AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

Complex symbiosis between parasite and host. This cannot have developed step by step, and I don't believe in a meddling God who steps in and arranges partners for the dance.-http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/aug/18/zombie-carpenter-ant-fungus-Is the epigentic mechanism so complex, the process can be manipulated to this degree? Any suggestions?

5800 views

Complex symbiosis between parasite and host. This cannot have developed step by step, and I don't believe in a meddling God who steps in and arranges partners for the dance.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/aug/18/zombie-carpenter-ant-fungus&... 
> Is the epigentic mechanism so complex, the process can be manipulated to this degree? Any suggestions?-
I don't see any reason why this type of situation cannot evolve step by step. There are a lot of similar interactions between fungi and ants and other creatures, as shown in this David Attenborough clip:-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuKjBIBBAL8&feature=fvw-He says at the end that any species that grows too dominant is likely to develop its own cordyceps fungus - so maybe we humans had better watch out too! - but maybe in our case it will be some form of virus.-This is surely a good argument against any form of intelligent design, including DT's curious variety.

--
GPJ

5727 views

Complex symbiosis between parasite and host. This cannot have developed step by step, and I don't believe in a meddling God who steps in and arranges partners for the dance.
> -I do hate it when you make absolute claims such as "This cannot have developed step by step." You cannot know this. Neither can we know it didn't. We are ignorant.-> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/aug/18/zombie-carpenter-ant-fungus&... 
> Is the epigentic mechanism so complex, the process can be manipulated to this degree? Any suggestions?-You seem to make the assumption that the fungus started out purely "to fit" with that ant's physiology and make up. I can think of many possible explanations that do not have me resorting to specialized design. -1. The fungus and ant had a long history even before 48M years ago. Perhaps this species of fungus was able to infect, during the eukaryotic stage, a subset of eukaryotes, Consequently, the arms race between eukaryote and fungi resulted in what we see now. -2. (My favorite.) The fungus started out as a beneficial organism. Termites use bacteria to transform cellulose into sugar. Some ants developed an overactive immune reaction to the fungi, triggering competition; ultimately ending in the form we see today. At some point, the ant--out of the genetic diversity needed to fight the organism, simply has to take the abuse. Clearly, some ants MUST be immune to this parasite, or clearly--we wouldn't have leaf-cutter ants. Which leads to another possibility.-3. Like how C. difficile works in humans--if you have a normal intestinal flora, the bacteria can never take hold. -If you want, I can keep going. Like origins, we can come up with any number of explanations, but again, only those that can be verified or tested should be trusted or used.

--
\"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.\"

5615 views


> 1. The fungus and ant had a long history even before 48M years ago. Perhaps this species of fungus was able to infect, during the eukaryotic stage, a subset of eukaryotes, Consequently, the arms race between eukaryote and fungi resulted in what we see now.-I don't know of an intermediate steps from a Cambrian beginning to our present ants. Perhaps EO wilson does. But you are presuming a fungus with an established lifecycle invaded some pre-ant organism. Then both changed simultaneously to the symbiosis we now see. All by Darwinian chance or by a complex interaction of both species epigenetic mechanisms? I'll take well-established designed epigenetic mechanisms any day. 
> 
> 2. (My favorite.) The fungus started out as a beneficial organism. Termites use bacteria to transform cellulose into sugar. Some ants developed an overactive immune reaction to the fungi, triggering competition; ultimately ending in the form we see today. At some point, the ant--out of the genetic diversity needed to fight the organism, simply has to take the abuse. Clearly, some ants MUST be immune to this parasite, or clearly--we wouldn't have leaf-cutter ants. -This is a specialized symbiosis, for special ants and for special fungus. Again I don't see how Darwinian chance can arrange for these guys to waltz together so well. Again, you are implying epigenetics, which had to be present over 550 million years ago to satisfy the time line of the Cambrian and the "plant bloom" period slightly later.
> 
> 3. Like how C. difficile works in humans--if you have a normal intestinal flora, the bacteria can never take hold.-Don't really see how this fits. Normal flora are competition to other bacteria. I know C. difficile infect about 40% of the world implying their symbiosis with us, but your 3rd proposal doesn't make any sense in the above discussion. Ant and fungus gradually developed their weird relationship. 
> 
> If you want, I can keep going. Like origins, we can come up with any number of explanations, but again, only those that can be verified or tested should be trusted or used.-Please keep going. You are proving my point.

5644 views


> > 1. The fungus and ant had a long history even before 48M years ago. Perhaps this species of fungus was able to infect, during the eukaryotic stage, a subset of eukaryotes, Consequently, the arms race between eukaryote and fungi resulted in what we see now.
> 
> I don't know of an intermediate steps from a Cambrian beginning to our present ants. Perhaps EO wilson does. But you are presuming a fungus with an established lifecycle invaded some pre-ant organism. Then both changed simultaneously to the symbiosis we now see. All by Darwinian chance or by a complex interaction of both species epigenetic mechanisms? I'll take well-established designed epigenetic mechanisms any day. 
> > -David--as I've mentioned before I don't see AT ALL how what I'm saying here isn't accepted paradigm! How is epigenetics any different from natural selection, when as I observed previously--the filter that IS natural selection is the ultimate arbiter of what gets to stay???-> > 2. (My favorite.) The fungus started out as a beneficial organism. Termites use bacteria to transform cellulose into sugar. Some ants developed an overactive immune reaction to the fungi, triggering competition; ultimately ending in the form we see today. At some point, the ant--out of the genetic diversity needed to fight the organism, simply has to take the abuse. Clearly, some ants MUST be immune to this parasite, or clearly--we wouldn't have leaf-cutter ants. 
> 
> This is a specialized symbiosis, for special ants and for special fungus. Again I don't see how Darwinian chance can arrange for these guys to waltz together so well. Again, you are implying epigenetics, which had to be present over 550 million years ago to satisfy the time line of the Cambrian and the "plant bloom" period slightly later.
> > -And I fail to see how a designer explains this any better! Help me out here!-> > 3. Like how C. difficile works in humans--if you have a normal intestinal flora, the bacteria can never take hold.
> 
> Don't really see how this fits. Normal flora are competition to other bacteria. I know C. difficile infect about 40% of the world implying their symbiosis with us, but your 3rd proposal doesn't make any sense in the above discussion. Ant and fungus gradually developed their weird relationship. 
> > -Started out as a symbiotic organism that went bad. Requires no designer. In terms of how symbiotic systems arise, mitochondria are a prime example; they gained protection and early organisms got lots of cheap energy. -> > If you want, I can keep going. Like origins, we can come up with any number of explanations, but again, only those that can be verified or tested should be trusted or used.
> 
> Please keep going. You are proving my point.-How? None of the situations I described requires a designer to explain. At no point have I been forced to add an assumption of design.

--
\"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.\"

5629 views


> David--as I've mentioned before I don't see AT ALL how what I'm saying here isn't accepted paradigm! How is epigenetics any different from natural selection, when as I observed previously--the filter that IS natural selection is the ultimate arbiter of what gets to stay??? And I fail to see how a designer explains this any better! Help me out here!-
My theory that is being born out as the research continues to reveal is that the rapid changes of adaptation appear to start in very early organisms, the Archaia. Not waiting for a chance mutation to help, the genome forges forward and then you are correct, the best organism wins under natural selection. Natural selection culls out passively, because it can only cull whatever is presented to it. Yes, it is an active process when it is at work.-If Archaia have these adaptive processes from the beginning, then these rapid adaptation mechanisms drive evolution forward to the more and more complex forms. We weren't there 3.6 mya when life happened, (that's another design issue we haven't settled), but presuming Archaia haven't changed much, epigenetics was there from the beginning. And I believe by design. Life appeared spontaneously by accident and knew from the beginning it needed rapid adaptation? Not likely.

5685 views


> > David--as I've mentioned before I don't see AT ALL how what I'm saying here isn't accepted paradigm! How is epigenetics any different from natural selection, when as I observed previously--the filter that IS natural selection is the ultimate arbiter of what gets to stay??? And I fail to see how a designer explains this any better! Help me out here!
> 
> 
> My theory that is being born out as the research continues to reveal is that the rapid changes of adaptation appear to start in very early organisms, the Archaia. Not waiting for a chance mutation to help, -Right here; to me mutation hasn't ever meant just a random cosmic ray that came down... mutation also represents genetic recombination. -the genome forges forward and then you are correct, the best organism wins under natural selection. Natural selection culls out passively, because it can only cull whatever is presented to it. Yes, it is an active process when it is at work.
> -How does my thinking above differ from accepted paradigm?-> If Archaia have these adaptive processes from the beginning, then these rapid adaptation mechanisms drive evolution forward to the more and more complex forms. We weren't there 3.6 mya when life happened, (that's another design issue we haven't settled), but presuming Archaia haven't changed much, epigenetics was there from the beginning. And I believe by design. Life appeared spontaneously by accident and knew from the beginning it needed rapid adaptation? Not likely.-Unknowable.

--
\"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.\"

5750 views

Another complicated symbiotic relationship. Calling in the animal police:-http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19371-tobacco-plants-outsmart-hungry-caterpillars.html

5729 views

Another complicated symbiotic relationship. Calling in the animal police:
> 
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19371-tobacco-plants-outsmart-hungry-caterpillars... did some work with Tobacco on my 2nd biochem summer. Very interesting plants, actually. -But it still doesn't answer my question posed to you on the post you responded this article to.

--
\"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.\"

5603 views


> > > David--as I've mentioned before I don't see AT ALL how what I'm saying here isn't accepted paradigm! How is epigenetics any different from natural selection, when as I observed previously--the filter that IS natural selection is the ultimate arbiter of what gets to stay??? And I fail to see how a designer explains this any better! Help me out here!
> > 
> 
> How does my thinking above differ from accepted paradigm?
> 
> > If Archaia have these adaptive processes from the beginning, then these rapid adaptation mechanisms drive evolution forward to the more and more complex forms. We weren't there 3.6 mya when life happened, (that's another design issue we haven't settled), but presuming Archaia haven't changed much, epigenetics was there from the beginning. And I believe by design. Life appeared spontaneously by accident and knew from the beginning it needed rapid adaptation? Not likely.-I don't know how I can give a better answer. In the first living cell there was a small amount of RNA/DNA to run the function of the cell. Adaptation had to develop later as a response to threats, danger, huge environmental changes. I am not sure life could have survived without adaptability. I know this is unknown to us at the present time. I know the only way we can presume this, is to conclude that the current ancient organisms we study are unchanged, and had adaptability from their beginnings. Otherwise it is my unproven theory, and always will be. Obviously, my theory requires adesigner.

5612 views

Here is another oganism with multifocal eyes, using double retinas. This differs from the trilobites with their bifocals.-Biophysics: 
Two Eyes in One
Lisa D. Chong - 
CREDIT: STOWASSER ET AL., CURR. BIOL. 20, 1482 (2010).
 
 -Nearly 500 million years ago, schizochroal trilobites roamed the oceans, guided by compound eyes with bifocal lenses. In extant animals, the structures of the eye range from those with accommodating lenses (us) to those with multilayered retinas, such as the complex eyes of jumping spiders. Now, to add to these varieties, Stowasser et al. have described a bifocal lens in the larva of the sunburst diving beetle Thermonectus marmoratus. Of its six pairs of eyes, the E2 eyes are tubular and face directly forward. They contain two retinas that are positioned at unequal distances from the lens, with photoreceptors oriented either parallel or perpendicular to the light path. Using a microscope to observe images formed by isolated lenses, the authors measured optical performance and determined that two distinct and well-focused images are produced on the proximal and distal retinas, indicating a true bifocal lens. Moreover, the images are separated vertically, leading to an improved contrast for each of the focused images. -Curr. Biol. 20, 1482 (2010).

5657 views

How the Drosophila maintains altitude. Not like some other flies:-http://www.the-scientist.com/templates/trackable/display/news.jsp?type=news&o_url=news/display/57625&id=57625

5660 views

Say it with me...."I don't know."-See, it's not so hard. Everything we think we know about this could be wrong, and it would still be amazing and beautiful and wonderous. One thing I noticed about the article though was that it didn't mention if there were or were not any commonalities in the physiology of the dead ants versus unnaffected ones, or if there were any physiological differences in the leaves they were biting into. Perhaps at one point leaves at that layer provided a natural antidote to the fungi's toxicity, so the ants developed the behavior to bite deeply into it. I don't know. Too little data available to guess, and too many assumptions in what data set there is.

5716 views


>One thing I noticed about the article though was that it didn't mention if there were or were not any commonalities in the physiology of the dead ants versus unnaffected ones, or if there were any physiological differences in the leaves they were biting into. Perhaps at one point leaves at that layer provided a natural antidote to the fungi's toxicity, so the ants developed the behavior to bite deeply into it. I don't know. Too little data available to guess, and too many assumptions in what data set there is.-Those are good guesses. Need to analyze the leaves and I'm sure someone will do it, considering the curiosity of scientists.

5599 views

Another example of camoflage, wings of fossil insects that match the leaves of the plants existing at the same time in evolution. The patterned wings appear fully developed in pattern, stay the same and then disappear as the plants also disappear. A form of punctuated eqilibrium.--Ancient pinnate leaf mimesis among lacewings
Yongjie Wang, Zhiqi Liu, Xin Wang, Chungkun Shih, Yunyun Zhao, Michael S. Engel, and Dong Ren.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Published online before print August 30, 2010 | doi: 10.1073/pnas.1006460107-Abstract: Insects have evolved diverse methods of predator avoidance, many of which implicate complex adaptations of their wings (e.g., Phylliidae, Nymphalidae, Notodontidae). Among these, angiosperm leaf mimicry is one of the most dramatic, although the historical origins of such modifications are unclear owing to a dearth of paleontological records. Here, we report evidence of pinnate leaf mimesis in two lacewings (Neuroptera): Bellinympha filicifolia Y. Wang, Ren, Liu & Engel gen. et sp. nov. and Bellinympha dancei Y. Wang, Ren, Shih & Engel, sp. nov., from the Middle Jurassic, representing a 165-million year-old specialization between insects and contemporaneous gymnosperms of the Cycadales or Bennettitales. Furthermore, such lacewings demonstrate a preangiosperm origin for leaf mimesis, revealing a lost evolutionary scenario of interactions between insects and gymnosperms. The current fossil record suggests that this enigmatic lineage became extinct during the Early Cretaceous, apparently closely correlated with the decline of Cycadales and Bennettitales at that time, and perhaps owing to the changing floral environment resulted from the rise of flowering plants.-By the way, I am following the heated discussions on time, free will, consciousness, etc., but I'm always stumbling into this other interesting stuff that tells me Darwin is incomplete.

5683 views

Is it ironic that the more I read in web forums regarding science, and the more I engage in scientific debates, the more spiritually minded I become? -There are more holes in Darwin's theory, more assumptions, more guesses, and more presuppositions than in any Religion. The same could be said for modern Cosmology. The time lines for evolution do not fit. The time spans are too short, by far, to accomplish the tasks assigned to natural selection. In this instance, an insect, and a plant, develop and adapt to each other enough to make physiological changes in the insects wing structure, prior to either species going extinct. Secondly, if the insect AND the plant were evolving at the same time, why did the plant's leaf structure not evolve into something more efficient, thus making the changes to the insects wings useless. Third, where are the insects with the original wing structure, and the failed attempts in between the original wing structure and the new upgraded model. Fourth, having read only the abstract, I did not see any evidence stating the plant this insect was supposed to be modeling grew in the region where they found the insect fossil, only that they came from the same time period.-
Oh... yeah.. that's right.. in the Darwinian model the evidence conveniently gets eaten or otherwise destroyed, or never leaves a fossil record. How convenient...And they say Deism offers God of Gaps arguments..

5572 views


> Oh... yeah.. that's right.. in the Darwinian model the evidence conveniently gets eaten or otherwise destroyed, or never leaves a fossil record. How convenient...And they say Deism offers God of Gaps arguments..-I loved your response. It is exactly how I interpret Darwinism.

5573 views

DAVID: By the way, I am following the heated discussions on time, free will, consciousness etc., but I'm always stumbling into this other interesting stuff that tells me Darwin is incomplete.-I am following the interesting stuff that tells us Darwin is incomplete, but I'm always stumbling into discussions on time, free will, consciousness etc.-Thank you for all these fascinating examples. I think it's important that you stress the incompleteness of Darwin's theory rather than dismissing it outright as the Creationists do.

5555 views

Thank you for all these fascinating examples. I think it's important that you stress the incompleteness of Darwin's theory rather than dismissing it outright as the Creationists do.-I would consider myself a creationist, agnostic in respect to the nature of the UI that created it, but a creationist none-the-less. However, even I do not dismiss Darwinism outright. That animals adapt, I have no doubt. That over time, their can be minute physiological changes that gradually amount to big changes, I have no doubt. That all life started off on the planet from a chemical soup, evolved into a enormously more complex form (DNA/RNA), then into and even more complex form, single-celled organisms, then on to ever increasing complex forms complete with full bone structures, brains, eyes, ears, etc... I highly doubt that. That it all could happen within the time constraints proposed, I highly doubt.-And worst of all is to present evolution as the ONLY method for the origins of life and as FACT, even though there are still holes in the THEORY, is probably one of the more deplorable acts of modern science.

5653 views

BALANCE_MAINTAINED: I would consider myself a creationist, agnostic in respect to the nature of the UI that created it, but a creationist none-the-less.-Oh dear, then we're back to the problem of definitions. By "Creationist" I understand someone who believes literally in the story recounted by Genesis, with the God of the OT creating each species separately. I don't think even David, who is a firm believer in a UI, would embrace that interpretation of life's history.-There are undoubtedly huge gaps in the theory, but what you call the "worst of all" does not even figure in Darwin's theory, and is a constant source of misunderstanding eagerly fostered by Dawkins and his ilk. You rightly complain about the presentation of "evolution as the ONLY method for the origins of life". The theory of evolution tells us nothing about the origins of life, and was never meant to do so. Evolution can only begin when life already exists, and for all his later speculations, Darwin himself remained an agnostic and was adamant that his theory was in no way incompatible with belief in God. Perhaps a little naively he even wrote in The Origin itself: "I see no good reason why the views given in this book should shock the religious feelings of any one."

5538 views

BALANCE_MAINTAINED: I would consider myself a creationist, agnostic in respect to the nature of the UI that created it, but a creationist none-the-less.
> 
> Oh dear, then we're back to the problem of definitions. By "Creationist" I understand someone who believes literally in the story recounted by Genesis, with the God of the OT creating each species separately. I don't think even David, who is a firm believer in a UI, would embrace that interpretation of life's history.
> -By Creationist, I mean that the Earth, Life, the Universe and everything was created by a UI. And, for what it's worth, you ought to re-read genesis. It NEVER, and I can't make that any clearer, NEVER says that he created each species individually. It says that God created genres of species, but it doesn't even speculate on the method he used to do so. It even accounts for Neanderthal Man and Homo Sapien arising at different points in history.-Translator Notes on Gen 1:26-The Hebrew word is ×Ö¸×Ö¸× ('adam), which can sometimes refer to man, as opposed to woman. The term refers here to humankind, comprised of male and female. The singular is clearly collective (see the plural verb, "[that] they may rule" in v. 26b) and the referent is defined specifically as "male and female" in v. 27. Usage elsewhere in Gen 1-11 supports this as well. In 5:2 we read: "Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and called their name 'humankind' (×Ö¸×Ö¸×)." The noun also refers to humankind in 6:1, 5-7 and in 9:5-6.-And the Difference between that and Gen 2:18
tn Here for the first time the Hebrew word ×Ö¸×Ö¸× ('adam) appears without the article, suggesting that it might now be the name "Adam" rather than "[the] man." Translations of the Bible differ as to where they make the change from "man" to "Adam" (e.g., NASB and NIV translate "Adam" here, while NEB and NRSV continue to use "the man"; the KJV uses "Adam" twice in v. 19).--The theory of evolution is actually congruent with the accounting given in Genesis provided one does not stick to a literal 24-hour day and other Literalist non-sense. There are even parts of Genesis that we have no way of accounting for the knowledge written. I posted a link in another thread of multiple oceans worth of water found deep in the Earths mantle, which relates quite well to the Gen 7:11 accounting of the flood where it says, "on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth".

5708 views

BALANCE_MAINTAINED: By Creationist, I mean that the Earth, Life, the Universe and everything was created by a UI. And, for what it's worth, you ought to reread Genesis. It NEVER, and I can't make that any clearer, NEVER says that he created each species individually. It says that God created genres of species, but it doesn't even speculate on the method he used to do so.-B_M: The theory of evolution is actually congruent with the accounting given in Genesis provided one does not stick to a literal 24-hour day and other Literalist non-sense.-This discussion began when I thanked David for the fascinating examples of "wonderful nature", and applauded his referring to the incompleteness of Darwin's theory rather than dismissing it outright as the Creationists do. Since you then said that you yourself were a Creationist, I had to define what I meant. I'd have done better not to mention them at all! According to the New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought, the source of Creationism is "the biblical book of Genesis, according to which the different species of living things were separately created by God." Well, those are the Creationists I was referring to. If they have misinterpreted the Bible, perhaps that is their fault, or perhaps it's the fault of the translators, or perhaps it's the fault of Moses, who didn't make himself clear. -I only know one such literal believer personally, and he assures me that God created all species separately about 10,000 years ago. While I'm on your side, I would never use a word like "nonsense" in my discussions with him. If Genesis is to be taken seriously, then dismissing interpretations that are different from one's own is surely no better than an atheist's dismissal of the whole shebang as nonsense. The King James translation uses "after his kind", while my 1981 version says "according to its kind" (as in "God proceeded to make the wild beast of the earth according to its kind and the domestic animal according to its kind"). I can quite see why exegetes would interpret this as "species", and it would be interesting to know how Moses' original word distinguished between "species" and what you call "genres of species". But we needn't argue about it since you are clearly against a literal interpretation anyway, and therefore presumably in favour of the evolutionary explanation of different species being descended from earlier forms. As I hope I made clear, I also see no conflict between the theory itself and belief in a UI that created all the mechanisms. The theory does not deal with how these mechanisms arose in the first place, and I get just as irritated as you when famous scientists try to make out that evolution and religion are incompatible.

5677 views

The King James translation uses "after his kind", while my 1981 version says >"according to its kind" (as in "God proceeded to make the wild beast of the >earth according to its kind and the domestic animal according to its kind"). >I can quite see why exegetes would interpret this as "species", and it would be >interesting to know how Moses' original word distinguished between "species" and >what you call "genres of species". -Heh sorry if I seemed a little irritated, was having a rough day. No worries though, I am not offended. The reason I use the word non-sense about literal interpretations of the Bible is because it is clearly not a book to be interpreted literally. In fact, in nearly every portion of the book that is literal, it gives genealogies, locations, and relative current events that can be cross-referenced via other historical documents that have nothing to do with the Bible itself. Which, considering the time that it was written, I consider quite an accomplished feat in and of itself. -To answer your interest in how the original words are distinguished, I will refer you to translators notes, which do a much clearer job than I ever could, and are not subject to my personal opinions. -On Gen 1:1-31tn The Hebrew construction employs a cognate accusative, where the nominal object ("vegetation") derives from the verbal root employed. It stresses the abundant productivity that God created.-sn Vegetation. The Hebrew word translated "vegetation" (×Ö¼Ö¶×©×Ö¶×, deshe') normally means "grass," but here it probably refers more generally to vegetation that includes many of the plants and trees. In the verse the plants and the trees are qualified as self-perpetuating with seeds, but not the word "vegetation," indicating it is the general term and the other two terms are sub-categories of it. Moreover, in vv. 29 and 30 the word vegetation/grass does not appear. The Samaritan Pentateuch adds an "and" before the fruit trees, indicating it saw the arrangement as bipartite (The Samaritan Pentateuch tends to eliminate asyndetic constructions).-32sn After their kinds. The Hebrew word translated "kind" (×Ö´××, min) indicates again that God was concerned with defining and dividing time, space, and species. The point is that creation was with order, as opposed to chaos. And what God created and distinguished with boundaries was not to be confused (see Lev 19:19 and Deut 22:9-11). -On Gen 20-25-tn The Hebrew text again uses a cognate construction ("swarm with swarms") to emphasize the abundant fertility. The idea of the verb is one of swift movement back and forth, literally swarming. This verb is used in Exod 1:7 to describe the rapid growth of the Israelite population in bondage.-42tn The Hebrew text uses the Polel form of the verb instead of the simple Qal; it stresses a swarming flight again to underscore the abundant fruitfulness.-43tn For the first time in the narrative proper the verb "create" (×Ö¼Ö¸×¨Ö¸×, bara') appears. (It is used in the summary statement of v. 1.) The author wishes to underscore that these creatures ... even the great ones ... are part of God's perfect creation. The Hebrew term ×ªÖ·× Ö¼Ö´×× Ö´× (tanninim) is used for snakes (Exod 7:9), crocodiles (Ezek 29:3), or other powerful animals (Jer 51:34). In Isa 27:1 the word is used to describe a mythological sea creature that symbolizes God's enemies. Dinosaurs anyone?-46tn There are three groups of land animals here: the cattle or livestock (mostly domesticated), things that creep or move close to the ground (such as reptiles or rodents), and the wild animals (all animals of the field). The three terms are general classifications without specific details.

5675 views

BALANCE_MAINTAINED: The reason I use the word non-sense about literal interpretations of the Bible is because it is clearly not a book to be interpreted literally.-For an agnostic like myself, this is easy to accept, but your statement is fraught with danger when it comes to people who believe the Bible to be the word of God. Who draws the line between the literal and the figurative? How do you as an individual even draw it for yourself? Central to Christianity are the virgin birth, the miracles and the resurrection. If you don't take them literally, where does that leave Christianity? Genesis is clearly a huge problem, and rather frustratingly the translator's notes tend to state the obvious ("swarm with swarms" is a cognate construction to emphasize fertility) but shed no light on such crucial issues as the ambiguity of "kind". If anything, I'd say the statement that God was "concerned with defining and dividing time, space and species" suggests that God did create the species individually. 46tn gives three general classifications, which again are obvious, but still doesn't resolve the ambiguity of "after their kind".
 
I must add, though, that I really appreciate the trouble you've gone to and the new dimensions you're bringing to our discussions.

5547 views

Interpretation of the bible is indeed tricky. I generally start with a few basic premises: -A) The Bible does not contradict nature or accurate scientific knowledge.
B) The Bible does not contradict itself
C) There are key words in the Bible that are clear indicators of figurative language when it is not otherwise expressly stated. i.e. 'World' as compared to 'Earth', World referring to the political/secular society, Earth referring to the planet, dirt, etc.-So far, I haven't found a point where those premises have lead me wrong. However, I keep digging and learning, and don't claim that there is nothing that violates a,b, or c.-
According to their kind does actually have a modern biological theme to it, namely, animals that can breed. You may be able to breed sub-species, say a basset hound and a wolf(provided the wolf didn't eat the hound :P), but you could not breed a basset hound and a feline. 'According to their kind', imho, represents the original breeding separation between species. As I have pointed out before, Genesis and Evolution do not really conflict in many respects. Evolution has not produced any evidence that cross-species changes have occurred, (normally called Macro-evolution, though evolutionist don't like the term because it points to a major flaw in their theory) but have only proven that similarities between species exists, even down to a genetic level.-The three classifications do, in their way, resolve some of the ambiguity. Based on the current species, there are relatively few that are domesticated. And the types that are domesticated have not dramatically changed in the last few thousand years. -"There are three groups of land animals here: the cattle or livestock (mostly domesticated), things that creep or move close to the ground (such as reptiles or rodents), and the wild animals (all animals of the field). The three terms are general classifications without specific details"-I don't see where this is much different that classifications we would use today in general conversation, domesticated animals, wild animals, and reptiles/rodents/insects.-As a side note, this would actually shed some light on the 'Great Flood' of Noah. His instructions were to get pairs of animals according to their 'kind'. So he would not have had to get two bison, two long horns, etc, but rather one set of cattle ancestors. This two also fits with the the modern biological evidence that suggest that a large number of large mammals went extinct in the more recent past (10k-20k BP). The ironic thing is that this would involve a much faster rate of evolution than what modern evolutionary theory has projected. -At the moment, there are roughly 5100 odd species of mammals on the planet, however, that does count does not delineate between marsupials, felines, canines, bovines, primates, etc. Of that 5100 odd species, there are only 27 taxonomic orders. that are then broken down into suborders. Even at this point, even though you have already reached the level at which members could interbreed, you have still not reached any great variety of specimens. My point being, that IF the only qualification for the creatures that Noah had to bring on board was that he had a few pair of each of the common ancestors, there still wouldn't have been that many animals on board. And, after the flood, they could, and would have dispersed quite rapidly as they went in search of food in a new, more barren, world. -Just a theory though

5724 views

My point being, that IF the only qualification for the creatures that Noah had to bring on board was that he had a few pair of each of the common ancestors, there still wouldn't have been that many animals on board. And, after the flood, they could, and would have dispersed quite rapidly as they went in search of food in a new, more barren, world. 
> 
> Just a theory though-Have you studied the size of the ARK. not like an ocean liner. And again of 5,100 mammals, how did he get the kangaroos, llamas, platypus to the Middle East?

5605 views


> Have you studied the size of the ARK. not like an ocean liner. And again of 5,100 mammals, how did he get the kangaroos, llamas, platypus to the Middle East?-You missed the point of the what I was saying, and quote mined me. I said there are 5100+ current species of mammals, not that he would have had to load 5100 species. Specifically, I pointed out the fact that of those 5100 species, a large majority belong to reducible families, i.e. canine, feline, bovine, marsupial, etc etc. Knowing that there was an mass extinction event some 10000-16000BP, and that many of the large species alive at the time became extinct further supports this. So, in a nutshell, and so I am not misunderstood, he would not have needed to carry even remotely close to 5100 pairs(10200 minimum) animals on board the ark in order to fulfill the requirement. He would have only needed to care one ancestor from the feline family, one ancestor from the canine family, one ancestor from the bovine family, etc. which would dramatically reduce the numbers. This is a falsifiable hypothesis. Once the DNA sequences for all, or even most, of the modern mammals are mapped, trace them back to the closest common ancestor. I predict that you would find that all members of the canine family share a very recent common ancestor, and the same for all other suborders of species.

5622 views

For the Platypus:-The platypus, along with its fellow monotreme, the echidna, was believed to have evolved in isolation when the land mass that would become Australia (Gondwana) broke away from the other continents supposedly 225 million years ago.7 This idea of evolution in isolation followed the theory of Darwin, whose affinity for evolution may also have been influenced by his early studies of the platypus during his time on The Beagle.8-However, the discovery in the early 1990s of three platypus teeth in South Americaâalmost identical to fossil platypus teeth found in Australiaâthrew that theory upside down.9 (Marsupials, too, were once considered to be exclusive to Australia, but their fossils have now been found on every continent.) Adult living platypuses do not have teeth, but the discovery of platypus fossils in Australia had already identified that their ancestors did have teeth, which were unique and distinctive.10 -For the Kangaroo, they are a genetic descendant from possum(theoretical, I have seen the theory published, but no DNA findings to substantiate). Marsupials are found all over the world, not only in Australia. (They have a possum festival in North West Florida every year.)

5667 views

For the Platypus:
> 
> The platypus, along with its fellow monotreme, the echidna, was believed to have evolved in isolation when the land mass that would become Australia (Gondwana) broke away from the other continents supposedly 225 million years ago.7 This idea of evolution in isolation followed the theory of Darwin, whose affinity for evolution may also have been influenced by his early studies of the platypus during his time on The Beagle.8
> 
> However, the discovery in the early 1990s of three platypus teeth in South Americaâalmost identical to fossil platypus teeth found in Australiaâthrew that theory upside down.9 (Marsupials, too, were once considered to be exclusive to Australia, but their fossils have now been found on every continent.) Adult living platypuses do not have teeth, but the discovery of platypus fossils in Australia had already identified that their ancestors did have teeth, which were unique and distinctive.10 
> 
> For the Kangaroo, they are a genetic descendant from possum(theoretical, I have seen the theory published, but no DNA findings to substantiate). Marsupials are found all over the world, not only in Australia. (They have a possum festival in North West Florida every year.)-You have presented some unusual facts I did not know and am glad to learn them. But you jump from from proposal to proposal as if they are established theory. Gondwanda land was quite awhile ago. What was the age of the platypus teeth? I still get the impression that you are debating for the sake of debating or you believe in Noah, or you believe evolution can occur at lightning speed.

5621 views

I am working from the prospectus of a skeptic. I see patterns in the data, I see assumptions made that do not necessarily convince me, and I am talking my way through rectifying these differences, and using you as a sounding board ;) Hope you don't mind.-Here is the thing, over the last several years there has been some debate over the constant of the speed of light, which by association, would have an affect on the accuracy of atomic dating methods. ( I have read several articles and research papers on the topic from multiple sources and they all point to the fact that they can't agree, but the statisticians agree that there is a trend in the data to support the theory that light is not a constant.) -Secondly, when they are dating all of these fossils, they are using the atomic clocks of the surrounding geology. Any geophysicist worth his salt can point to a number of reasons why this is a really bad idea, and inaccurate as hell, but just take the time to do open-minded research on radiometric dating methods and issues/concerns. unfortunately, unbiased websites on this topic are hard to come by as they all want to seem polarized towards creation and evolution. Common issues that concern me as someone working in Geophysics are rock morphology and the effects one parent/daughter measurements. Substrate porosity and the hydrological effect on the data, temperature and pressure variations over time that could have affected the data. etc. In the world of geology, we are learning that the Earth simply does not move or operate according to the time scale that we have placed on her, and that makes me question many other things about our timescale.-So, to put it bluntly, I am not thoroughly convinced that all the data stacks to be equal to what is being claimed, so I am trying to make a critical re-examination of the available data to try and find out where the truth lies. In my experience, it is some where in the middle in just about any argument. -Now, to give equal measure of criticism to the fundamentalist on the creation side, I most certainly do not believe in a 6000 year old planet. Even according to what I read in the Bible I see that there is room for vast quantities of scarcely mentioned time. Particularly within the realm of Genesis 1 & 2, as I have mentioned before. You presented challenges to me in the form of the amount of water, and the number of species for an ark like rescue, so I presented sources that estimate the vast quantities of water in the mantle, more than 5 times the volume of our current ocean system, and articles references the different families of species to account for the 'according to their kind' statement in the account of Noah. -I question the establishment because it is there to be questioned, particularly when their answers do not fit with the data.

5564 views

I am working from the prospectus of a skeptic. I see patterns in the data, I see assumptions made that do not necessarily convince me, and I am talking my way through rectifying these differences, and using you as a sounding board ;) Hope you don't mind.
> 
> I question the establishment because it is there to be questioned, particularly when their answers do not fit with the data.-Thanks for explaining your point of view and your attempt to explore what we are all exploring. now it makes sense. This is a very fair group of people we have here. No name-calling, no derision. Matt (Xeno) was attracted to us for those reasons. After climategate we have a right to be skeptical, and the review panels set up at Penn state and in England have been obvious rubber stamps, keeping critics far away. -Go ahead and bounce ideas off us. You are creating lots of discussion, fun and info I hadn't seen.

5558 views

Anyone who tries to argue in favour of the story of Noah's Fludde being a reality is not a skeptic but a propagandist for creationism. I hesitate to correspond with people who hide behind pen-names, but it seems to me that "Balance_Maintained" is just a "troll" who argues for the sake of stirring up argument where none is needed. Anyone who says of the truth: "In my experience, it is some where in the middle in just about any argument" is just a sophist not worthy of being taken seriously.

--
GPJ

5632 views

Anyone who tries to argue in favour of the story of Noah's Fludde being a reality is not a skeptic but a propagandist for creationism. I hesitate to correspond with people who hide behind pen-names, but it seems to me that "Balance_Maintained" is just a "troll" who argues for the sake of stirring up argument where none is needed. Anyone who says of the truth: "In my experience, it is some where in the middle in just about any argument" is just a sophist not worthy of being taken seriously.-George, my name is Tony Vaught, or if you prefer my full name Richard Anthony Vaught, I have no reason to hide it other than the fact that it is just generally a good idea not to put too much out there when you are online. .. As for arguing in favor of Noah's flood, I kind of had that thrust at me (can't remember if it was this thread or another). Frankly speaking, what I mean by "it is some where in the middle in just about any argument" is that we often discount things because we don't want them to be true. They don't fit within our world view for whatever reason. Whether you like it or not, there are civilizations all over the globe that write about a major flood. The name Noah, or the local variant also pops up throughout various cultures. This has been discussed in many books, but the one that pops to my head straight away is 'The Secret Teachings of All Ages' by Manly P. Hall 1928, who does an in depth encyclopedic style discussion on certain strange historical figures that crop up around the globe with the same or similar name and general description, as well as some discussion on ancient mythology, Pythagoras, different esoteric sects and so on. Secondly, as I start seeing things crop up in geology that lend some support, of course I am going to re-examine the myth and argue my way through it. If you can't argue both sides of the coin, then you don't understand the issue to begin with. So, no, I am not a troll, but if it helps you in some way to think of me in that light then by all means, feel free.

5579 views

As an addendum to most things being in the middle of the argument, my favorite example is eggs. At one point, we were told, don't eat eggs, they will kill you. Then we were told, eat eggs, they are good for you. Then, only eat egg whites, the yoke is bad for you. etc etc.-The truth is, almost anything in moderation is ok, or at the very least of neutral effect, and in many cases things that were once railed against as terrible for you are now found to be healthy in moderate doses(i.e. eggs, alcohol, coffee, chocolate, etc.) Religious fundamentalist try to take everything as literal. It doesn't work. Scientist try to say that everything is materialistic, which also doesn't work. The truth of the matter most likely lies somewhere in the middle of the road. That is my personal view on life in general and I apply it to most things. Fortunately for me, it is not a world view that is dependent on anyone's approval.

5584 views

OK, thanks for revealing your name. -The text of "The Secret Teachings of All Ages" is available online:-http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/sta/-It's something of a potboiler of everything esoteric from Alchemy to Zodiac.-I've also interested myself in such things to some extent, mainly from the point of view of puzzles and mathematical recreations, but also as someone who likes mysteries and fantastic stories. My story about "Monsieur Du Clix" may amuse you, it can be found here:-http://www.mayhematics.com/s/s.htm-However I am extremely sceptical about finding any worthwhile truth in most of this mystical esotericism. -Incidentally I don't see much similarity in the names of Noah and Utnapishtim.

--
GPJ

5648 views

My story about "Monsieur Du Clix" may amuse you, it can be found here:
> 
> http://www.mayhematics.com/s/s.htm-
Monsieur Du Clix, cute short story.

5644 views

GEORGE: My story about Monsieur Du Clix may amuse you.-I've just read it, George, and it did. I can't believe you only won third prize. The secret of the name alone is worth a gold medal. You don't happen to write under the name Dan Brown, do you? The linguistic pedant in me must point out that the French for "it's over" is: "C'est fini". "Finis" is plural. But they really shouldn't have relegated you to bronze just for that. I shall now look forward to reading the other stories on your website.-GEORGE: I am extremely sceptical about finding any worthwhile truth in most of this mystical esotericism.-I'm encouraged by your use of "most". I don't suppose you'd like to tell us what mystical esotericism you think might reveal a worthwhile truth. (If you don't answer, that will be an answer.)

5600 views

Thanks for the French correction!-dhw asks: "I don't suppose you'd like to tell us what mystical esotericism you think might reveal a worthwhile truth."-After a quick look through Hall's book I suppose the sections on Pythagoras and on Cryptology have some modern mathematical interest, though the results have been largely superseded. However the numerology or gematria is just obscurantism, although it has some recreational interest.

--
GPJ

5640 views

There were some interesting bits in that book. Most of all, I enjoyed the way the information was presented. The section on Pythagoras was my personal favorite as well. Particularly the break down of his mathematical concepts and his 10 rules for his followers. Some of them hold a lot of truth in them.

5654 views

I just read Du Clix, a piece of writing after my own heart. Top work, wish there were more to it!

5577 views

Anyone who tries to argue in favour of the story of Noah's Fludde being a reality is not a skeptic but a propagandist for creationism. I hesitate to correspond with people who hide behind pen-names, but it seems to me that "Balance_Maintained" is just a "troll" who argues for the sake of stirring up argument where none is needed. Anyone who says of the truth: "In my experience, it is some where in the middle in just about any argument" is just a sophist not worthy of being taken seriously.-George, I've questioned him, as I had your reaction. I think he has an unusual approach, but is honestly searching as we all are in his own way. The factual material he has presented is quite broad and quite interesting. I think we all are bringing a great deal of information and thought to this site, and I include Romansh, who appears to be our weekend warrior.

5559 views


> > Have you studied the size of the ARK. not like an ocean liner. And again of 5,100 mammals, how did he get the kangaroos, llamas, platypus to the Middle East?
> 
> You missed the point of the what I was saying, and quote mined me. I said there are 5100+ current species of mammals, not that he would have had to load 5100 species. Specifically, I pointed out the fact that of those 5100 species, a large majority belong to reducible families, i.e. canine, feline, bovine, marsupial, etc etc. Knowing that there was an mass extinction event some 10000-16000BP, I predict that you would find that all members of the canine family share a very recent common ancestor, and the same for all other suborders of species.-I'm not quote mining. You are mis-stating known science. There have been only 5-6 mass extinctions in the literature. Have you read Raup's book "Extinctions, Bad Genes or Bad Luck?", 1991? Or just quickly looked at the summaries in Wikipedia? There is a quite minor extinction from the recent ice age, 16-10,000 years ago. "Lucy", (our "Mother"), the original female mitochondria dates at about 150,000 years ago. There is no evidence in the paleologic record of the spread of hominims to humans of the gap you seem to be trying to claim. -It seems as if you want great speed in genetic development in a 10,000 year period. Do you believe in Noah? Or just trying to have fun in an internet debate? There is good evidence of a Black Sea flood at the right time to fit the chronology of Genesis, as the glacial ice melted, blocked by an ice dam, and then released. And if you believe Noah, I'm still waiting for an answer about those animals on far-away continents getting to the ark. Camalids got to the Americas on the glacial ice bridge, not after it melted, before Noah.

5611 views


> Genesis is clearly a huge problem, and rather frustratingly the translator's notes tend to state the obvious ("swarm with swarms" is a cognate construction to emphasize fertility) but shed no light on such crucial issues as the ambiguity of "kind". If anything, I'd say the statement that God was "concerned with defining and dividing time, space and species" suggests that God did create the species individually. 46tn gives three general classifications, which again are obvious, but still doesn't resolve the ambiguity of "after their kind". -The problem with interpretation of old written Hebrew is that that were less than 3,000 base words in the writing and with prefixes,and suffixes, the usable total came to about 10 thousand words. Further translation relies upon context of the discussion in the Torah at hand. Yom means an instant up to an eon. Yam means a puddle up to an ocean. The 'Sea' of Galilee is a 5x13 mile lake.-
> 
> I must add, though, that I really appreciate the trouble you've gone to and the new dimensions you're bringing to our discussions.-Hear, hear!

5641 views


> Translator Notes on Gen 1:26
> 
> The Hebrew word is ×Ö¸×Ö¸× ('adam), which can sometimes refer to man, as opposed to woman. The term refers here to humankind, comprised of male and female. The singular is clearly collective (see the plural verb, "[that] they may rule" in v. 26b) and the referent is defined specifically as "male and female" in v. 27. Usage elsewhere in Gen 1-11 supports this as well. In 5:2 we read: "Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and called their name 'humankind' (×Ö¸×Ö¸×)." The noun also refers to humankind in 6:1, 5-7 and in 9:5-6.
> 
> And the Difference between that and Gen 2:18
> tn Here for the first time the Hebrew word ×Ö¸×Ö¸× ('adam) appears without the article, suggesting that it might now be the name "Adam" rather than "[the] man." Translations of the Bible differ as to where they make the change from "man" to "Adam" (e.g., NASB and NIV translate "Adam" here, while NEB and NRSV continue to use "the man"; the KJV uses "Adam" twice in v. 19).-Translations certainly vary. I'm not a student of Hebrew. I know a few words and barely learned the alphabet for my bar Mitzvah. The two translations of Genesis I have used are Judah Landa's "In the Begining Of" and my Masoretic Bible. Landa's interpretation is totally tainted by his translation of the first word, "biraishit" as 'in the begining of', the title of the book, instead of 'in the beginning', making the stories a more active evolutionary transformation.-Gerald Schroeder always refers to 'adam' as 'a man'. But that is an aside in his books on science and religion.-Landa uses adam as the man in 2.18 and Adam in 2.19. The Masoretic keeps ' the man' in both verses. Adam does not appear until God talks to him, in 3.17 about his punishment after the serpent episode.- 
Landa's 5.2 is: 'Male and female created He them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created'. The Masoretic text is the same.-As I have mentioned before the KJV is notoriously bad as a translation.

5590 views

Again back to symbiosis; bacteria helping to keep ticks warm in the winter so they can parasitze birds: -Physiology: 
Protecting Against Cold
Caroline Ash - 
CREDIT: SCOTT BAUER/USDA
 
 -Even during the Antarctic winter, parasitic ticks of birds remain active. These arthropods spend much of their lives clinging to vegetation and waiting for warm-blooded prey to pass within reach. Neelakanta et al. wondered whether ticks possess any special capacity for surviving the environmental extremes to which they are inevitably exposed. The black-legged tick Ixodes scapularis serves as a vector for the bacterium Anaplasma phagocytophilum, which causes disease in humans as well as in a range of wild mammals. Heavy loads of bacteria in the ticks correlated with good winter survival and high activity of the arthropods. It appears that the bacterium stimulates the production of antifreeze glycoproteins in its host, suggesting a mutualistic arrangement. Antifreeze proteins coat the surfaces of nucleated ice crystals and reduce the rate at which they grow. These findings are consistent with the idea that some human pathogens may have originated via opportunistic invasions from microorganisms that were originally invertebrate symbionts. -J. Clin. Invest. 120, 3179 (2010).

5684 views

Neat

5705 views

Neat-What is really neat is the photo and factual story book Nature's IQ by Hornyansczky & Tazi, 2009, just filled with stuff like my last entry.

5628 views

And now we have the crafty crows, using tools to get a meal. this has been known for a while but this new study is very descriptive:-http://www.physorg.com/news203866473.html

5626 views

Another amazing animal, the Archer fish, launching a spit of water at its prey, and how its vision may work:-http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/57684/

5608 views

Under 'life is tough' these guys show that life will survive under the worse of conditions:-http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727790.101-arctic-bugs-may-have-the-longest-lifecycle-on-earth.html

5649 views

A new way of thinking about the world.

5615 views

A new way of thinking about the world.-Another interesting thought for you: I don't know if the color blue I see is the same shade you see. We will both call it blue, as our individual brain interprets it, but we will never know if we see the same.

5547 views

I know.. that is what makes concious such a special thing. Particularly true in my case. I'm partially color blind. Red/Green impaired

5583 views

I know.. that is what makes concious such a special thing. Particularly true in my case. I'm partially color blind. Red/Green impaired-Fairly common in men

5545 views

An explanation how salmonella attack the gut and grow without using oxygen, It is a bastardized version of symbiosos, with only one partner benefiting:-"[It's] kind of neat trick," BÃ¤umler said. "Salmonella has these virulence factors to trigger inflammation, and this inflammation is necessary to generate tetrathionate, and tetrathionate is necessary to outgrow [the other bacteria]." -
Read more: Immune response feeds parasite - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences: -http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/57695/

5580 views

Another amazing adaptation, hummingbirds, migration and adaptation to blossoms:-http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/hummingbirds-elaborate-trappings-of-the-nectar-eater/#more-15283

5574 views

On the discovery channel, there is a show called 'Time Warp' where they mixed high speed cameras with x-ray to capture one of the most fascinating things about humming bird feeing. The nectar they drink is sent to their crop, where it sloshes back and forth counter to their shoulder movement to keep their head stable during feeding.

5611 views

Watch as white cells gather around a non-infected dead tissue, forming pus and cleaning up the garbage:-
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/57746/

5551 views

Now its a bee hive that is faster than a computer, solving the 'traveling salesman' problem, finding the fastest flying time between flowers:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/24/bees-route-finding-problems

5552 views

Here is an article concerning animals that use photosynthesis, and the possibilities of creating more animals with that ability thru genetic engineering:-
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827901.100-light-diet-animals-that-eat-sunshine.html?page=1-Ad the best photo studies of cell activity for the year. Living biochemistry is very complex:-http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/57860/

5467 views

In this example the tiny ant brain is better than our computers; solving mazes!-http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101209/full/news.2010.662.html

5459 views

A study of bird migration by a quantum state method:-http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/indepth/45059-http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v106/i4/e040503

5564 views

How many pecks can a woodpecker peck, if a woodpecker could peck wood? Well, the poor bird needs shock absorber mechanisms and here they are:-http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20088-woodpeckers-head-inspires-shock-absorbers.html

5514 views

Leaf-cutter ants in the tropics raise fungus for food on leaf-cuttings, and have lost genes not necessary for this kind of farming:-http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-leafcutter-ant-genome-reveals-secrets.html

5387 views

And now we have scuba-diving spiders who live under water in diving bell:-http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-bell-spider-spiders.html

5418 views

This time it is a two pound rodent who eats back from a poison tree, puts the poison on its fur and does not die but poisons preditors:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110802201836.htm

5298 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum