Home » Informatics, News » A moth’s wings feature two flies picking at a pile of bird dropping.

A moth’s wings feature two flies picking at a pile of bird dropping.

File:Macrocilix maia.jpg

Macrocilix maia/Alexey Yakovlev

This all just somehow happened: A moth’s wings feature two flies picking at a pile of bird dropping. Information transmitted by nobody at all to somebody (a moth predator). Information that happens to be false, which probably increases the complexity.

An accident of natural selection, right? Agree, or we revoke your degree.

You can pick up your brain on the way out, scrubbed clean of all signs of question or doubt.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

9 Responses to A moth’s wings feature two flies picking at a pile of bird dropping.

  1. A good concrete illustration of the absurdity of Darwinian faith.

    I remember finding a leaf stuck to a screen a few years ago. I was going to brush it off when I saw legs. I was absolutely astounded by the amazing likeness to a leaf this bug had!

    Regardless of supposed evolutionary “explanations”, camouflage and mimicry are very powerful evidences for Design!

  2. A good concrete illustration of the absurdity of Darwinian faith.

    I remember finding a leaf stuck to a screen a few years ago. I was going to brush it off when I saw legs. I was absolutely astounded by the amazing likeness to a leaf this bug had!

    Regardless of supposed evolutionary “explanations”, camouflage and mimicry seem to me to be very powerful evidences for Design!

  3. Born-again I watched the linked videos you posted and the comment section on youtube has two morons fighting over the difference between theory and fact. They probably didn’t even watch the video! ????

  4. Jaceli123 :) Oh well, reminds me of this short video:

    The Artists – The Artists is a short film about two rival painters who fail to see the bigger picture.
    http://vimeo.com/33670490

  5. HaHa great video. Born-again I just found this blog post called 101 reasons evolution is true heres a link http://ideonexus.com/2012/02/1.....n-is-true/ hope you have time to see what darwinists can come up with.

  6. Jaceli123, I’ve seen most of those supposed evidences for Darwinism before and they are only evidence for evolution in the imagination of Darwinists. What would truly constitute hard scientific evidence for evolution would be if what are perceived to be purely material, Darwinian, processes were ever observed to create molecular machines, new functional proteins, and/or non-trivial functional information (i.e. genes/codes).

    “There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation of such a vast subject.”
    James Shapiro – Molecular Biologist

    ,,,we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.’
    Franklin M. Harold,* 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205.
    *Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, Colorado State University, USA

    Michael Behe – No Scientific Literature For Evolution of Any Irreducibly Complex Molecular Machines
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5302950/

    “Grand Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination”
    Dr. Michael Behe – 29:24 mark of following video

    More Irreducible Complexity Is Found in Flagellar Assembly – September 24, 2013
    Concluding Statement: Eleven years is a lot of time to refute the claims about flagellar assembly made in Unlocking the Mystery of Life, if they were vulnerable to falsification. Instead, higher resolution studies confirm them. Not only that, research into the precision assembly of flagella is provoking more investigation of the assembly of other molecular machines. It’s a measure of the robustness of a scientific theory when increasing data strengthen its tenets over time and motivate further research. Irreducible complexity lives! -
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....77051.html

    Dr. James Tour, who, in my honest opinion, currently builds the most sophisticated man-made molecular machines in the world,,,

    Science & Faith — Dr. James Tour – video (At the two minute mark of the following video, you can see a nano-car that was built by Dr. James Tour’s team)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdU5ojTpyzg

    ,,will buy lunch for anyone who can explain to him exactly how Darwinian evolution works:

    “I build molecules for a living, I can’t begin to tell you how difficult that job is. I stand in awe of God because of what he has done through his creation. Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God.”
    James Tour – one of the leading nano-tech engineers in the world – Strobel, Lee (2000), The Case For Faith, p. 111

    Top Ten Most Cited Chemist in the World Knows That Evolution Doesn’t Work – James Tour, Phd. – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCyAOCesHv0

    And the problem for Darwinists does not get appreciably better if go down to the level of proteins

    Doug Axe Knows His Work Better Than Steve Matheson
    Excerpt: Regardless of how the trials are performed, the answer ends up being at least half of the total number of password possibilities, which is the staggering figure of 10^77 (written out as 100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000). Armed with this calculation, you should be very confident in your skepticism, because a 1 in 10^77 chance of success is, for all practical purposes, no chance of success. My experimentally based estimate of the rarity of functional proteins produced that same figure, making these likewise apparently beyond the reach of chance.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....35561.html

    Evolution vs. Functional Proteins – Doug Axe – Video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4018222

    In fact there is a null hypothesis in place stating that material processes will never be observed generating non-trivial functional information

    The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel – Null Hypothesis For Information Generation – 2009
    To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: “Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration.” A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis.
    http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf
    Can We Falsify Any Of The Following Null Hypothesis (For Information Generation)
    1) Mathematical Logic
    2) Algorithmic Optimization
    3) Cybernetic Programming
    4) Computational Halting
    5) Integrated Circuits
    6) Organization (e.g. homeostatic optimization far from equilibrium)
    7) Material Symbol Systems (e.g. genetics)
    8) Any Goal Oriented bona fide system
    9) Language
    10) Formal function of any kind
    11) Utilitarian work
    http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/ag

    Is Life Unique? David L. Abel – January 2012
    Concluding Statement: The scientific method itself cannot be reduced to mass and energy. Neither can language, translation, coding and decoding, mathematics, logic theory, programming, symbol systems, the integration of circuits, computation, categorizations, results tabulation, the drawing and discussion of conclusions. The prevailing Kuhnian paradigm rut of philosophic physicalism is obstructing scientific progress, biology in particular. There is more to life than chemistry. All known life is cybernetic. Control is choice-contingent and formal, not physicodynamic.
    http://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/2/1/106/

  7. Ok thanks for all that information @bornagain77 and by the way I liked your blog. I could of sworn I’ve heard someone quoting darwin saying that if any machine, wheel, or any other biological systems resemble todays machinery that his very own theory would fall part. I have no Idea if this quote of any kind exist but I know I’ve heard it somewhere. By the way could a light photons momentum, temperature differences and electromagnetic forces create spontaneous formation of Protocells without DNA from simple biochemical reactions from quantum atom theory.

  8. Jaceli123

    “Charles Darwin said (paraphrase), ‘If anyone could find anything that could not be had through a number of slight, successive, modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.’ Well that condition has been met time and time again. Basically every gene, every protein fold. There is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in a gradualist way. It’s a mirage. None of it happens that way. –
    Doug Axe PhD.

    Nothing In Molecular Biology Is Gradual – Doug Axe PhD. – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5347797/

    you ask:

    By the way could a light photons momentum, temperature differences and electromagnetic forces create spontaneous formation of Protocells without DNA from simple biochemical reactions from quantum atom theory.(?)

    In my honest opinion, not without guidance by an intelligence. In fact, as mentioned previously, no one has witnessed the formation of single protein by Darwinian processes much less have they witnessed it in a abiotic environment.

    Origin Of Life – Problems With Proteins – Homochirality – Charles Thaxton PhD. – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5222490

    Homochirality and Darwin: part 2 – Robert Sheldon – May 2010
    Excerpt: With regard to the deniers who think homochirality is not much of a problem, I only ask whether a solution requiring multiple massive magnetized black-hole supernovae doesn’t imply there is at least a small difficulty to overcome? A difficulty, perhaps, that points to the non-random nature of life in the cosmos?
    http://rbsp.info/PROCRUSTES/ho.....in-part-2/

Leave a Reply