Posted on 07/04/2006 8:42:50 AM PDT by DouglasKC
Not in this case. All the argument is, is that the theory of evolution cannot account for the archerfish. I posited a way that it could.
That the theory of evolution could account for it is not proof that evolution did do it. However, it contradicts the statement that the theory of evolution could not have done it.
Even if the theory of evolution is wrong and the universe was created by God in six, 24-hour days, the theory can still account for the development of the archerfish.
God most certainly created this fish, and the mechanism he used was "numerous, successive, slight modifications".
What tells them that they can shoot water out of their mouth at insects above the surface of the water?
I've kept the fish in my tank when I had one. Fascinating, but not the superfish the article makes of them. They will shoot water at any dark spot they will see on the aquarium top.
As for their abilities, they came via evolution, those fish that could shoot had an advantage and they passed it on.
But to say that the archerfish disproves evolution? Nonsense! This article has no depth to it, no way of explaining its premise, and no proof offered other than calling it some kind of miracle.
I'm pretty convinced about evolution. After all, we're seeing lots of species mutate these days due to intense environmental pressure. For example, squirrels now mate three weeks early because of global warming. That proves they've become a new species. There is also a North American field mouse who, if it lives in the eastern half of the US, won't mate with the ones in the western half of the US. There you go. More new species, just like Darwin predicted. I guess the fruit fly mutants count, even though it's not really natural selection because Man is the one sorting them out. But it's close enough, isn't it? Only a moron wouldn't believe those proofs, right?
Maybe there is a spotter fish just out of view calling out windage, distance and elevation to the archer fish?
/
Would you be able to tell the difference if these numerous, successive, slight modifications were done rapidly as opposed to a long period of time? For example, I picture God has having a master program for a generic fish. Each different type of fish has a slightly different program alterations, but they all use a basic fish program.
Yes Creationists do know.
God made it that way.
Just right the first time.
Just because some folks hold the 7 days, 6,000 year theory dear, doesn't mean that is the view of all Creationists.
Creation does not preclude adaptation within a species (given the traditional definition of "species").
It does preclude transition from one species to another.
I for one, am not stuck on any particular time table for the Creation or the age of the earth.
You don't prove things in science, you just bet the best odds available. Which of these is the most credible story, all else being equal: 1) God decided, just for his amusement, to make archerfish with this weird ability to calculate refraction angles, because archerfish are God's Chosen Creatures, I guess. 2) Archerfish learned to shoot prey that was stright overhead, and then got better at calculating angles because the archerfish who got more prey ate better and so had more offspring.
Yea, it's pretty simple to propose a lame creationist theory when you don't have look at it, or justify it, or defend its nonsensical implications, with any sort of detailed defense, and are content to just generally pee-spray on any competing idea.
Wait, I know: Suicide bombardier beetles! Kill two birds with one stone! Muwahahahahaha!
Correct. And it's the same for humans.
The image that is projected on the retina by the lens of your eye is upside down and backwards. You can prove this by closing your eye, pressing gently on the eyeball at the edges of your eye sockets, and observing where the dark spot in your vision appears. The wiring in your optic nerves and brain corrects for this inversion without your conscious effort.
Likewise, the wiring of the eyes and brain in the archer fish has evolved in such a way that it automatically compensates for refraction. There is no mystery here, and I find this a pathetically weak argument in favor of young-Earth creationism.
-ccm
IOW, it has developed over time the ability to thrive in its environment.
The author makes the blatant assertion that "Evolutionists can't explain this." That is bunk BY DEFINITION. "Evolutionists" (whatever the heck that is) can't always explain WHY a species adapts to its enviroment (kind of a reverse engineering) -- but they strive to put the peices together. The fact this fish has adapted provides FURTHER PROOF of TToE.
The straws that the CRIDers will grasp....
God created evolution. And He did a darn good job of it.
Truth is beauty and beauty is truth. Thank goodness we don't have a court that removes life from those who have neither, else we wouldn't have CRIDer to have these little chats with (/Hitchhikers reference)
Which supports the adage and probably is the origin of that you should never bet anyone in a bar that says, "I'll bet you I can [fill in the blank].]
It apparently is when one believes an invisible man who lives in the sky made everything in a week and it hasn't changed since then.
Well think about it for a while, you'll be greatly puzzled
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.