Researchers Discovered A Well-Designed Creature

In one of the most stunning discoveries of 2010, which made scientists attempt to disprove what they actually observed in this amazing discovery!  Science Daily reports…

“They first used a microscope to look through the lenses of the two eyes detailed in the research article. They saw how the lens could make a second image grow sharper — something that could only happen with a bifocal.”

“It was my first research project, and I seriously thought I made a mistake, and then we did additional research to try to kill the hypothesis,” says Stowasser. However, their findings were confirmed with more research in addition to observing the operation of the lens and the two focal planes via a microscope. They saw the bifocal again when they used a method to project a narrow light beam through the lens. “Our findings can only be explained by a truly bifocal lens,” write the researchers.”

Some defenders of evolution use confusion and complexity in order to cover the falsifications that go on with these discoveries. For example, some argue that creationists are wrong, mutations are not random. Oh really? Did the mutations contained information gathered from a known mechanism from the outside on what to design next?  Oh it’s natural selection choosing which mutations to build such a well-designed complex tiny little creature so it’s directed right? However natural selection doesn’t manufacture the mutations that it chooses.

The reality is, mutations which are permanent changes (accidents or mistakes) in the DNA strand have a negative effect in regards to information because it looses it. Other mutations are neutral and as a result doesn’t help the evolution cause. If evolution was true, there would have to be millions upon millions if not billions upon billions of these mutations which need to have created new information and a new function. What we observe in nature are animals going in the wrong direction for evolution.

In rare cases, mutations loose information which allows a gain of a function like a beetle loses the information to make a wing on a windy island, the mutation is beneficial because the beetle doesn’t get blown out to sea and killed. Bacterial antibiotic resistance is also used as so-called ‘proof’ of evolution. Bacteria generally steals pre-existing information in order to survive the antibiotic or looses information in pre-existing activities such as enzymatic, regulatory, or transport systems which makes it less fit compared to other Bacteria that didn’t go through it.

But what about this amazing well-designed bug? It displays intelligent engineering by a creator, this is why scientists were trying to disprove the specified complexity.

The article explains that using two retinas and two distinct focal planes that are substantially separated, the larvae can more efficiently use these bifocals, compared with the glasses that humans wear, to switch their vision from up-close to distance — the better to see and catch their prey, with their favorite food being mosquito larvae…”

This is another lesson on how evolution explanations hinders science (the complexity didn’t fit evolutionary expectations which resulted in trying to disprove it) and lacks contribution to this discovery. Two eyes in one is simply a remarkable intelligent design created by God!

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “Researchers Discovered A Well-Designed Creature

  1. Michael

    Oh it’s natural selection choosing which mutations to build such a well-designed complex tiny little creature so it’s directed right?

    Michael, you may have hit on something without even knowing it… If by “it’s directed right?” you actually are saying that natural selection appears to not be plain chance, then you are right. Natural Selection is the opposite of chance.. Murations are chance changes and natural selection determines the ability for those with them to survive.

    However natural selection doesn’t manufacture the mutations that it chooses.

    Of course it doesn’t. Nobody has ever said that it does. — Mutations cause variation, AND THEN AFTER THAT, natural selection comes in to play.

    Other mutations are neutral and as a result doesn’t help the evolution cause.

    If the neutral mutations DO cause heritable variation, it is still evolution. ALL heritable change is evolution.

    If evolution was true, there would have to be millions upon millions if not billions upon billions of these mutations which need to have created new information and a new function.

    There are examples of new information and new function from mutations… I’ll list some examples:

    1. The CCR5-Delta 32 is a mutation which functions against the HIV virus, and either causes partial resistance or even full resistance… depending on whether the individual is homozygous or heteryzygous

    2. A good example is the Eosinophil Cationic Protein (or the ECP) which is toxic to bacteria by making their cell mambranes porus. Also, it is useful in the management of Asthma, despite it’s limitations

    3. Then there is the Eosinophil-Derived Neurotoxin (the EDN) which helps to prevent viral infections.

    4. Different hair color is a result of new genetic information, though it is so basic you probably never would have considered it.

    These are but a few examples of mutations with new function or new information… They weren’t there before, therefore they give new information now.

    What we observe in nature are animals going in the wrong direction for evolution.

    Michael.. I am tired of telling you this! Evolution has no direction. ANY APPARENT DIRECTION, as long as it is heritable, is Evolution. You do not go forwards or back.

    In rare cases, mutations loose information which allows a gain of a function like a beetle loses the information to make a wing on a windy island, the mutation is beneficial because the beetle doesn’t get blown out to sea and killed. Bacterial antibiotic resistance is also used as so-called ‘proof’ of evolution.

    Even loss of information, as long as it is heritable, is still evolution. There is no rule that says evolution MUST add new information ALL the time. But there is no evidence that ALL resistence is simply loss of information. I only see this kind of claim on Creationist sites. But even if it were true, it wouldn’t matter.

    Bacteria generally steals pre-existing information in order to survive the antibiotic or looses information in pre-existing activities such as enzymatic, regulatory, or transport systems which makes it less fit compared to other Bacteria that didn’t go through it.

    This is not true. E-coli has been observed to gain new information in the lab… Not theorized, OBSERVED!!!

    Michael, you are only embarrasing yourself.

  2. This is another lesson on how evolution explanations hinders science (the complexity didn’t fit evolutionary expectations which resulted in trying to disprove it) and lacks contribution to this discovery. Two eyes in one is simply a remarkable intelligent design created by God!

    No, Michael, this “design” is evidence against your proposition, not for it. Consider—

    == The bifocal eyes of the beetle are found only in the larval stage, and not in the adult. Please describe the level of intelligence of any designer, let alone God, that would give bifocals a newborn and them take them away from the adult? We need bifocals when we’re old, not when we’re young.

    If bifocal eyes are so good, why had biologists never observed them before in any other species, let alone in any other beetles? Can you name an animal that would not benefit from eyes with two focal planes? In particular, why would God deny bifocals to an animal created in his own image? Why would God have to wait for Ben Franklin to invent them, six thousand years after creation of the world? Sheer ignorance? Perversity?

    As Ricky Ricardo used to say to Lucille Ball, “You got some ‘splainin’ to do”

    .

    Well, I go away to the State Fair for a day, and Michael finds one of the 240 weekly articles on evolution that he can twist into his formula that “anything scientists didn’t know before is evidence of creation.” And, of course, we’re still waiting (7 months now) to hear Michael back up his claimed qualifications to discuss any field of science.

    Every year we attend the Fair for an annual ration of sunburn, heatstroke, and meatball sundaes. Meatball sundaers? Now, other States boast their funnel cakes and cotton candy and dingo kidneys on a stick. But only Minnesota offers the meatball sundae. This concoction comprises a Swedish meatball perched on a large dollop of mashed potatoes surrounded by a sea of gravy, in a bowl. I know, I know. But where else can you get an entire month’s worth of both saturated fat and sodium in one dish?

  3. Every animal with a camera-type eye can vary its focal distance by changing the lens shape. Therefore, why should any animal need or even desire a bifocal eye?

    The only time we need bifocals is when our lens is old and can no longer change its shape. Now we must ask again what kind of stupid designer would give bifocal eyea to a larva, when it does not need bifocals, and take it away from the adult, when it does need them?

    No wonder people laugh at creationists.

  4. —- I post a good response to Michael’s claims about mutations (that he inserts in the post) and he ignores it…… Go figure.

  5. Tim, Michael will probably ban us, too, as he banned Eelco. Creationists, like all jihadists, do not tolerate dissent.

  6. Still banned from my home address, but not from work …
    No idea why. Banning is sad and desperate.

  7. Olorin :Tim, Michael will probably ban us, too, as he banned Eelco. Creationists, like all jihadists, do not tolerate dissent.

    Well if he bans me, ya’ll know where to find me.

  8. One can easily come up with a pathway through which those eyes evolved through natural selection. This doesn’t mean it happened that way. What it means is that it is not impossible. Larvae usually have eyes that are not well developed. There are many many examples. Now, imagine such water beetle larvae get stuck in an evironment where water runs out fast and where they have to develop fast to make it out of the water before the water is gone. Such situation puts quite some natural selection pressure onto this species. As we all know from humans, there is quite some variability in eye sight (without glasses). Given that such variation also exists in larvae eyes, only those survive that have, by chance, better eye sight than all the others. Because, only those can catch enough food to make it out of the water before the water is gone. Via this natural selection the eyes slowly change from really bad to reasonable good because only those with good eyes survived and then pass their excellent genes on. Eventually the beetle larvae can even survive in water that dries up even faster which opens up the possibility to populate areas where only species with great eye sight can make it and which would be a great population booster. Now, how can the lenses become bifocal. Well, this is pretty simple. Animal lenses, in contrast to most manufactured lenses, are often not homogeneous. With non-homogeneous I mean that the refractive indes (look it up on the internet if this word doesn’t mean anything to you) changes throughout the lens. This change in refractive index might correct for spherical aberration, might increase the refractive power of the lens, etc. There are many many examples. It is indeed so common that a lens with a homogeneous refractive index would be an exception. From such non-homogeneous lens a bifocal lens can easity evolve just by accident if it happens to be that the refractive index of one area of the lens differes from the refractive index of another area of the lens so that the result are two focal planes. Since those lenses can’t change their refractive power like our lenses can, such an ‘accident’ would give that larvae a great advantage over all the others because this larvae could see fare and near objects and with this could track pray even better. Hence, the chance of survival would increase dramatically. Though, I agree, for anybody who has never had anything to do with vision, such eyes must look like a miracle.

  9. More in regard to:

    “This is another lesson on how evolution explanations hinders science (the complexity didn’t fit evolutionary expectations which resulted in trying to disprove it) and lacks contribution to this discovery.”

    There are over 350,000 known species of beetles with more than 4000 Species in the family of the sunburst diving beetle. Now, use Internet search and search for scientific articles that describe beelte larvae eyes with key words such as: “beetle larvae eyes, coleoptera stemmata” or so. Then do the same search but this time search for research labs that work on beetle larvae vision. How many can you find? You will find out that the whole area is under-investigated for what ever reason (usually that has to do with which field is thought to be worth putting money into). So, not Evolution is the reason why we don’t know much about all this yet. It is the factor time and resources.

    Another thing. It is the dear duty of a researcher to make sure that what ever is found is real before putting it out into the public. This is especially important if what ever is found is something that is completely new. This means that one supposed to vigorously questions own finding before butting them out into the public. It is an absolute normal part of research and has nothing to do with not wanting to have something true for whatever reasons. It is simply a moral obligation. Why Researcher do this? Well, imagine you work with a lens that has a diameter of only 1/5th of a millimeter and find something nobody had ever seen before. It should be easy to imagine that all sorts of things can go wrong that could lead to false results instead of that it is real. One would be entirely stupid not to make sure that the results are correct and rock solid before putting them out into the world. Evolution has nothing to do with this.

  10. Thanks for the evolutionary pathway, Emil. Michael will dismiss it as a “just-so story,” of course.

    What Michael refuses to admit however, is that his viewpoint asserts that NO evolutionary pathway exists. Therefore, if you can find ANY plausible path, it destroys Michael’s position—even if that pathway was not the actual one followed.

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