2
   

Intelligent Design? A Test Case

 
 
username
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2005 12:09 am
A little documentation of the alleged behavior, if you please.

This sounds suspiciously like another one of those cases where someone gete the bit in his teeth and makes highly speculative leaps of logic, without much, if any, proof, and then draws a gross generalization from it.

A quick search of the internet seems to show
1. The worms are parasitic on any number of species (including, rarely, humans), which happen by water--and every species has to ingest water somehow, so at some point most species are near water, so are potential hosts (so arguing it is a specific grasshopper-worm pair ID is wrong right there).

2. Since the statement is made that the worm larvae that don't find water die, apparently the host doesn't always get to water before it's eaten up inside. We are given no idea of how many hosts die near water. It may be only one in a hundred, or some low number. We don't know. Since only those hosts that die near water let the worms develop to their next stage, kind of by definition those are the ones that are examined, but even by pure chance some of the host species will die near water or in water, whether infected or not.

The whole suicide protein thing seems highly speculative. Where is the research on it? The only thing I found on the web in the first thirty or so hits that MIGHT deal with that was on a blog with restricted access, so I'm just going by the google summary. And a blog is certainly not by any means necessarily a knowledgeable source.

So if you're gonna argue hair worms, give us some REPUTABLE facts.

http://www.uvm.edu/extension/publications/el/el222.htm



Life History: Depending upon the species, breeding--often in writhing masses of a dozen or more worms--takes place in spring to early summer or fall. The eggs are deposited in the water in long, gelatinous strings, which swell and sometimes exceed the size of the female, containing several million eggs. Adults die after mating and egg laying. The eggs hatch in 15 to 80 days, depending upon temperature. The larva is unlike the adult, having a protrusible proboscis armed with spines. It has a very brief free-swimming existence as the larvae usually encyst on the surface of vegetation, etc., at or near the water's edge within 24 hours of hatching. The cysts remain viable for a month or more on moist vegetation adjacent to or in the water.

When a grasshopper, cricket, beetle, or other plant-eating, chewing insect ingests the cysts with the vegetation, the cyst walls dissolve and the larva bores into the host (hemocoel). Within the host, the larva digests and absorbs surrounding tissues as nourishment. The larva grows and develops into the adult hairworm in several weeks to months. At that time, it is a tightly curled mass within the insect. Sometimes there is more than 1 worm per host, and some overwinter in the host body. If the insect becomes wet or falls in the water at this time, the mature worm bores out through the body wall and becomes free living.

Hosts: Crickets, grasshoppers, and terrestrial and aquatic beetles are the normal hosts. However, the hairworms appear to be non-specific parasites and a few have been reported emerging from caddisflies and dragonflies. It is possible that predacious aquatic insects ingest the larva with their prey. The marine hairworms parasitize hermit crabs and true crabs. Recently, leeches have also been reported as hosts.

There are some records of human parasitism. It is believed that this has been the result of accidental ingestion of the worms in food or water. Hairworms are not considered to be human parasites.

Control: Hairworms are often reported on turf areas around the edge of swimming pools, etc. Reducing the number of insects attracted to and falling into the pool should reduce the hairworm problem.

In any event, the period of annoyance should be of short duration. There are no known treatments for infested pet crickets, diving beetles, etc.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2005 07:26 am
Re: Intelligent Design? A Test Case
Terry wrote:
real life wrote:
If the worm could evolve and develop it's dependency on the grasshopper, how come the grasshopper hasn't evolved to become resistant to the worm?

Perhaps the reason that an Intelligence designed this relationship was to illustrate the unlikelihood of Random Chance being the architect of all life, just as a clever artist will sometimes insert his identity into his artwork in an unusual way.

Evolution is hit-or-miss. None of the combinations of random mutations that would give the grasshopper resistance to invasion by the worm have happened yet (at least not that we have seen. Resistance could still be working its way into the genome.) They might never happen. Nature is wasteful, and as long as enough grasshoppers survive and reproduce to propetuate the species, it doesn't matter that some become worm food.


It should also be noted that any time an animal fails to survive *after* it has reproduced, there will be no selective force on the genome.

Grasshoppers reproduce fairly quickly, so if hair worms eat slowly....
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2005 07:29 am
Re: Intelligent Design? A Test Case
real life wrote:
Thomas wrote:
real life wrote:
Interesting example, Greyfan. It is unlikely, to say the least, that this relationship developed thru evolution.

How do you know it's unlikely? May I ask how you assessed the probablility?


Well as I understand the evolutionary idea, a mutation/genetic change must convey some sort of benefit.


Wrong. Many changes are completely neutral, and they build up in the genome, only later to find themselves involved in some aspect of selection.

I'm getting to this thread late, so please excuse me if someone else has already explained this to you.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2005 07:41 am
Piffka wrote:
Brilliant. You have to fall all the way back to the 17th century to find a scientist who agrees with you.

You have an agenda, buddy. If you were HONEST as you ought to be according to your self-professed religion, then one would think you'd bother to be honest about that.

You have no real interest in science. Your beliefs, your arguments, your agenda is based on forcing your beliefs to fit what people are trying to work out in science. It is a pretense, A LIE, to call it science.

And worse... it's small ball. You are making your god a whole lot smaller than you ought. Wake up.


If you were honest, you'd admit that there's nothing inherently 'unscientific' with believing God created the universe.

Most of the world's greatest scientists who built the foundation of the scientific world that we inherited 100 years ago believed this and it did not hinder their scientific progress a bit.

Their attitude was aptly expressed by one who said that the scientists role was one of "thinking God's thoughts after Him".

They made possible, by hundreds of years of scientific thought and work, what the world of the 20th century was able to accomplish.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2005 07:46 am
real life wrote:
If you were honest, you'd admit that there's nothing inherently 'unscientific' with believing God created the universe.


I have to think about this one a bit.

The scientific method itself preculdes any assumption of the supernatural, so I'm not sure it's correct to say that "there's nothing inherently 'unscientific' with believing God created the universe".

However, I agree that it's perfectly reasonable for someone who is a good scientist and practitioner of science to believe in a god.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2005 10:37 am
bump, having browser problems this AM
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2005 10:53 am
Ive been following this "red queen " evolutionary story for about 3 years now because weve been doing some parasite idntification in Eocene fossil dinoflagellate assemblages that parallel gas field locations.

Chilton published these tales last year in NAture and this year in Evolutionary Biology . They did some 2-D gel electrophoresis and isolated about 20+ proteomes that were keyed to the grasshopers "Geotropic reactions" That is, when a grasshopper jump/flies, it can(and always wants to) steer toward hard surfaces and keep out of water, if its near a bank. The proteome assemblage that comes with both the worm (Spinochordodes) and the grasshoppers and leafhoppers are the same. as Isolated by the electrophoresis.
Its no biggy to me because there is a large pool of proteomes that could account for the behavior and since its a host specific response, the worm depends on the fact that the parasitism does NOt affect the viability of the grasshoper species only a specific individual that hosts the worm. The fact that there are a number of proteomes , to me, indicates a "working it out mechanism is still going on " and the adaptation to these proteomes can occur within a few generations

A good example of this in viruses is rabies. The proteome that causes the rabies needs to be infectious and there must be a mechanism for the infection to be spread to other organisms so that the virus can keep alive. So rabies has a whole host of symptomology that by driving the host mad and causing it to bite other animals, secures the viability of the virus.

The rabies virus, from studies done on specimens that are less than 100 yeaasr apart, has morphed into several strains , all with the same means of transmission and keeping the virus from going extinct.

Here, instead of making the grasshopper bite other grasshoppers, the proteome causes an interference with the geotropism response of the grasshopper, thus securing the continuation of the worm's life cycle.

Now, the "red queen" aspect is that, as the worm's enzymes cause formation of the "brain wrecking proteomes" the grasshopper is learning new chemical defences, thus we see an entire menu of chemicals in the worms quiver, and probably more on the way as the grasshopper rallies antibody defenses.

Combes 2001, has a chapter in "The Ecology and Evolution of Intimate Intersections: PArasitism (chapter)
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2005 11:28 am
real life wrote:
If you were honest, you'd admit that there's nothing inherently 'unscientific' with believing God created the universe.


Oh, I'm honest all right. I am surprised you'd bring up honesty when the underlying agenda you espouse has not been honest... or, for that matter, scientific. The Intelligent Design full-press effort currently in vogue is insidious and has a ready-to-put-in-place belief system with no back-up except what you believe in your hearts. <shrug> Don't you see that??

What I am against is any blanketing of the pitiful excuse we have for science in our public schools under a partisan and confusing belief system primarily to show that your small version of god is crammed in there somewhere. If you want to twist your own children's minds... go ahead. Do not expect that I will gracefully allow you to do the same for the rest of the public.

Intelligent Design is totally unnecessary to the understanding of science and detracts from its scholarly bent. It relies on faith and has some strange twists that you seem unwilling to recognize.

What I see is that this is an "unscientific" masquerade trying to create science around a belief system. What science does (good god why I am I bothering?) is to maintain a deeply detailed history of the experiments and discoveries developed from testing possible theories... with the express purpose of learning more.

I am now imagining a real scientist who is trying to determine with honest actions how to develop such a test of god. First off, I am struck that this is a blasphemous since you are told to have faith without cause. And what happens if the test shows there is no god? Are you willing to accept that? As a scientist, you must. Otherwise YOU are not being an honest scientist.

Scientists have determined that there was a Big Bang and it was, what 300 billion years ago... and the universe is now both expanding and cooling... how would that fit in with your god theory?

Y'see... scientists are totally willing to change their mind if there is sufficient evidence... scientific, count-the-marble evidence... to do so.
Are you sure ... really sure... that you want to test your god theory?

Since you are so knowledgeble... please tell us how you'd frame such an experiment.


Quote:
Most of the world's greatest scientists who built the foundation of the scientific world that we inherited 100 years ago believed this and it did not hinder their scientific progress a bit.

Their attitude was aptly expressed by one who said that the scientists role was one of "thinking God's thoughts after Him".


And what of all the wonderful, truly extraordinary scientists who were Jewish, Muslim, Hindu... or followed Pagan tradition? LOL... You've painted yourself into a sticky corner. It doesn't matter what you believe when you are designing an experiment scientifically. What matters is that the design is honest and credible and can be replicated time after time. I'll say that again:

What matters is that the experiment designs are honest and credible and can be replicated time after time.


Do not test your God. I'm sure that is written somewhere, even in your good book. I believe it is followed by "you will find an unpleasant surprise at the end."
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2005 12:27 pm
Real Life, the fact that one cannot, even in principle, falsify the God "Hypothesis" means that it is not a hypothesis and therefore Ascientific.
A major difference between Science and Religion is that in the former PROGRESS through falsification is a central goal; in the latter a commitment to the status quo is essential. In religion doubt is damnable; in the scientific ethos, it is virtuous.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2005 08:26 pm
Piffka wrote:
....... the pitiful excuse we have for science in our public schools.......


Would those be the 'All-Evolution...All-the-Time format' public schools in America?

Why, I would have thought they would be an absolute utopia.

What could possibly be wrong with science classes that are so rigidly focused on evolution?

I can't imagine why you trash them so.

Hmmmmm. Maybe freedom of inquiry wouldn't be such a bad idea for these schools after all.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2005 08:31 pm
Piffka wrote:


Scientists have determined that there was a Big Bang and it was, what 300 billion years ago... and the universe is now both expanding and cooling..........


I hate to bust your bubble, but the Big Bang theory is far from being a settled issue. And you might want to check your dates.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2005 08:39 pm
Piffka wrote:

I am now imagining a real scientist who is trying to determine with honest actions how to develop such a test of god. First off, I am struck that this is a blasphemous since you are told to have faith without cause. And what happens if the test shows there is no god? Are you willing to accept that? As a scientist, you must. Otherwise YOU are not being an honest scientist........

Since you are so knowledgeble... please tell us how you'd frame such an experiment..........




The issue of creation, evolution, intelligent design isn't a test of whether there is a God.

There is no possibility of disproving the existence of God.
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2005 09:03 pm
real life wrote:
Piffka wrote:
....... the pitiful excuse we have for science in our public schools.......


Would those be the 'All-Evolution...All-the-Time format' public schools in America?

Why, I would have thought they would be an absolute utopia.

What could possibly be wrong with science classes that are so rigidly focused on evolution?

I can't imagine why you trash them so.

Hmmmmm. Maybe freedom of inquiry wouldn't be such a bad idea for these schools after all.


Bang the drum... just keep banging that drum.
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2005 09:04 pm
real life wrote:
Piffka wrote:


Scientists have determined that there was a Big Bang and it was, what 300 billion years ago... and the universe is now both expanding and cooling..........


I hate to bust your bubble, but the Big Bang theory is far from being a settled issue. And you might want to check your dates.


More settled than anything you have in your hip pocket.
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2005 09:06 pm
real life wrote:
Piffka wrote:

I am now imagining a real scientist who is trying to determine with honest actions how to develop such a test of god. First off, I am struck that this is a blasphemous since you are told to have faith without cause. And what happens if the test shows there is no god? Are you willing to accept that? As a scientist, you must. Otherwise YOU are not being an honest scientist........

Since you are so knowledgeble... please tell us how you'd frame such an experiment..........




The issue of creation, evolution, intelligent design isn't a test of whether there is a God.

There is no possibility of disproving the existence of God.


Oh really... then your Intelligent Design just assumes the existence and God and goes on from there. You are so predictable. You won't even discuss what I've gone into great detail to explain.

Intellgent design has no place in science. There is no way to provide a place for it.

If you want to believe there is a hand in designing bacteria and how hippotamuses swim... sobeit. It isn't science.

It isn't science.

It will never be science.

Never.


If I keep repeating this... will you get it?










I thought not. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2005 09:15 pm
Piffka wrote:
real life wrote:
Piffka wrote:

I am now imagining a real scientist who is trying to determine with honest actions how to develop such a test of god. First off, I am struck that this is a blasphemous since you are told to have faith without cause. And what happens if the test shows there is no god? Are you willing to accept that? As a scientist, you must. Otherwise YOU are not being an honest scientist........

Since you are so knowledgeble... please tell us how you'd frame such an experiment..........




The issue of creation, evolution, intelligent design isn't a test of whether there is a God.

There is no possibility of disproving the existence of God.


Oh really... then your Intelligent Design just assumes the existence and God and goes on from there. You are so predictable. You won't even discuss what I've gone into great detail to explain.........


Sure let's discuss. How do you propose to disprove the existence of God?
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2005 10:52 pm
One cannot disprove ANY of the many gods invented by Man, nor the existence of spirits, demons, fairies, etc. Hell, we can't even prove with absolute certainty the non-existence of unicorns. We can search the planet without finding one but never know for sure if one or more have managed to evade us. One can't prove a negative, not to mention the existence of non-empirical "supernatural" beings.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2005 11:27 pm
JLNobody wrote:
........One can't prove a negative, not to mention the existence of non-empirical "supernatural" beings.


Piffka seems to be of a different opinion. Should be interesting.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2005 11:29 am
Also, if one thinks there has been no opposition between religion and science, talk to Bruno, Galileo and Muslim "scientists."
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2005 03:35 pm
real life wrote:
JLNobody wrote:
........One can't prove a negative, not to mention the existence of non-empirical "supernatural" beings.


Piffka seems to be of a different opinion. Should be interesting.


Actually... this is what I said... I'll put it in bigger letters so you can read it more slowly. Maybe you'll get it then:

Quote:
First off, I am struck that this is a blasphemous since you are told to have faith without cause. And what happens if the test shows there is no god? Are you willing to accept that? As a scientist, you must. Otherwise YOU are not being an honest scientist........


If you put your god into science, then you must be willing to put him or her to the standard tests that all the rest of the science rests on. If your experiments, whatever they are, point to there being no god... what are you going to do? You've got a theory and it is going nowhere. Do you lose faith?

It really is a foolish road you've chose.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/03/2021 at 12:50:25