Spiders Point To Design and Young Earth

Engineering researchers have invented something pretty interesting and unique. It’s a flat surface that doesn’t get wet! Water droplets skitter across it like ball bearings tossed on ice. What inspired these researchers? Rain-X, where it seals all the microscopic pores in the glass causing the droplets of rain to disperse for better vision? No,  drum roll please…

Engineering researchers from the University of Florida inspiration came from reproducing, on small bits of flat plastic, the shape and patterns of the minute hairs that grow on the bodies of spiders.” How does a spider accomplish such a feat? Researches expected to find a regular pattern on a small scale but instead found “spider hairs are both long and short and variously curved and straight, forming a surface that is anything but uniform.”

What surprised researchers was the fact that unlike other hydrophobic materials, this one repelled the microscopic spheres of water without distorting them. Also the new discovery is able to be made from any material.  A question comes to mind…Who taught the spider that a chaotic pattern of curved, straight, long and short hairs created the perfect water-repellant surface so they wouldn’t drown in the water? Natural selection? Nope!

Speaking of spiders, a new fossil was found in China! It was so well preserved that scientists were able to identify the species by it’s name. It looks like a modern North American desert spider. What is interesting about this particular discovery, the spider is supposed to be 120 million years older than the previous species of it’s kind! No indications of a transition form nor does it appear primitive.

The spider fossil was found in a rock with other primitive mammals, insects, and water crustaceans. Water creatures mixed in with land creatures in the fossil record is one of the indicators for something very destructive, we know it as it’s commonly called; Noah’s flood. This is one of the mounting discoveries being made in the fossil record that indicate not only a young earth but a global flood as well!

Advertisements

21 thoughts on “Spiders Point To Design and Young Earth

  1. “A question comes to mind…Who taught the spider that a chaotic pattern of curved, straight, long and short hairs created the perfect water-repellent surface so they wouldn’t drown in the water? Natural selection? Nope!”

    Once again, Michael engages in the teleological fallacy—any physical phenomenon must happen for a purpose. For example. A lake freezes from the top to the bottom, in a perfectly flat layer of ice, which allows people to skate on it.

    The teleological fallacy says that the ice freezes in this manner so that we can skate on it. If we look at this process from the other end, however, we say that we can skate on a lake because the lake freezes in this manner. If it froze from bottom to top, or in jagged vertical spikes, no one would ever have invented ice skating.

    Now apply this to the spiders. Michael insists that the spiders wanted to walk on water, so that/strong> God gave them a particular chaotic pattern of long and short curly hairs. Biologists know that all spiders have patterns of hairs, that vary by species. Some patterns are better than others at repelling water. So biologists say that water spiders can walk on water because their patterns are better at it that others.

    So the situation is that those spiders having genes for a certain range of hair patterns can walk on water. This helps them evade predators, catch food, and maybe even attract mates. The genes for this hair pattern increase in frequency, and soon pervade the species—or several species. (Hairs of varying lengths are easier to do than all the same length, and, obviously, random—“chaotic”—hair distribution is more probable than squares or triangles, or other regular patterns.)

    So, what taught the spider that a chaotic pattern of curved, straight, long and short hairs created the perfect water-repellent surface so they wouldn’t drown in the water? Natural selection.

    Sorry, Michael. You have just provided a simple, easy-to-understand example of natural selection at work. A trait controlled by a small number of individual genes—not new genes, but merely differences in regulationu of old genes. A selective advantage for a variation of that trait. Result: natural selection.

    So, Michael, what about the other spiders that don’t have this pattern, and ths cannot walk on water? Does God hate them? Or did He just forget about them?

    ——————-

    PS: Your example is not even peculiar. Lotus flowers, for example, repel water as do spider hairs. The leaves are covered with tiny irregular bumps spiked with even tinier hairs projecting upward. When a water droplet lands on this type of surface, it only touches the ends of the tiny hairs. The droplet is buoyed by air pockets below and ultimately is repelled off the leaf by small vibrations in the leaf as air passes over it.

    By Michael’s logic, these leaf features arise so that the lotus plant can walk on water. It must be so.

  2. Sub 4th graf:

    Now apply this to the spiders. Michael insists that the spiders wanted to walk on water, so that God gave them a particular chaotic pattern of long and short curly hairs. Biologists know that all spiders have patterns of hairs, that vary by species. Some patterns are better than others at repelling water. So biologists say that water spiders can walk on water because their patterns are better at it that others.

    (I really need to get an html editor.)

  3. Michael: “This is one of the mounting discoveries being made in the fossil record that indicate not only a young earth but a global flood as well!”

    Really? Please name another one.

    Michael declines to cite his source for this spider fossil. He usually does this when the source will not withstand closer inspection. This is yet another way in which creationism differs from science.

    Sorry, Michael. he reputation of creationists for honesty is so blackened that real scientists won’t trust them without independent confirmation.

  4. Michael: “Speaking of spiders, a new fossil was found in China! It was so well preserved that scientists were able to identify the species by it’s [sic] name. It looks like a modern North American desert spider.”

    Once again Michael places his towering ignorance on public display. Guess what, Michael. Dr. Selden did not say that the fossil is the same species as a present day spider, but that “The fossils look very similar to the modern haplogyne spiders.”[1] Another news article reports “no large evolutionary change” from the present-day Plecteuridae family, which contains about 30 different species in 2 different genera. Not “no” change, but no “large” change.

    So Michael’s reading comprehension fails again. Not the same species, but an older model. And spiders have a long history, as Dr. Selden himself noted: “He said the find was important because it confirmed that many living families had a long history.” In fact , the intro of the Naturwissenschaften paper notes that spiders of this type “would be expected in earlier strata.”

    So the same facts that the author says support evolution are evidence of creation to Michael.[2] What else is new?

    Michael notes that this fossil is 120 My older than the next-oldest spider fossil. But then his arithmetical powers fail to do the subtraction—that this other fossil, which differs from both present spiders and the newly discovered one—to determine that the other fossil is 45 My old. That is, we see a line of evolutionary changes from 165 My to 45 My to the present.

    Not yet content, Michael engages in yet another laughable claim: “The spider fossil was found in a rock with other primitive mammals, insects, and water crustaceans. Water creatures mixed in with land creatures in the fossil record is one of the indicators for something very destructive, we know it as it’s commonly called; Noah’s flood.”

    What was this “mixture” of land and water fossils? Fox News reports that the fossil bed “was part of a lake in a volcanic region.” Thus accounting neatly for the water crustaceans near the spiders. Except, of course, for Michael’s lack of reading comprehension.[3]

    Does anyone still wonder whay scientists laugh at creationists? Does anyone still think the name “Liars for Jesus” is not a good fit?

    ===================

    [1] “Haplogyne” is not a species, but an entire group of orb-weaving spiders, classified into 6 different families and 44 species. (The Kansan reporter misspoke in using the word “family”.

    [2] But then Dr. Selden is a well-known spider paleontologist, while Michael believes that zinc is some kind of complex organic structure capable of storing energy for primitive life. Which person is more likely to be correct here?.

    [3] I attribute this oversight to reading comprehension because of Michael’s demonstrated inability to get his facts in a row. The ICR article, which makes the original claim, is probably engaging in a deliberate l-i-e. Note that the ICR article refers to the fossils being found in “sediments,” which is ridiculous–volcanic ash is not sedimentary rock.

  5. Dom: “Thanks, Michael. Both news items very interesting and helpful.”

    Yes indeed.

    The first spider is a good textbook example of how natural selection works.

    The second spider was a lucky find, but confirmed predictions by paleontologists.

    ==Soc

  6. Michael: “Speaking of spiders, a new fossil was found in China! It was so well preserved that scientists were able to identify the species by it’s [sic] name. It looks like a modern North American desert spider.”

    Once again Michael places his towering ignorance on public display. Dr. Selden did not say that the fossil is the same as a present day spider, but that “The fossils look very similar to the modern haplogyne spiders, but Selden said they were the smallest members of that family.”[1] Another news article reports “no large evolutionary change” from the present-day Plecteuridae family, which contains about 30 different species in 2 different genera. Not “no” change, but no “large” change.

    So Michael’s reading comprehension fails again. Not the same species, but an older model. And spiders have a long history, as Dr. Selden himself noted: “He said the find was important because it confirmed that many living familes had a long history.” In fact , the intro of the Naturwissenschaften paper notes that spiders of this type “would be expected in earlier strata.” So the same facts that the author says support evolution are evidence of creation to Michael.[2] What else is new?

    Michael notes that this fossil is 120 My older than the next-oldest spider fossil. But then his arithmetical powers fail to do the subtraction—that this other fossil, which differes from both present spiders and the newly discovered one—to determine that the other fossil is 45 My old. That is, we see a line of evolutionart changes from 165 My to 45 My to the present.

    Not yet content, Michael engages in yet another laughable claim: “The spider fossil was found in a rock with other primitive mammals, insects, and water crustaceans. Water creatures mixed in with land creatures in the fossil record is one of the indicators for something very destructive, we know it as it’s commonly called; Noah’s flood.”

    What was this “mixture” of land and water fossils? Fox News reports that the fossil bed “was part of a lake in a volcanic region.” Thus accounting neatly for the water crustaceans near the spiders. Except, of course, for Michael’s lack of reading comprehension.[3]

    Does anyone still wonder whay scientists laugh at creationists? Does anyone still think the name “Liars for Jesus” is not a perfect fit?

    {NOTE: Links to quotations have been omitted to pass M’s filter. Available upon request. Creationists do not likwe citations, because they can be checked for accuracy.}

    ===================

    [1] “Haplogyne” is not a species, but an entire group of orb-weaving spiders, classified into 6 different families and 44 species. (The Kansan reporter misspoke in using the word “family”.

    [2] But then Dr. Selden is a well-known spider paleontologist, while Michael believes that zinc is some kind of complex organic structure capable of storing energy. No contest there.

    [3] I attribute this oversight to reading comprehension because of Michael’s demonstrated inability to get his facts in a row. . The ICR article, which makes the original claim, is probably engaged in a deliberate l-i-e. Note that the ICR article refers to the fossils being found in “sediments,” which is ridiculous–volcanic ash is not sedimentary rock.

  7. Occasionally I like to arrange little tests to display Michael’s lack of qualifications as to science in general and as to specific -ologies in science.

    I’ve also questioned Michael’s reading comprehension several times. So here’s a little test for that:

    .

    —“This sentance contains three erors.”—

    .

    What are they?

  8. Olorin,

    —”This sentance contains three erors.”—

    I think it’ll take Michael a while to find the second mistake in the above, much less be able to see the elusive third (admittedly, it took me a long 2 minutes to figure that last one out).

  9. An uncle of mine was keen on riddles such as the above. Technically, a “riddle” is a word puzzle whose answer is contained within the question itself.

    Many riddles are better when spoken, because they depend upon the hearer discarding certain information as irrelevant along the way, and then forgetting it. Here’s an example—

    “Johnny’s mother had three coins. She gave the penny to her daughter Penny. She gave the nickel to her daughter Nicole. To whom did she give the dime?”

    There are also serial puzzles. Here is part of a test for consultants from my older daughter, who runs a consulting company. First-grade children usually pass this test, but few adults can.

    Q: How do you put an elephant in a refrigerator?”

    A: Open the door, place the elephant inside, then close the door.

    Q: How do you put a giraffe in the refrigerator?

    A: Open the door, remove the elephant, place the giraffe inside, then close the door.

    Q: The lion, as king of the beasts, calls a meeting of all the animals. Which animal does not attend?

    A: {This is the serial puzzle}

  10. I should have added the next question on the consultant test, because it also is a serial riddle:

    Q: You have to cross a stream infested with man-eating piranhas. How can you do it?

    A: {serial riddle}

  11. Ho hum. Not much new creationist fodder this week, apparently.

    However, there is some news about real science.. This week’s Science reports[1] a definitive, multi-year, multi-group review of the evidence that a single asteroid impact triggered the mass extinction at what is now called the Cretaceous-Paleogene (K-Pg) boundary. Evidence comes from geologic artifacts, chemical analyses, fossil distribution, and physics of large impacts.[2] The date has been established by multiple independent methods as 65.5 million years ago.

    Articles in the popular press refer to the K-Pg (formerly called K-T) extinction as the largest extinction in Earth’s history. This is editorial hyperbole. It is one of the five largest extinctions. The largest was the Permian-Triassic (P-T) event 251 Mya, in which 96% of marine species and 70% of terrestrial species perished—leading to the rise of the dinosaurs.

    The K-Pg impact led to the demise of the dinosaurs. Many people attribute their extinction to a supposed inability to adapt. This is false. They died because they were at the top of the food chain when the food chain was destroyed.

    Today, humans are at the top of the food chain, and are therefore the most vulnerable to anything that affects the food chain, such as climate changes. Something to ponder.

    =================

    [1] Shulte, et al., “The Chicxulub Asteroid Impact and Mass Extinction at the Cretaceous-Paleogene Boundary,” Science 327:1214-18

    [2] The other major contender, Deccan flood volcanism, although a small contributing factor, was positively ruled out as a cause of the extinctions. Multiple asteroid impacts were also ruled out.

  12. Olorin you say…“Dr. Selden did not say that the fossil is the same as a present day spider”

    In response to your beg to differ comment, Where are the transitional or primitive features you think are in the spider? It was found fully formed!

  13. Michael: “What are your science qualifications? By your conduct, I suspect it’s not that much…lol”

    Not that much direct involvement. An MS in physics—today people would call it “systems theory.” After several years as department head of a Naval Air squadron and then law school, 45 years as a patent attorney—at an IBM Research lab for 30 years and then with a private law firm. The IBM period dealt mostly with machine intelligence[1] and pattern recognition by computer, with a significant minor in medical electronic devices. Then a private law firm, where the computer background morphed into a significant foray into biotech. For 5 years i was chairman of a bioinformatics committee with 6 PhD biologists. My biotech work was caried on with the Mayo Clinic and with the University of Minnesota, one of the leading medical and biotech universities in the country.

    Since retirement, I speak to groups of product developers and university faculty in many different technologies, from New York City to San Francisco.

    I have also read widely in the history and philosophy of science—not career-oriented, but it’s interesting.

    You’re correct, though, in that my only hands-on research was as a member of the design team for the guidance system of the lunar lander module for the Apollo moon rocket in the 1960s.

    Oh, I was head of a science project in 1953 to design and build a cyclotron (“atom smasher”) in my high-school basement. (The following group had to build a mass spectrometer to find out which atoms we had actually split.)

    OK, MICHAEL. YOUR TURN. QUALIFICATIONS TO DISCUSS SCIENTIFIC MATTERS.

    =========

    [1][ Including the Deep Blue chess-playing computer and the Blue Gene supercomputer for processing biomolecular data.

  14. Michael: “In response to your beg to differ comment, Where are the transitional or primitive features you think are in the spider? It was found fully formed!”

    What do you mean by “fully formed”? Do you think that a primitive spider perhaps had only half a body? Or only four legs instead of eight? You’re not making sense.

    The point of the Naturwissenschaften paper[[1] was that the fossil was found, since spider fossils from that period are very rare. And that the fossil is similar to a modern family, which confirmed a prediction that spiders have not changed much in 165 My.[2] Yet the fossil is not the same as today’s species—it’s smaller, for one thing. So this belies your claim that the fossil “indicate[s] not only a young earth but a global flood as well!.”[3]

    So let’s put this in another context. Michael, what “primitive forms” would you say that your great great grandfather had, compared to you? That is, how was he less human? (After all, there are probably close to a thousand mutations between him and you.) What “transitional features” do your father and grandfather have between your great great grandfather and you? Please show a progression of features that indicate a development from a his primitive form to your modern form.

    I’ll repeat my advice, even though you won’t take it this time either. Scientists will continue to laugh at creationists until they learn enough about evolution to at least ask intelligent questions. Learn your opponents’ case.[4]

    =======================

    [1] You read the paper, of course. Bwahaahaahaaahaaaaa. Viele Glueck!

    [2] True spiders have been around for 300 My. Modern forms—that is, spinnarets at the end of the abdomen—appeared 250 Mya. (Pop quiz time: What is distinctive about the way spiders breathe?)

    [3] The fossil bed was part of a lake near a volcano. Some “global flood”! That was a real stretch!

    [4] Mutatis mutandis, I just finished another book on creationism: Peter Bowler’s Monkey Trials and Gorilla Sermons. I’d bet that you don’t even read about creationism.. You might start with Ronald Numbers, The Creationists (expanded edition, 2006). And, since you rerpeat so many of his ancient arguments unthinkingly, you might dust off Whitcomb & Morris’ The Genesis Flood (1961). (Yes, it’s on my bookshellf.)

  15. As to qualifications in science, I had previously mentioned membership in AAAS, and participation in their Science in Social Policy committee. But had not mentioned Sigma Xi. Or research papers in analysis of two-dimensional distributed-parameter systems, and in implications of in-vitro fertilization.

    It’s still your turn for telling us all about your qualifications. We need to know whether your posts result from towering ignorance (if you have no qualifications) or from deliberate lies (if you do). At least tell us Which inference would you desire that your readers make—illiteracy or dishonesty.

  16. Ah, scientific qualifications … cards on the table, Michael !
    Olorin revealed his, and I’ll tell you mine as well, if you give us a hint of yours.
    You started asking !

  17. @Olorin:

    Interesting career ! Quite a few of my astronomy friends ended up at the (European) Patent Office …

  18. Eelco: “Quite a few of my astronomy friends ended up at the (European) Patent Office ”

    Oh? Fear of heights? Bad eyes? Hypothermia?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s