Solving the Mystery of Rhino’s Tiny Feet
Researchers have a hard time figuring out how
these huge animals can stand on such dainty feet.
Summary: Some veterinary scientists in the U. K. are trying to discover
how the dainty little pigeon-toed feet of a rhinoceros can support its
huge weight. A rhino can weigh as much as 8,000 pounds (3,600
kilograms), but somehow his feet manages just fine.
The researchers coaxed three white rhinos to walk across a “pressure
pad” embedded with thousands of pressure sensors. The scientists
collected data on how much force the beasts exert on different parts
of their feet as they walk. Initial results show toes feel pressures of up
to 75 pounds per square inch (psi) while the pads on their feet feel 15
psi.
"Impressively, the peak pressures aren't that different from human feet
(similar range of values), although the timing and distribution of
pressures around the feet surely are different to some degree we
haven't yet quantified," said John Hutchinson, professor of evolutionary
biomechanics at the Royal Veterinary College
The scientists are also comparing how the locomotion of rhinoceroses
differs from that of other large animals like elephants. Compared to the
column-like legs of elephants, rhinos’ legs are thinner and splay out into
larger circular pads tipped with three rigid toes. Their bodies look like
they are teetering on four saplings. The two animals carry their weight
differently too. "Rhinos put more pressure on the inside [edge] of their
feet; elephants on the outside, which is weird and we don't really
understand it yet," Hutchinson said.
Because the rhinoceroses proved somewhat reluctant to follow the
directions of the researchers, what good is this research? Hutchinson
said the project could help detect and treat abnormal foot pressure
patterns in rhinos that could indicate health problems, potentially a
serious issue with large land mammals. Secondly, learning how rhinos
carry their bulk with minimal pressure on the feet could help engineers
design heavy load lifters, “but we still have a ways to go before we can
really suggest new inspirations for design."
To read the entire article, click on YAHOO NEWS.
Comment: I hope followers of this blog are not getting bored with the
frequent stories that point out evidence of “intelligent design” in various
creatures. But the more stories like this one which get reported, the
harder it is to continue to insist that living organisms are nothing more
than the result of natural processes.
Here we have a huge animal which doesn’t look like it should be able to
stand up on its relatively skinny legs, but it does and it does so without
complaining. We can hear the amazement in Mr. Hutchinson’s
comments about this ability being “weird and we don’t really understand
it yet.” As for the possibility engineers might copy this design when
planning for new and improved heavy load lifters, Mr. Hutchinson
indicated scientists still have a ways to go yet in completely
understanding the rhino and its locomotion and how its design can be
used by human inventors.
The practice of studying nature in order to design human “inventions”
and new ways of doing things is known as biomimicry or bionics. Again,
there are so many examples of biomimicry, one wonders why humans,
the most advanced species, are able to learn so many lessons from
these less-advanced species if evolution is true.
When commenting on the wickedness of the citizens of Jerusalem during
His time, Jesus made reference to another well-designed albeit lowly
creature, the chicken. “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets
and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your
children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you
were not willing“ (Matthew 23:37).
Like the compassion a hen has for her chicks, Jesus has compassion for
all of us. We can run away from Him if we wish, but not if we care about
our futures. “As a father has compassion on his children, so the LORD
has compassion on those who fear him” (Psalm 103:13). And Jesus had
so much compassion for us, He died on a cross so we could be saved.
PRINT (Black type on white background)
***************************************************************************
Want to be automatically notified each time there is a new
post? Just e-mail your request to [admin@lutheranscience.org].
***************************************************************************
QUESTION OF THE DAY
Is it okay for family members to share the same bath towels?
***************************************************************************
15 Comments
Nutcracker wrote: Were modern rhinos created ex nihilo by God,
though? Or did they evolve from the smaller 'proto-rhinos' of the
Eocene (e.g., Hyrachyus)? The fossil record suggests that modern
rhinos descended from animals similar to tapirs. If you equate evolution
with godlessness -- as creationists are apt to do -- then modern rhino
feet probably aren't "intelligently designed".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Editor wrote: I do not know what the original ancestor from which
the rhino descended (not “evolved”) looked like. But contrary to what
you said, the rhinoceros actually validates the idea of intelligent design,
because their feet and legs are not what human designers would have
come up with, yet these animals do quite well with what they have, to
the amazement/puzzlement of the scientists who studied them. That
suggests a divine designer who knows more than we do.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nutcracker wrote: I'm confused. According to William Paley's
original analogy, we can attribute intelligent design to an object
because it resembles something that a human WOULD design (the
classic watchmaker argument). Now you're saying that we should infer
intelligent design when an object resembles something that a human
WOULDN'T design. You can't have it both ways. That's disingenuous,
and plays right into the counter-argument that intelligent design
explains nothing (because it explains everything).
Another point to consider: intelligent design proponents will often argue
that similarity in design points to a common designer. Here, the article in
question indicates that rhino and elephant limbs are designed
differently to handle the weight of their bodies. Does that imply that
rhinos and elephants were created by different designers?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Editor wrote: “Intelligent design explains nothing (because it
explains everything).” Hmmm, just like how I have heard natural
selection described.
If something gives evidence of having been designed by an
intelligence, I would call that intelligent design, whether it is something
a human might design or something even better than what a human
would design. The whole practice of biomimicry, which was suggested
in this story, is built on the realization that there are designs in nature
that humans haven’t thought of yet, an indication that there is a
Designer of nature.
As for your other point, are you claiming that designers, whether human
or divine, must make all their creations look exactly alike? Surely not
I hope. There are many more similarities between elephants and
rhinoceroses than there are differences, anyway. Nutcracker, I think
you are grasping at straws now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerhold L. Lemke wrote: Warren - You've covered the subject of
intelligent design as far as it can take anybody. Nutcracker ought to
ask you why you have -0- rhino bones and -0- elephant bones buried
with any dinosaur bones, if one massive Flood killed them all. Big,
bloated bodies should have "mixed it up" before being buried, chaos &
statistical probability being the rule here. Otherwise, you should admit
that God would have made himself to be a great Liar, separating them
as they are found. Any rational mind comprehends this.
Thanks to Nutcracker for mentioning Hyrachyus. Please, then, consider
Teleoceras. You say that you don't know what the rhinos on the Ark
looked like (as if today's animals instantly morphed into what they are
today). How many fossil rhino forms were there? And elephant forms?
Lots. How many modern forms of elephant or rhino are found
in your "Flood-fossil" record. I've never read that any such have been
found. Why not? (Oh, sorry, God didn't create today's "kinds," you
suppose.)
Anyhow, you owe it to your readers to Google for: ashfall rhinos. The
first page of entries gives you the whole story. They're all Teleoceras,
and they all died in their local area with other extinct creatures of their
Nebraska ecosystem in Deep Time, when the supervolcano (that
spewed the killing ash) presently under Yellowstone was under SE Idaho.
Have I told you this before? All the geology under this world-
class site is supposedly "Flood geology," so were these bones from
"after" the Flood? Only several thousand years ago?! Impossible,
given the REALITY here. Hence my bottom line, that God saw your
LSI coming along back at Creation time, and set the site down right
where it's at, just to mercifully give your readers a rational answer to
your sanctified unrealities.
Years ago, our former WELS president agreed with me in his office that,
when simple error ends up being uncorrected, and defended, that then
it becomes a lie. "Speaking the truth in love," GLL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nutcracker wrote: Why would you knock natural selection, Editor? It's
the process by which so-called "kinds" are thought to have diversified
after getting off the Ark, according to the creationist literature:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-natural-selection-evolution
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n3/natural-selection
Methinks you're just trying to be contradictory, regardless of what it
means for your integrity.
Regardless, please answer my first question: What does non-design
look like? If intelligent design is a scientific theory that deserves to be
taught alongside evolution, it must be falsifiable in the Popperian sense.
A nd if it's falsifiable, it must be able to predict what design and non-
design would look like in nature. What say you?
Regarding the differences between rhino and elephant legs, you've just
proved my point that the "same design, same designer" argument is an
empty platitude. If the same designer can create different designs (think
of a single artist working in different media), and different artists can
create similar designs (think of two artists working in the same medium),
then there is nothing to the argument because it, too, is unfalsifiable.
Please address these concerns directly, rather than trying to switch the
subject to the perceived difficulties of evolutionary theory, as you are
prone to do. Simply trying to poke holes in evolution doesn't make
"Lutheran science" a credible alternative.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Editor wrote: Nutcracker, I didn’t think I would have to explain
“design” because I believe it is obvious to most people. However, you
asked for a definition, so without checking a dictionary I will give it a
shot. I would describe design in the context in which we have been using
it as “the evident product of an intelligent mind which serves a useful
purpose” such as an automobile engine or the human eye or even a
beautiful painting. A “non-design” would then be the result of
randomness or chaos.
I am greatly surprised that you accused me of “knocking” natural
selection in my comments above because I have written about it many
times, in fact earlier this month. The Jan. 2 post had the title/subtitle of
“Bugs Becoming Resistant to Corn Toxin / An example of natural
selection, but is it evolution?” I mentioned natural selection above only
because you wrote about intelligent design as supposedly explaining
nothing because it explains everything. Your comment was a near-copy
of the remark by Neo-Darwinist Richard Lewontin (reference:
http://www.kk.org/outofcontrol/ch19-a.html) who said, "Natural selection
explains nothing, because it explains everything."
I can’t quite follow your argument about what is or isn’t “falsifiable,” but I
do know Darwinism is not ”falsifiable,” which is why it is still officially a
“theory” (or an hypothesis) and not a “fact.”
Sorry that you apparently are upset with my explanations regarding the
fallacies and weaknesses of the theory of evolution, but I am willing to
spend hours and hours on this blog and on my other work for the
Science Institute in appreciation for God having rescued me from falling
into the evolution abyss during the college days. While I was teetering
on the brink, He showed me via my studies in creation science and the
Word of God that evolution theory is not what it is cracked up to be, not
by a long shot.
I appeal to you again to stop living in a state of denial and return to the
truth of the Bible with its wonderful promise of a blissful and eternal life
in heaven for all who have repented of their sins and now follow Christ
and His Word.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerhold L. Lemke wrote: Can somebody still focus on the "ashfall
rhinos" yet before this gets overlooked? It's a site that perfectly blows
away the creationist post-Flood scenario. Why not deal with the HARD
questions? GLL
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nutcracker wrote: Hi Editor,
Please note that I didn't ask you to provide a definition of what design
is. I asked you to explain how design is recognized, and likewise, how
non-design is recognized. You've avoided answering this question,
opining instead that design is "obvious". Kind of like your position on
how to recognize "kinds". That's not very helpful.
Regardless, let's work with what you have said. You've argued that
design reflects purpose, whereas non-design reflects "randomness and
chaos". Are purposefulness and randomness mutually exclusive, as you
imply, though? What about an abstract painter who randomly flings
paint at a canvas with the purpose of creating art? More importantly,
what about the words of the Bible itself? What about Proverbs 16:33,
which states that even random events -- like the casting of dice -- are
under God's control? What about Isaiah 45:7, which states that God
creates calamity/disaster/evil (choose your definition)? If God can use
randomness and disaster to fulfill His purpose, doesn't this fly in the
face of your position that randomness precludes design? What does
this mean for your position on evolution? You like to claim the "biblical"
high ground on these issues, but I have to wonder whether your
theology of nature is truly biblical at all.
(As an aside, it's funny that you should say that evolution is not
falsifiable when this entire blog is dedicated to falsifying evolution.
Another example of contradiction trumping integrity.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Editor wrote: Nutcracker, in your comments above you gave no
indication that you checked out the link I provided in my previous
message. So, before I publish any more of your comments or respond
to them, I want you to carefully read the contents of that link (actually a
chapter from a book) and provide your response. (Put John Woidke’s
paper on the back burner for now.) I do not recognize the name of the
author, Kevin Kelly (founder of Wired magazine), or any of the names
of the reviewers who approved of his work as being linked to either the
creationist or the Intelligent Design communities. Nevertheless, in his
comments, Kelly repeats many of the problems creationists have been
pointing out for years regarding evolution theory. I have provided a
number of direct quotes below.
The link again is http://www.kk.org/outofcontrol/ch19-a.html
" ‘It is totally wrong. It's wrong like infectious medicine was wrong before
Pasteur. It's wrong like phrenology is wrong. Every major tenet of it is
wrong,' said the outspoken biologist Lynn Margulis about her latest
target: the dogma of Darwinian evolution."
“Disagreeing with Darwin resembles creationism to the uninformed;
therefore the stigma that any taint of creationism can bring to a
scientific reputation, coupled with the intimidating genius of Darwin,
have kept all but the boldest iconoclasts from doubting Darwinian
theory in public.” (Another indication that there is pressure on
scientists to conform to the establishment theory even if they privately
may have serious doubts .)
“What excites Margulis is the remarkable incompleteness of general
Darwinian theory. Darwinism is wrong by what it omits and by what it
incorrectly emphasizes.”
“No one was more sensitive to the weaknesses of Darwinian theory than
Darwin himself. As an example of trouble, Darwin volunteered the
astounding multifaceted sophistication of the human eye. (Every critic of
Darwin since has also used his example.)”
“Until evolution is duplicated under controlled conditions, in the wild, or
in a lab, neodarwinism remains a nice "just-so" story -- more like history
than science. Philosopher of science Karl Popper said bluntly that
neodarwinism is not a scientific theory at all, since it cannot be falsified.”
“These careful measurements prove that self-governing adaptation
does spontaneously occur in nature. They also unequivocally
demonstrate that noticeable change can emerge on its own by summing
up the steady unnoticeable work of incremental deletions of the unfit.
But the results do not show new levels of diversity, new kinds of
creatures, or even new complexity emerging.”
“Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in
the wild in recorded history.” (Creationists will grant that depending on
how the word “species” is defined, some new species have appeared.)
“No one has yet witnessed, in the fossil record, in real life, or in
computer life, the exact transitional moments when natural selection
pumps its complexity up to the next level. There is a suspicious barrier
in the vicinity of species that either holds back this critical change or
removes it from our sight.”
“As the French evolutionist Pierre Grasse said, ‘Variation is one thing,
evolution quite another; this cannot be emphasized strongly enough....
Mutations provide change, but not progress.’ So while natural selection
may be responsible for microchange -- a trend in variations -- no one
can say indisputably that it is responsible for macrochange -- the
open-ended creation of an unexpected novel form and progress toward
increasing complexity.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Editor wrote: And when I said I would like your response, I was
thinking more of a point-by-point refutation, not the brief response in
which you evaded the issues by saying someone else has refuted them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerhold L. Lemke wrote: Warren - Thanks for the quotations (above).
Since I'm asking WELS people to check out your site, and
this particular visit on it, they should thank you as well. Now - Back to
my request above, in line with your last words about evading an issue.
Please let us know how LSI answers the physical realities of the "ashfall
rhino" site in Nebraska, a world-class deposit of bones of many species
in more "recent" Deep Time. If you can't connect them for us
with Bible History Time (before, during, or after the Flood), then your
LSI ought to admit the failure of its scenario. GLL
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Editor wrote: When time permits, I'll check into the ashfall
rhinos.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Editor wrote: I did some checking on ashfall rhinos and if you
are referring to the ones in Nebraska, I don't know what your problem
with them is. Scientists, both evolutionist and creationist, maintain
they died and were suddenly buried in volcanic ash along with other
species. Creationists seem to believe this event happened post-Flood.
Because you don't believe in catastrophic events, I don't know what
you will say about it. (Do you accept the reality of the Mount Vesuvius
eruption in 79 AD that destroyed two Roman cities or do you regard it
as historical fiction?)
Source: http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j22_3/j22_3_59-61.pdf
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerhold L. Lemke wrote: Warren - Thanks for checking on the
Nebraska site. Let me explain my "problem." This was no "sudden"
burial. The accounts plainly describe the evidence for a watering hole
filling with maybe 10 feet of blown-in ash (from maybe half a foot of
original ash fallout). You should have seen where growths on the
bones of the rhinos showed evidence of slow suffocation over at least
a month's time. The bottom of the pond shows what you'd find at the
bottom of a real pond, with animal prints in the mud. Predators were
eating some of the dead animals, so this wasn't a Flood event. These
are all extinct species, consistent with Deep Time fauna. Especially, you
shouldn't have missed that it, that the volcanic ash came from the
Yellowstone supervolcano back when it was under SE Idaho in Deep
Time. Since then, further ash layers stand out in the geologic record of
North America, as the American plate moved across the hot spot!
That's the actual appearance of things, and there is nothing in your
scenario to answer it. If the Flood "deposited" everything deeper down
here, as you say, so that these creatures had to have ancestor pairs
on the Ark. And if it would have taken centuries for these "kinds" to
spread out as far as Nebraska, then the C-14 here ought to be the
same as anything else living in the Middle East only 4,000 years ago.
But, surprise, there's no C-14 here at all, unless somebody reports a
mere trace. of course, I know the reality of catastrophic events, such
as the eruption of Mt. Toba in Deep Time. And in real time, the slide
off Mt. Etna about 6000 B.C. (sending a tsunami up on the beach off
Mt. Carmel). Please dig into Old World geology. As for elephants &
rhinos, your people opt for just about instant evolution (change) of Ark
animals. Do you still back Walt Brown's hydroplate theory? He
imagined that today's 600,000+ beetles came from fewer beetle species
on the Ark. That's one fast & furious rate of evolution! Finally, you said
"believe" again. I say that I believe exactly what the Bible says.
Everything else, like the origin of fossils, I have to THINK. GLL
NOTE ON VISITOR COMMENTS: Visitor comments are invited including
those containing alternate views. However, comments containing
profanity or advertisements will not be published. After posting a
comment, please allow several hours for it to appear on the blog.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Researchers have a hard time figuring out how
these huge animals can stand on such dainty feet.
Summary: Some veterinary scientists in the U. K. are trying to discover
how the dainty little pigeon-toed feet of a rhinoceros can support its
huge weight. A rhino can weigh as much as 8,000 pounds (3,600
kilograms), but somehow his feet manages just fine.
The researchers coaxed three white rhinos to walk across a “pressure
pad” embedded with thousands of pressure sensors. The scientists
collected data on how much force the beasts exert on different parts
of their feet as they walk. Initial results show toes feel pressures of up
to 75 pounds per square inch (psi) while the pads on their feet feel 15
psi.
"Impressively, the peak pressures aren't that different from human feet
(similar range of values), although the timing and distribution of
pressures around the feet surely are different to some degree we
haven't yet quantified," said John Hutchinson, professor of evolutionary
biomechanics at the Royal Veterinary College
The scientists are also comparing how the locomotion of rhinoceroses
differs from that of other large animals like elephants. Compared to the
column-like legs of elephants, rhinos’ legs are thinner and splay out into
larger circular pads tipped with three rigid toes. Their bodies look like
they are teetering on four saplings. The two animals carry their weight
differently too. "Rhinos put more pressure on the inside [edge] of their
feet; elephants on the outside, which is weird and we don't really
understand it yet," Hutchinson said.
Because the rhinoceroses proved somewhat reluctant to follow the
directions of the researchers, what good is this research? Hutchinson
said the project could help detect and treat abnormal foot pressure
patterns in rhinos that could indicate health problems, potentially a
serious issue with large land mammals. Secondly, learning how rhinos
carry their bulk with minimal pressure on the feet could help engineers
design heavy load lifters, “but we still have a ways to go before we can
really suggest new inspirations for design."
To read the entire article, click on YAHOO NEWS.
Comment: I hope followers of this blog are not getting bored with the
frequent stories that point out evidence of “intelligent design” in various
creatures. But the more stories like this one which get reported, the
harder it is to continue to insist that living organisms are nothing more
than the result of natural processes.
Here we have a huge animal which doesn’t look like it should be able to
stand up on its relatively skinny legs, but it does and it does so without
complaining. We can hear the amazement in Mr. Hutchinson’s
comments about this ability being “weird and we don’t really understand
it yet.” As for the possibility engineers might copy this design when
planning for new and improved heavy load lifters, Mr. Hutchinson
indicated scientists still have a ways to go yet in completely
understanding the rhino and its locomotion and how its design can be
used by human inventors.
The practice of studying nature in order to design human “inventions”
and new ways of doing things is known as biomimicry or bionics. Again,
there are so many examples of biomimicry, one wonders why humans,
the most advanced species, are able to learn so many lessons from
these less-advanced species if evolution is true.
When commenting on the wickedness of the citizens of Jerusalem during
His time, Jesus made reference to another well-designed albeit lowly
creature, the chicken. “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets
and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your
children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you
were not willing“ (Matthew 23:37).
Like the compassion a hen has for her chicks, Jesus has compassion for
all of us. We can run away from Him if we wish, but not if we care about
our futures. “As a father has compassion on his children, so the LORD
has compassion on those who fear him” (Psalm 103:13). And Jesus had
so much compassion for us, He died on a cross so we could be saved.
PRINT (Black type on white background)
***************************************************************************
Want to be automatically notified each time there is a new
post? Just e-mail your request to [admin@lutheranscience.org].
***************************************************************************
QUESTION OF THE DAY
Is it okay for family members to share the same bath towels?
***************************************************************************
15 Comments
Nutcracker wrote: Were modern rhinos created ex nihilo by God,
though? Or did they evolve from the smaller 'proto-rhinos' of the
Eocene (e.g., Hyrachyus)? The fossil record suggests that modern
rhinos descended from animals similar to tapirs. If you equate evolution
with godlessness -- as creationists are apt to do -- then modern rhino
feet probably aren't "intelligently designed".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Editor wrote: I do not know what the original ancestor from which
the rhino descended (not “evolved”) looked like. But contrary to what
you said, the rhinoceros actually validates the idea of intelligent design,
because their feet and legs are not what human designers would have
come up with, yet these animals do quite well with what they have, to
the amazement/puzzlement of the scientists who studied them. That
suggests a divine designer who knows more than we do.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nutcracker wrote: I'm confused. According to William Paley's
original analogy, we can attribute intelligent design to an object
because it resembles something that a human WOULD design (the
classic watchmaker argument). Now you're saying that we should infer
intelligent design when an object resembles something that a human
WOULDN'T design. You can't have it both ways. That's disingenuous,
and plays right into the counter-argument that intelligent design
explains nothing (because it explains everything).
Another point to consider: intelligent design proponents will often argue
that similarity in design points to a common designer. Here, the article in
question indicates that rhino and elephant limbs are designed
differently to handle the weight of their bodies. Does that imply that
rhinos and elephants were created by different designers?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Editor wrote: “Intelligent design explains nothing (because it
explains everything).” Hmmm, just like how I have heard natural
selection described.
If something gives evidence of having been designed by an
intelligence, I would call that intelligent design, whether it is something
a human might design or something even better than what a human
would design. The whole practice of biomimicry, which was suggested
in this story, is built on the realization that there are designs in nature
that humans haven’t thought of yet, an indication that there is a
Designer of nature.
As for your other point, are you claiming that designers, whether human
or divine, must make all their creations look exactly alike? Surely not
I hope. There are many more similarities between elephants and
rhinoceroses than there are differences, anyway. Nutcracker, I think
you are grasping at straws now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerhold L. Lemke wrote: Warren - You've covered the subject of
intelligent design as far as it can take anybody. Nutcracker ought to
ask you why you have -0- rhino bones and -0- elephant bones buried
with any dinosaur bones, if one massive Flood killed them all. Big,
bloated bodies should have "mixed it up" before being buried, chaos &
statistical probability being the rule here. Otherwise, you should admit
that God would have made himself to be a great Liar, separating them
as they are found. Any rational mind comprehends this.
Thanks to Nutcracker for mentioning Hyrachyus. Please, then, consider
Teleoceras. You say that you don't know what the rhinos on the Ark
looked like (as if today's animals instantly morphed into what they are
today). How many fossil rhino forms were there? And elephant forms?
Lots. How many modern forms of elephant or rhino are found
in your "Flood-fossil" record. I've never read that any such have been
found. Why not? (Oh, sorry, God didn't create today's "kinds," you
suppose.)
Anyhow, you owe it to your readers to Google for: ashfall rhinos. The
first page of entries gives you the whole story. They're all Teleoceras,
and they all died in their local area with other extinct creatures of their
Nebraska ecosystem in Deep Time, when the supervolcano (that
spewed the killing ash) presently under Yellowstone was under SE Idaho.
Have I told you this before? All the geology under this world-
class site is supposedly "Flood geology," so were these bones from
"after" the Flood? Only several thousand years ago?! Impossible,
given the REALITY here. Hence my bottom line, that God saw your
LSI coming along back at Creation time, and set the site down right
where it's at, just to mercifully give your readers a rational answer to
your sanctified unrealities.
Years ago, our former WELS president agreed with me in his office that,
when simple error ends up being uncorrected, and defended, that then
it becomes a lie. "Speaking the truth in love," GLL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nutcracker wrote: Why would you knock natural selection, Editor? It's
the process by which so-called "kinds" are thought to have diversified
after getting off the Ark, according to the creationist literature:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-natural-selection-evolution
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n3/natural-selection
Methinks you're just trying to be contradictory, regardless of what it
means for your integrity.
Regardless, please answer my first question: What does non-design
look like? If intelligent design is a scientific theory that deserves to be
taught alongside evolution, it must be falsifiable in the Popperian sense.
A nd if it's falsifiable, it must be able to predict what design and non-
design would look like in nature. What say you?
Regarding the differences between rhino and elephant legs, you've just
proved my point that the "same design, same designer" argument is an
empty platitude. If the same designer can create different designs (think
of a single artist working in different media), and different artists can
create similar designs (think of two artists working in the same medium),
then there is nothing to the argument because it, too, is unfalsifiable.
Please address these concerns directly, rather than trying to switch the
subject to the perceived difficulties of evolutionary theory, as you are
prone to do. Simply trying to poke holes in evolution doesn't make
"Lutheran science" a credible alternative.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Editor wrote: Nutcracker, I didn’t think I would have to explain
“design” because I believe it is obvious to most people. However, you
asked for a definition, so without checking a dictionary I will give it a
shot. I would describe design in the context in which we have been using
it as “the evident product of an intelligent mind which serves a useful
purpose” such as an automobile engine or the human eye or even a
beautiful painting. A “non-design” would then be the result of
randomness or chaos.
I am greatly surprised that you accused me of “knocking” natural
selection in my comments above because I have written about it many
times, in fact earlier this month. The Jan. 2 post had the title/subtitle of
“Bugs Becoming Resistant to Corn Toxin / An example of natural
selection, but is it evolution?” I mentioned natural selection above only
because you wrote about intelligent design as supposedly explaining
nothing because it explains everything. Your comment was a near-copy
of the remark by Neo-Darwinist Richard Lewontin (reference:
http://www.kk.org/outofcontrol/ch19-a.html) who said, "Natural selection
explains nothing, because it explains everything."
I can’t quite follow your argument about what is or isn’t “falsifiable,” but I
do know Darwinism is not ”falsifiable,” which is why it is still officially a
“theory” (or an hypothesis) and not a “fact.”
Sorry that you apparently are upset with my explanations regarding the
fallacies and weaknesses of the theory of evolution, but I am willing to
spend hours and hours on this blog and on my other work for the
Science Institute in appreciation for God having rescued me from falling
into the evolution abyss during the college days. While I was teetering
on the brink, He showed me via my studies in creation science and the
Word of God that evolution theory is not what it is cracked up to be, not
by a long shot.
I appeal to you again to stop living in a state of denial and return to the
truth of the Bible with its wonderful promise of a blissful and eternal life
in heaven for all who have repented of their sins and now follow Christ
and His Word.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerhold L. Lemke wrote: Can somebody still focus on the "ashfall
rhinos" yet before this gets overlooked? It's a site that perfectly blows
away the creationist post-Flood scenario. Why not deal with the HARD
questions? GLL
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nutcracker wrote: Hi Editor,
Please note that I didn't ask you to provide a definition of what design
is. I asked you to explain how design is recognized, and likewise, how
non-design is recognized. You've avoided answering this question,
opining instead that design is "obvious". Kind of like your position on
how to recognize "kinds". That's not very helpful.
Regardless, let's work with what you have said. You've argued that
design reflects purpose, whereas non-design reflects "randomness and
chaos". Are purposefulness and randomness mutually exclusive, as you
imply, though? What about an abstract painter who randomly flings
paint at a canvas with the purpose of creating art? More importantly,
what about the words of the Bible itself? What about Proverbs 16:33,
which states that even random events -- like the casting of dice -- are
under God's control? What about Isaiah 45:7, which states that God
creates calamity/disaster/evil (choose your definition)? If God can use
randomness and disaster to fulfill His purpose, doesn't this fly in the
face of your position that randomness precludes design? What does
this mean for your position on evolution? You like to claim the "biblical"
high ground on these issues, but I have to wonder whether your
theology of nature is truly biblical at all.
(As an aside, it's funny that you should say that evolution is not
falsifiable when this entire blog is dedicated to falsifying evolution.
Another example of contradiction trumping integrity.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Editor wrote: Nutcracker, in your comments above you gave no
indication that you checked out the link I provided in my previous
message. So, before I publish any more of your comments or respond
to them, I want you to carefully read the contents of that link (actually a
chapter from a book) and provide your response. (Put John Woidke’s
paper on the back burner for now.) I do not recognize the name of the
author, Kevin Kelly (founder of Wired magazine), or any of the names
of the reviewers who approved of his work as being linked to either the
creationist or the Intelligent Design communities. Nevertheless, in his
comments, Kelly repeats many of the problems creationists have been
pointing out for years regarding evolution theory. I have provided a
number of direct quotes below.
The link again is http://www.kk.org/outofcontrol/ch19-a.html
" ‘It is totally wrong. It's wrong like infectious medicine was wrong before
Pasteur. It's wrong like phrenology is wrong. Every major tenet of it is
wrong,' said the outspoken biologist Lynn Margulis about her latest
target: the dogma of Darwinian evolution."
“Disagreeing with Darwin resembles creationism to the uninformed;
therefore the stigma that any taint of creationism can bring to a
scientific reputation, coupled with the intimidating genius of Darwin,
have kept all but the boldest iconoclasts from doubting Darwinian
theory in public.” (Another indication that there is pressure on
scientists to conform to the establishment theory even if they privately
may have serious doubts .)
“What excites Margulis is the remarkable incompleteness of general
Darwinian theory. Darwinism is wrong by what it omits and by what it
incorrectly emphasizes.”
“No one was more sensitive to the weaknesses of Darwinian theory than
Darwin himself. As an example of trouble, Darwin volunteered the
astounding multifaceted sophistication of the human eye. (Every critic of
Darwin since has also used his example.)”
“Until evolution is duplicated under controlled conditions, in the wild, or
in a lab, neodarwinism remains a nice "just-so" story -- more like history
than science. Philosopher of science Karl Popper said bluntly that
neodarwinism is not a scientific theory at all, since it cannot be falsified.”
“These careful measurements prove that self-governing adaptation
does spontaneously occur in nature. They also unequivocally
demonstrate that noticeable change can emerge on its own by summing
up the steady unnoticeable work of incremental deletions of the unfit.
But the results do not show new levels of diversity, new kinds of
creatures, or even new complexity emerging.”
“Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in
the wild in recorded history.” (Creationists will grant that depending on
how the word “species” is defined, some new species have appeared.)
“No one has yet witnessed, in the fossil record, in real life, or in
computer life, the exact transitional moments when natural selection
pumps its complexity up to the next level. There is a suspicious barrier
in the vicinity of species that either holds back this critical change or
removes it from our sight.”
“As the French evolutionist Pierre Grasse said, ‘Variation is one thing,
evolution quite another; this cannot be emphasized strongly enough....
Mutations provide change, but not progress.’ So while natural selection
may be responsible for microchange -- a trend in variations -- no one
can say indisputably that it is responsible for macrochange -- the
open-ended creation of an unexpected novel form and progress toward
increasing complexity.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Editor wrote: And when I said I would like your response, I was
thinking more of a point-by-point refutation, not the brief response in
which you evaded the issues by saying someone else has refuted them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerhold L. Lemke wrote: Warren - Thanks for the quotations (above).
Since I'm asking WELS people to check out your site, and
this particular visit on it, they should thank you as well. Now - Back to
my request above, in line with your last words about evading an issue.
Please let us know how LSI answers the physical realities of the "ashfall
rhino" site in Nebraska, a world-class deposit of bones of many species
in more "recent" Deep Time. If you can't connect them for us
with Bible History Time (before, during, or after the Flood), then your
LSI ought to admit the failure of its scenario. GLL
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Editor wrote: When time permits, I'll check into the ashfall
rhinos.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Editor wrote: I did some checking on ashfall rhinos and if you
are referring to the ones in Nebraska, I don't know what your problem
with them is. Scientists, both evolutionist and creationist, maintain
they died and were suddenly buried in volcanic ash along with other
species. Creationists seem to believe this event happened post-Flood.
Because you don't believe in catastrophic events, I don't know what
you will say about it. (Do you accept the reality of the Mount Vesuvius
eruption in 79 AD that destroyed two Roman cities or do you regard it
as historical fiction?)
Source: http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j22_3/j22_3_59-61.pdf
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerhold L. Lemke wrote: Warren - Thanks for checking on the
Nebraska site. Let me explain my "problem." This was no "sudden"
burial. The accounts plainly describe the evidence for a watering hole
filling with maybe 10 feet of blown-in ash (from maybe half a foot of
original ash fallout). You should have seen where growths on the
bones of the rhinos showed evidence of slow suffocation over at least
a month's time. The bottom of the pond shows what you'd find at the
bottom of a real pond, with animal prints in the mud. Predators were
eating some of the dead animals, so this wasn't a Flood event. These
are all extinct species, consistent with Deep Time fauna. Especially, you
shouldn't have missed that it, that the volcanic ash came from the
Yellowstone supervolcano back when it was under SE Idaho in Deep
Time. Since then, further ash layers stand out in the geologic record of
North America, as the American plate moved across the hot spot!
That's the actual appearance of things, and there is nothing in your
scenario to answer it. If the Flood "deposited" everything deeper down
here, as you say, so that these creatures had to have ancestor pairs
on the Ark. And if it would have taken centuries for these "kinds" to
spread out as far as Nebraska, then the C-14 here ought to be the
same as anything else living in the Middle East only 4,000 years ago.
But, surprise, there's no C-14 here at all, unless somebody reports a
mere trace. of course, I know the reality of catastrophic events, such
as the eruption of Mt. Toba in Deep Time. And in real time, the slide
off Mt. Etna about 6000 B.C. (sending a tsunami up on the beach off
Mt. Carmel). Please dig into Old World geology. As for elephants &
rhinos, your people opt for just about instant evolution (change) of Ark
animals. Do you still back Walt Brown's hydroplate theory? He
imagined that today's 600,000+ beetles came from fewer beetle species
on the Ark. That's one fast & furious rate of evolution! Finally, you said
"believe" again. I say that I believe exactly what the Bible says.
Everything else, like the origin of fossils, I have to THINK. GLL
NOTE ON VISITOR COMMENTS: Visitor comments are invited including
those containing alternate views. However, comments containing
profanity or advertisements will not be published. After posting a
comment, please allow several hours for it to appear on the blog.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, Jan. 20, 2012 Prefer to read this post in Blogspot? Click Here. PRINT
Not recommended. This practice has the
potential to spread skin organisms that can
cause skin and other infections. So says Dr.
Amesh A. Adalja of the U. of Pittsburgh Medical
Center. It would be better if each family member
had a designated towel and to wash it weekly in
hot water.
Source: Spry (January, 2012)
potential to spread skin organisms that can
cause skin and other infections. So says Dr.
Amesh A. Adalja of the U. of Pittsburgh Medical
Center. It would be better if each family member
had a designated towel and to wash it weekly in
hot water.
Source: Spry (January, 2012)
The opinions expressed
here are those of The
Editor and do not
necessarily represent
the views of the Lutheran
Science Institute. Please
note that links in older
posts may be broken.
here are those of The
Editor and do not
necessarily represent
the views of the Lutheran
Science Institute. Please
note that links in older
posts may be broken.
About Me - Warren Krug
The Editor
Decades ago I attended a
so-called Lutheran
university where I could
have lost my faith. The
science professors promoted
the theory of evolution and
made fun of anybody who
believed in the account of
creation as presented in
the book of Genesis.
Thanks be to God, some
creationist literature and
the Bible soon helped get
me back on the right track.
Ever since then I have
taken an active interest in
the creation/evolution
controversy.
Background image from NASA
The Editor
Decades ago I attended a
so-called Lutheran
university where I could
have lost my faith. The
science professors promoted
the theory of evolution and
made fun of anybody who
believed in the account of
creation as presented in
the book of Genesis.
Thanks be to God, some
creationist literature and
the Bible soon helped get
me back on the right track.
Ever since then I have
taken an active interest in
the creation/evolution
controversy.
Background image from NASA
