Book review of Nature\'s I.Q. (Evolution)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, August 25, 2009, 03:50 (5368 days ago) @ David Turell

In Nature's IQ the scorpion fish's eating habits are described, as are a number of other predators. The scorpion fish has a dorsal fin that looks like the female fish of its prey. Male fish are attracted and eaten. When full the scorpion fish turns off the attractive color of the fin and stops eating. Obviously, the color comes back when hungry. Did the dorsal fin and its color come in a mutation, and then another mutation arranged to have the color turn off so the fish could rest (or not explode from overeating)?
> 
> The angler fish draws prey with a lighted bulb on the end of a stalk that is presumed to represent the mutated first spoke of its dorsal fin. It looks to be about as long as 1/4th-1/5th of body length. It lights up from rare bacteria in the bulb that produce luminescent chemicals. How did evolution arrange for all that? Did it grow the bulb and then invite in the bacteria? Or did it pick up the bacteria first and then grow the bulb to take advantage of the light produced? Is this epigenetic or mutative?
> 
> By the way, I've seen one speculative article that state the Chinese paleontologists, where the best Cambrian Shale fossils are far superior to the Canadian (Burgess), are begining to doubt the Darwin Theory. Frankly, I'm not surprised at the speculation. These fossils allow for better understanding as to how complex the critters are. - I still think you're looking at a chicken-and-egg question here. What about human mitochondria? I don't know how much traction the explanation has, but it appears much of life found ways to survive together. Behavioral explanations could shed quite a bit of light. - I still don't see how the complexity would be the sign of a creator--again our only disagreement, but there it is. Perhaps a powerful question: If it is shown that life's mutations happen in rapid bursts, of what significance is it? There would still be a general progression from noncomplex to complex, there would still be a common ancestor of all life... evolution could happen quickly or slowly. To me that's all I would get out of that, and in my case--only a direct observation of something I think is true. It wouldn't make me fundamentally question anything else. I guess the question just doesn't bother me as much. I've said before (and say here again) that stronger arguments for God exist in the mental world than in the physical one.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"