Was this just an "accident"?

[Jose Fly]

Suppose that the mosquito infestation cycle must have originally been for a good purpose but that it has been corrupted by sin. So the mosquitoes originally must have bitten people for some beneficial symbiotic relationship before sin came.

The question at hand relates to the parasite more than the mosquito. I suppose if a creationist wants to argue that originally Plasmodium lived in mosquitoes who then (harmlessly) bit humans and injected (harmless) Plasmodium into them, where it then (harmlessly) lived in their blood and liver until it reproduced enough to be taken up by another (harmless) mosquito bite......

I would be content to let that stupid argument speak for itself.

There you go, no new DNA needed.

Oh, I think quite a bit of new DNA would be required. There's a lot more detail here that I've not gotten into.

Man, I'd be an awesome creationist.

It's not too hard. Just deny everything you don't believe in, no matter how goofy you look in the process.

 

[shunyadragon]

You are correct. Nothing that complex could have arisen by chance...like every other complicated life form on this planet....they exhibit design.

True nothing complex evolved by chance, because evolution does not take place 'by chance.' That IS NOT science, It is fundamentalist Biblical assertions without basis in the evidence.

For your argument to stand the test of science you must present a falsifiable hypothesis that the complexity of life could not have evolved naturally. Science has falsified and demonstrated that the complexity of life could evolve by natural processes. The ID proponents have not presented a hypothesis that may be falsified as contrary to the scientific explanation.

Still waiting . . .

Check it out....you think a living thing like this just 'poofed' itself into existence?

This is the claim of fundamentalist theists that claim every thing 'poofed' in existence in less than 10,000 years despite the actual physical existence of our life, planet, solar system, and universe is billions of years old. Need something more than just a Theistic assertion based on ancient text, that everything 'poofed' into existence in less then 10,000 years.

Again, still waiting . . .

 

[QuestioningMind]

You are correct. Nothing that complex could have arisen by chance...like every other complicated lifeform on this planet....they exhibit design.

Check it out....you think a living thing like this just 'poofed' itself into existence?

According to one site....
"There are over 200 species of malaria. Humans are infected by five. But birds, bats, lizards and antelopes are also hosts for malaria parasites. Hawaiian birds become very sick and dozens of species have become extinct as a result of the introduction of malaria. Each species of malaria has a different life cycle and life history."

Malaria: affects animals as well as humans

So here is a little 'greebie' that has managed to adapt to many environments and produce many strains of itself that can infect a variety of hosts. All are species of malaria though. Is that evolution?...or adaptation? Where did the parasite come from in the first place? Was it always a nasty thing?

It is my belief that all life has its place in the scheme of things. Malaria is but one parasite that afflicts the human race and other creatures to their detriment, and has done so for thousands of years. There is no evidence that it has existed for millions of years, TMK.

So how do ID supporters explain existence and impact of this nasty little bug and others like it?

We would offer the explanation that after man's eviction from Eden, everything went belly up. Biologists who support ID believe that God created all microbes as "very good" forms of life, originally. The vast majority of bacteria, fungi, and protozoans are still beneficial to man and to the environment. We could not survive without them. In general, symbiosis in nature involves a larger host and a smaller creature that have a mutually beneficial relationship. So what if these originally beneficial bugs, in an environment that became abnormal, adapted themselves to become parasitic, which some biologists suggest is a secondary state in nature. What if they adapted in a way that was not beneficial to their host? Is that impossible?

Of all the creatures in nature, one insect appears to be the main villain in the spread of the infectious nasties.....the mosquito. Many see the mosquito as, not only the deadly carrier of malaria, but also West Nile encephalitis, yellow fever, dengue fever, elephantiasis and many more viral (and some parasitic) diseases. But we don't think that God created any of these creatures to afflict mankind or any other creature. There is a lot of evidence of intelligent design in their anatomy, physiology and purpose in the natural world. Like bees, they were probably designed as pollinators. Mosquitoes pollinate goldenrod, grasses, and different types of the large group of orchids even today. After the fall in Eden, it appears the nutritional needs of mosquitoes might have changed as the Genesis account suggests that there was a biological curse put on the very ground that supported these creature's lives. Nothing in this world is balanced anymore and it is becoming more unbalanced as man continues to impact negatively on his environment and the environment he shares with other creatures.

And just throwing another spanner in your little scenario here.....what if the human immune system was designed to keep out all foreign invaders and the fall in Eden created the 'breach' that allowed such invaders to enter and do their thing?

We too can speculate about many things that fit our favored scenario...just like evolutionary science does.

Making suggestions like you have in this thread, just shows that you are grasping at straws because you cannot backup your theory with anything substantial. Its all held together with speculation and educated guessing. You are not the only ones who can speculate.

Let's see... which sounds less probable? A) That complex lifeforms are the result of random chance or B) That a complex all powerful invisible super being that for some reason does not require a creator created it all?

I'd have to go with B in this case.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The question at hand relates to the parasite more than the mosquito. I suppose if a creationist wants to argue that originally Plasmodium lived in mosquitoes who then (harmlessly) bit humans and injected (harmless) Plasmodium into them, where it then (harmlessly) lived in their blood and liver until it reproduced enough to be taken up by another (harmless) mosquito bite......

I would be content to let that stupid argument speak for itself.

I understand. I think then that a different argument will be more efficient, since at some point you are going to allow the creationist side to have the last word. I am not sure what your goal is here besides enjoying your own point of view. Its fine to do that, if that is what your goal is.

Oh, I think quite a bit of new DNA would be required. There's a lot more detail here that I've not gotten into.

I'm sure you can show that there are mechanisms in the DNA which would require new genetic information to go from a symbiotic parasitic cycle to one that is harmful for humans.

It's not too hard. Just deny everything you don't believe in, no matter how goofy you look in the process.

I personally appreciate your effort and do not mean to discourage you. If you feel you can reach creationists then go for it.

 

[shunyadragon]

The question at hand relates to the parasite more than the mosquito. I suppose if a creationist wants to argue that originally Plasmodium lived in mosquitoes who then (harmlessly) bit humans and injected (harmless) Plasmodium into them, where it then (harmlessly) lived in their blood and liver until it reproduced enough to be taken up by another (harmless) mosquito bite......

I would be content to let that stupid argument speak for itself.


Oh, I think quite a bit of new DNA would be required. There's a lot more detail here that I've not gotten into.


It's not too hard. Just deny everything you don't believe in, no matter how goofy you look in the process.

Claiming things 'poofed' into existence in less then 10.000 years is far more bizzaro.

The only available objective verifiable evidence demonstrates the natural evolution of mosquitos, and the associated malaria paracites

Still waiting for objective verifiable evidence for the contrary claim.

Such claims like you are making are like clams, they open only when they feed.

 

[Deeje]

Let's see... which sounds less probable? A) That complex lifeforms are the result of random chance or B) That a complex all powerful invisible super being that for some reason does not require a creator created it all?

I'd have to go with B in this case.

Flawed reasoning with limited information, but if you are happy to go down that track, that is your choice.

Edit: Should I expand on this?

If A in this case is more probable, then tell me how "random chance" can produce billions of beneficial mutations in all the lifeforms we see on planet earth. How often does a mutation produce anything beneficial?

 

[shunyadragon]

Let's see... which sounds less probable? A) That complex lifeforms are the result of random chance or B) That a complex all powerful invisible super being that for some reason does not require a creator created it all?

I'd have to go with B in this case.

Actually, the scientific view is that evolution DOES NOT evolve by random nor 'by chance.' Life evolves fundamentally based on Natural Law and Natural Processes, and not random nor 'by chance.' The actual observed variation in the outcomes of cause and events occur in a fractal pattern based n Chaos Theory. Which only explains the nature of the variability that occurs with all out comes of cause and event relationships, and like delusions of 'by chance' and random, is not causal property of the nature of cause and effect of natural events. Natural Law and the nature of the physical environment determines the range of possible outcomes of each event, which is why the science of evolution is the best explanation.

Still waiting . . .

 

[shunyadragon]

Flawed reasoning with limited information, but if you are happy to go down that track, that is your choice.

Let's see some real science to support your fundamentalist Theistic assertions.

Still waiting . . .

 

[sayak83]

Malaria is caused by the protozoan parasite Plasmodium. The disease has cost countless lives and caused indescribable suffering across much of human history. The parasite exploits Anopheles mosquitoes and humans to complete its fairly complex life cycle.

Now surely such an intricate, complex life history could not have arise merely "by chance", as an "accident", or "without intelligence", correct?

Neither. It happened via evolution through natural selection. Plasmodium is an old parasite that is coevolving with apes for millions of years and a set of lineages have evolved to attack humans as humans gradually evolved from ancient ape ancestors in Africa.
A Fresh Look at the Origin of Plasmodium falciparum, the Most Malignant Malaria Agent

I could do some research and provide you with evidence based examples of host parasite convolution if you are interested. But are you interested, or will you loose interest as soon as you discover that this method of attacking the science of evolution is not working well?

 

[Deeje]

For your argument to stand the test of science you must present a falsifiable hypothesis that the complexity of life could not have evolved naturally. Science has falsified and demonstrated that the complexity of life could evolve by natural processes. The ID proponents have not presented a hypothesis that may be falsified as contrary to the scientific explanation.

Still waiting . . .

Waiting for what? For God to fit into the box you created for him? Don't hold your breath.

You speak as if science must dictate everything you believe......I believe what the Creator says. You can believe whatever you like.

This is the claim of fundamentalist theists that claim every thing 'poofed' in existence in less than 10,000 years despite the actual physical existence of our life, planet, solar system, and universe is billions of years old. Need something more than just a Theistic assertion based on ancient text, that everything 'poofed' into existence in less then 10,000 years.

Again, still waiting . . .

I am not a fundamentalist theist....so my beliefs are not based on "everything being created in under 10,000 years."

The Genesis account makes one statement in its first verse. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". That could well have been millions or even billions of years ago. There is no timeframe between the first verse and succeeding ones. So the creation of the universe we see as one powerful act....that is not denied by science at all.

The time for earth's preparation for habitation was also a long process. From a 'formless and waste' state, the Creator brought the land up out of the oceans. He gave light to the earth, enough for plant life to appear. It was a moist and humid environment so vegetation as the first biological lifeforms flourished long before there were living creatures to consume them. Precipitation is also a wonderful process that ensures that all life has fresh water to drink, despite the vast quantities of ocean water that is not consumable. The saltiness of the ocean is just right to provide for the vast amounts of marine life that were the first animated creatures. Followed closely by "flying creatures" which included birds, bats and insects and anything that flew. Then land animals appeared in vast quantities and in infinite variety, and finally the last creation was man. Can science deny the order?

The creative periods were not 24 hour "days" but epochs of indeterminable time that the Creator used to fashion all he wanted to make...when he wanted to make them. No "poofing" required.

Actually, the scientific view is........

Let's see some real science to support your fundamentalist Theistic assertions.

I don't need "real" science to tell me how God created. He does a nice job of that himself.

What you have swallowed is so not "real" science.....it is just masquerades as such.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Flawed reasoning with limited information, but if you are happy to go down that track, that is your choice.

Edit: Should I expand on this?

If A in this case is more probable, then tell me how "random chance" can produce billions of beneficial mutations in all the lifeforms we see on planet earth. How often does a mutation produce anything beneficial?

It's called the process of evolution. I do not know how often a mutation produces anything beneficial. Regardless of how improbable you may think evolution is, it remains far more probable than a complex invisible super being that somehow didn't require a creator.

 

[Valjean]

Let's see... which sounds less probable? A) That complex lifeforms are the result of random chance or B) That a complex all powerful invisible super being that for some reason does not require a creator created it all?
I'd have to go with B in this case.

Me, I'd go with C: complex life forms are the result of natural selection.

A. and B. aren't comparable, one questions how, the other who -- apples and air conditioners.

A. cites a mechanism -- though it doesn't say anything about it.
B. cites an agent, but no mechanism.

The mechanisms cited by science are those we're familiar with, we see them at work, we can observe them; test them, &c.
The invisible, uncreated super being is unfamiliar. There's no empirical evidence of it. It can't be seen, examined, tested or falsified. The effects cited as necessitating its existence can be accounted for by the natural, familiar mechanisms mentioned above.

 

[Valjean]

You speak as if science must dictate everything you believe......I believe what the Creator says. You can believe whatever you like.

How do you know what the creator says? A lot of people make this claim, but they mostly disagree with each other.

Science doesn't "dictate" what to believe, you're thinking of religion.

I don't need "real" science to tell me how God created. He does a nice job of that himself.

Where? How?
There's no physics or chemistry in the Bible.

 

[sayak83]

Flawed reasoning with limited information, but if you are happy to go down that track, that is your choice.

Edit: Should I expand on this?

If A in this case is more probable, then tell me how "random chance" can produce billions of beneficial mutations in all the lifeforms we see on planet earth. How often does a mutation produce anything beneficial?

10^-5 per genome per generation for unicellular bacteria with mean selective advantage of 1%. It's higher for eukaryotes.

Adaptive Mutations in Bacteria: High Rate and Small Effects | Science

Evolution by natural selection is driven by the continuous generation of adaptive mutations. We measured the genomic mutation rate that generates beneficial mutations and their effects on fitness in Escherichia coli under conditions in which the effect of competition between lineages carrying different beneficial mutations is minimized. We found a rate on the order of 10–5 per genome per generation, which is 1000 times as high as previous estimates, and a mean selective advantage of 1%. Such a high rate of adaptive evolution has implications for the evolution of antibiotic resistance and pathogenicity.

 

[shunyadragon]

You speak as if science must dictate everything you believe......I believe what the Creator says. You can believe whatever you like.

Never claimed that.

I am not a fundamentalist theist....so my beliefs are not based on "everything being created in under 10,000 years."

The Genesis account makes one statement in its first verse. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". That could well have been millions or even billions of years ago. There is no time frame between the first verse and succeeding ones. So the creation of the universe we see as one powerful act....that is not denied by science at all.

If you agree with the time frame of science, OK. You do apparently accept the age of life, the earth, solar system, and the universe. This would be selective acceptance of some science, and selective rejection of other science, such as evolution based on a religious agenda.

The time for earth's preparation for habitation was also a long process. From a 'formless and waste' state, the Creator brought the land up out of the oceans. He gave light to the earth, enough for plant life to appear. It was a moist and humid environment so vegetation as the first biological lifeforms flourished long before there were living creatures to consume them. Precipitation is also a wonderful process that ensures that all life has fresh water to drink, despite the vast quantities of ocean water that is not consumable. The saltiness of the ocean is just right to provide for the vast amounts of marine life that were the first animated creatures. Followed closely by "flying creatures" which included birds, bats and insects and anything that flew. Then land animals appeared in vast quantities and in infinite variety, and finally the last creation was man. Can science deny the order?

Yes, science does not agree with the Biblical description of Creation in Genesis, nor the flood whether world wide nor regional. The best the belief in a Biblical flood is 'poof' there was a flood and 'poof' no evidence of a flood.

The creative periods were not 24 hour "days" but epochs of indeterminable time that the Creator used to fashion all he wanted to make...when he wanted to make them. No "poofing" required.

Poofing is required if you do not believe in evolution. I believe it more rational and logical for Creation to take place in harmony with the scientific view including the evolution of life and humanity.

I don't need "real" science to tell me how God created. He does a nice job of that himself.

Everyone needs real science, and trashing science without a coherent alternative does not work. The belief that God Created everything, does not conflict with the science of evolution unless you want it to.

What you have swallowed is so not "real" science.....it is just masquerades as such.

You will need to present some sort of objective verifiable evidence to present a contrary alternative to the"real" science of evolution.

Your still referring to the bogus assertion that 'random' or 'by chance' are in some way have something to do with evolution, which reflects your voluntary ignorance of the science of evolution based on a religious agenda. The way you use 'random' or 'by chance' is a layman's misconception of the science of evolution, and has nothing to do with the 'science of evolution.

It remains that the concept of 'design' is a Theist assertion, and not verifiable by the evidence.

God is a Creator and not an engineer. The concept of design is a human process.

 

[Tmac]

Malaria is caused by the protozoan parasite Plasmodium. The disease has cost countless lives and caused indescribable suffering across much of human history. The parasite exploits Anopheles mosquitoes and humans to complete its fairly complex life cycle.

Now surely such an intricate, complex life history could not have arise merely "by chance", as an "accident", or "without intelligence", correct?

I hope that you remember that the ancestors of the people that put together this schematic once believed the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth. It is our intelligence that put this idea together and although it makes sense to us now, so did those other ideas back then. Personally, I think that you still arguing this point shows that you are yet convinced. Its not whether God exists that is important (because this battle has been going on for awhile and is basically a stalemate) but what we are going to do with Life, while we have it. The options are infinite but we choose same old same old. We need new teachers, new thoughts.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Suppose that the mosquito infestation cycle must have originally been for a good purpose but that it has been corrupted by sin. So the mosquitoes originally must have bitten people for some beneficial symbiotic relationship before sin came. There you go, no new DNA needed. Man, I'd be an awesome creationist.

No offense, but this is crap. If the "beneficial symbiotic relationship" included the strains that cause Malaria, then it isn't beneficial. And if it didn't include those parasitic strains that cause Malaria, then those parasites WOULDN'T HAVE A LIFECYCLE - and therefore wouldn't survive or propagate, and their "creation" would have been for nothing.

Remember, as @Jose Fly pointed out already, under creationism one has to claim that these parasites were created mostly "as is" - you don't get to say they turned "evil" or something "after the fall" and therefore were imbued with more genetic information. Unless you want to admit that God did that, and made these parasites deadly in order to kill humans.

Besides... at the time "before the fall"... guess how many humans there were. Oh that's right... you know. There were TWO. What the heck kind of "symbiotic relationship" could there be between 2 unique beings and a bunch of mosquitoes? Better hope those bites are pretty damn "beneficial".

You sit there and hint and imply that people are wasting their time... that "it's fine if you want to do that, but...", and here you are, posting things like this? Pot's black... kettle's black... give it a rest.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Flawed reasoning with limited information, but if you are happy to go down that track, that is your choice.

Your information is far more limited, no contest.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Check it out....you think a living thing like this just 'poofed' itself into existence?

Amusing, as the creationists are the only ones making that argument.

 

[shmogie]

It is clear from your post that you indeed don't understand biology, especially relating to evolutionary mechanisms.

A species of animal cannot produce offspring of another species of different family and genus. Evolution don't work in the way you suggested.

A mosquito cannot give birth to beetle, because they do not belong in the same genus and family. In fact, they don't belong even in the same order of insect (class).

The order of insect for the mosquito family (Culicidae) is Diperta. Diperta include other "fly" families. So the flies and mosquitoes are more closely to related to each other, they would to any of the beetle families.

Beetle families are too many to list, but that those families all belonged order called Coleoptera.

I don't know enough other about the palaeontology of insect world to tell you when the split occurred, but Genesis make no mention of insects in the creation, but they existed long before any land vertebrae animals, including the dinosaurs.

In Genesis 1:20-23, on the fifth day, god created both sea creatures and birds at the same time.

But there are no evidences of birds existing before any land vertebrae that walk or crawl on earth, which make it false. Dinosaurs flourished millions of years before mammals and birds. And the first reptiles existed even before the dinosaurs, and hence before the birds.

But according to 1:24-25 (6th day) cattle and wild animals were created after the birds, and reptiles would be included among the "wild animals".

Yes, sea creature existed first, but invertebrates existed before vertebrate creatures. And insects are not vertebrae creatures, having exoskeleton instead of vertebrae.

The order of land animals in the order of their earliest appearances are this:

1. Insect (396 million years old, Devonian period)
2. Amphibians (370 million years)
3. Reptiles (312 million years)
4. Dinosaurs (231 million years)
5. Mammals (225 million years, but only began flourishing after extinction of dinosaurs about 66 million years ago)
6. Birds (160 million years)

As stated in point 5, mammals only began to flourish after the Mesozoic era, in the Cenozoic era, where they were more diverse, but they weren't the first mammals.

Yes, cattle and humans appeared and flourished later, birds definitely didn't appear before the insects, reptiles, the earliest mammals and the dinosaurs; all these land animals did exist first before the birds.

All very interesting, and since I was an evolutionist for many years I am familiar with most of it. I suggest you look at my response with the word SATIRE in mind.