these features (and whatever other features we've not named) would have changed in tandem, enough to keep the giraffe alive and well. Since no one says giraffes got long necks overnight, it's misleading and downright false to say these features had to come together "at once" in the giraffe.

Besides even we humans have little valves in our veins in our legs to keep blood from pooling in our feet. Valves and other blood-flow controlling features in veins and arteries are not unique to giraffes.

Third, next time, try writing your own posts, rather than copy and paste from websites without providing links, acting as if it was you who wrote it: http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1653.cfm

 

Fine. I was just to lazy to write it up.

Now how did the giraffe develop that spongy part of the brain?

 

I don't know enough about it to comment further on the subject. I'm not a giraffe specialist, nor for that matter an evolution specialist.