Can glassfrogs do it? Words always convey meanings especially used in science.

[MrIntelligentDesign]

If you are going to read the Abstract, the submitter had claimed that glassfrog could hide their blood so that they could attain transparency as camouflage, as one defense mechanics. And the reviewer/s in Science Journal had let this kind of article to be published? Oh my goodness, if you are going to peer-review the article, will you simply ask the submitter to be more realistic and tell the truth, or let fantasy creep into science? How many people will be in danger by seriously following our science, as a system of knowledge, today if we allow this kind of carelessness in using words to explain reality? oh my...

Is is really true that the glassfrog could do it by itself, by hiding its blood in the liver and become transparent?

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abl6620

 

[Temujin]

If you are going to read the Abstract, the submitter had claimed that glassfrog could hide their blood so that they could attain transparency as camouflage, as one defense mechanics. And the reviewer/s in Science Journal had let this kind of article to be published? Oh my goodness, if you are going to peer-review the article, will you simply ask the submitter to be more realistic and tell the truth, or let fantasy creep into science? How many people will be in danger by seriously following our science, as a system of knowledge, today if we allow this kind of carelessness in using words to explain reality? oh my...

Is is really true that the glassfrog could do it by itself, by hiding its blood in the liver and become transparent?

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abl6620

Yes. If you wish to challenge this finding you will need to do better than "Oh my goodness?"

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Yes. If you wish to challenge this finding you will need to do better than "Oh my goodness?"

I could easily challenge this that the glassfrogs have no power to put their bloods on their livers, like adding wings to my bodies so that I could fly. I do not have that power, no matter how hard I think and try.

 

[Temujin]

I could easily challenge this that the glassfrogs have no power to put their bloods on their livers, like adding wings to my bodies so that I could fly. I do not have that power, no matter how hard I think and try.

Saying is not doing. These researchers have been doing science, making observations and writing up their findings. The question is not can glassfrogs do this. They can because they are observed to do it. Anyone who has seen them can confirm this. The question is how do they do it. The researchers have answered this, with suggested follow up research on blood clotting to follow. If you can refute this, do so, but you will need to do the experiments. Start by legally obtaining some glass frogs. Please get back to us when you have done this.

P.S. make sure that you know how to look after them. They are endangered and we wouldn't want an egg to fall on them or for them to be eaten by a cheese-starved rat poked with a stick.

 

[The Pixie]

If you are going to read the Abstract, the submitter had claimed that glassfrog could hide their blood so that they could attain transparency as camouflage, as one defense mechanics.

And then they did actual science to prove it.

Using photoacoustic imaging to track RBCs in vivo, we show that resting glassfrogs increase transparency two- to threefold by removing ~89% of their RBCs from circulation and packing them within their liver. Vertebrate transparency thus requires both see-through tissues and active mechanisms that “clear” respiratory pigments from these tissues. ​

Compare to dropping eggs on to tissues....

And the reviewer/s in Science Journal had let this kind of article to be published?

Yes, because it is supported by real science - actual experimental data.

Oh my goodness, if you are going to peer-review the article, will you simply ask the submitter to be more realistic and tell the truth, or let fantasy creep into science?

Why do you think it is false?

Do you think photoacoustic imaging is a bad way to track red blood cells? Do you have any reason to think they are lying? Or is there some other explanation for why nearly 90% of their red blood cells can disappear temporarily?

How many people will be in danger by seriously following our science, as a system of knowledge, today if we allow this kind of carelessness in using words to explain reality? oh my...

Why do you feel the evidence-based knowledge is a danger to society?

Is is really true that the glassfrog could do it by itself, by hiding its blood in the liver and become transparent?

That is what the evidence points to.

Do you ignore the evidence and just stick with faith? That is creationism, not science.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Saying is not doing. These researchers have been doing science, making observations and writing up their findings. The question is not can glassfrogs do this. They can because they are observed to do it. Anyone who has seen them can confirm this. The question is how do they do it. The researchers have answered this, with suggested follow up research on blood clotting to follow. If you can refute this, do so, but you will need to do the experiments. Start by legally obtaining some glass frogs. Please get back to us when you have done this.

P.S. make sure that you know how to look after them. They are endangered and we wouldn't want an egg to fall on them or for them to be eaten by a cheese-starved rat poked with a stick.

That is not what the ABSTRACT was written. Below was the ABSTRACT:

Abstract​

Transparency in animals is a complex form of camouflage involving mechanisms that reduce light scattering and absorption throughout the organism. In vertebrates, attaining transparency is difficult because their circulatory system is full of red blood cells (RBCs) that strongly attenuate light. Here, we document how glassfrogs overcome this challenge by concealing these cells from view. Using photoacoustic imaging to track RBCs in vivo, we show that resting glassfrogs increase transparency two- to threefold by removing ~89% of their RBCs from circulation and packing them within their liver. Vertebrate transparency thus requires both see-through tissues and active mechanisms that “clear” respiratory pigments from these tissues. Furthermore, glassfrogs’ ability to regulate the location, density, and packing of RBCs without clotting offers insight in metabolic, hemodynamic, and blood-clot research.

Look at these claims:

Claim 1: glassfrogs overcome this challenge by concealing these cells from view.
Claim 2: glassfrogs increase transparency two- to threefold by removing
Claim 3: glassfrogs’ ability to regulate the location, density, and packing of RBCs

ALL claims were pointing to what the glassfrogs could do, per ABSTRACT.

Can a thinking human being overcome challenge by having horns to fight enemies?
Can thinking humans increase its height or add its hair count by doing something?

As you can see, the explanations are fairy tales, or fables, like Evolution.
That is what we get if we let Evolution creeps into science.

And the peer-reviewer had allowed this article to be published by SCIENCE Journal, and yet they did not publish my FALSIFICATION article for Evolution theory? fairy tale vs science...fairy tale wins in Evolution..

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

And then they did actual science to prove it.

Using photoacoustic imaging to track RBCs in vivo, we show that resting glassfrogs increase transparency two- to threefold by removing ~89% of their RBCs from circulation and packing them within their liver. Vertebrate transparency thus requires both see-through tissues and active mechanisms that “clear” respiratory pigments from these tissues. ​

Compare to dropping eggs on to tissues....


Yes, because it is supported by real science - actual experimental data.


Why do you think it is false?

Do you think photoacoustic imaging is a bad way to track red blood cells? Do you have any reason to think they are lying? Or is there some other explanation for why nearly 90% of their red blood cells can disappear temporarily?


Why do you feel the evidence-based knowledge is a danger to society?


That is what the evidence points to.

Do you ignore the evidence and just stick with faith? That is creationism, not science.

Observing an experiment and concluding an experiment are two different things.

Remember that we observe living organisms too. They are not exclusive only to Evolutionists like you.

 

[Temujin]

That is not what the ABSTRACT was written. Below was the ABSTRACT:

Abstract​

Transparency in animals is a complex form of camouflage involving mechanisms that reduce light scattering and absorption throughout the organism. In vertebrates, attaining transparency is difficult because their circulatory system is full of red blood cells (RBCs) that strongly attenuate light. Here, we document how glassfrogs overcome this challenge by concealing these cells from view. Using photoacoustic imaging to track RBCs in vivo, we show that resting glassfrogs increase transparency two- to threefold by removing ~89% of their RBCs from circulation and packing them within their liver. Vertebrate transparency thus requires both see-through tissues and active mechanisms that “clear” respiratory pigments from these tissues. Furthermore, glassfrogs’ ability to regulate the location, density, and packing of RBCs without clotting offers insight in metabolic, hemodynamic, and blood-clot research.

Look at these claims:

Claim 1: glassfrogs overcome this challenge by concealing these cells from view.
Claim 2: glassfrogs increase transparency two- to threefold by removing
Claim 3: glassfrogs’ ability to regulate the location, density, and packing of RBCs

ALL claims were pointing to what the glassfrogs could do, per ABSTRACT.

Can a thinking human being overcome challenge by having horns to fight enemies?
Can thinking humans increase its height or add its hair count by doing something?

As you can see, the explanations are fairy tales, or fables, like Evolution.
That is what we get if we let Evolution creeps into science.

And the peer-reviewer had allowed this article to be published by SCIENCE Journal, and yet they did not publish my FALSIFICATION article for Evolution theory? fairy tale vs science...fairy tale wins in Evolution..

The claims are verified by observation. Are you denying that glass frogs can do these things? If so, on what basis? It's extraordinary that you won't accept observations done by others people that violate your very limited capacity for imagination, and yet you accept the most bizarrely stupid ideas for which there will s no evidence whatsoever.

This article was accepted because it passed peer review, whereby other scientists in the field verified the claims made and the methods used. Your articles were rejected because they were rubbish. Badly written, poor scientific method, invalid methodology, invalid conclusions and not worth the effort of ripping up for toilet paper.

 

[Temujin]

Observing an experiment and concluding an experiment are two different things.

Remember that we observe living organisms too. They are not exclusive only to Evolutionists like you.

Do you mean concluding, or drawing conclusions from? Assuming the latter, that's how experiments are designed. You have a hypothesis. You design an experiment to test the hypothesis. You draw conclusions from the results. If you want to draw different conclusions, you will need to design your own experiments to test independently the hypothesis, then draw conclusions based on results, not on your personal prejudices.

 

[The Pixie]

Observing an experiment and concluding an experiment are two different things.

Remember that we observe living organisms too. They are not exclusive only to Evolutionists like you.

I see you cannot answer any of my questions.

What we see here is a guy who ignores evidence that troubles his religious faith. MrID is no more a science than Kent Hovind or Ken Ham. He is just another theist peddling his own ideas and pretending they are science.

And no one if falling for it.

 

[Iktomi]

I see you cannot answer any of my questions.

What we see here is a guy who ignores evidence that troubles his religious faith. MrID is no more a science than Kent Hovind or Ken Ham. He is just another theist peddling his own ideas and pretending they are science.

And no one if falling for it.

Not even his fellow creationists/IDists are falling for it. Hard to fail any more completely than that ??

 

[CrowCross]

They can because they are observed to do it.

The next step is to assume they can do it because they ...evolved the ability.

Where is the evidence that they evolved the ability?

It appears to common sense that they were created with this ability via an Intelligent Designer.

 

[Temujin]

The next step is to assume they can do it because they ...evolved the ability.

Where is the evidence that they evolved the ability?

It appears to common sense that they were created with this ability via an Intelligent Designer.

On the contrary, it's common sense that this ability evolved. Evolution is the background to all biology. Every other natural ability evolved. The mechanisms by which this ability work evolved. Indeed, they may have implications for human physiology, which gives this study extra interest.

The notion that this ability was created by an intelligent designer is farcical. For one thing, why bother designing such an intricate and fascinating organism only to render it virtually extinct due to vulnerability to disease? The glass frog is a quirk of nature, it's biological mechanisms are interesting, but it is no more evidence of intelligent design than any of the other busted bits of evidence trotted out at regular intervals by the bewildered.

 

[CrowCross]

On the contrary, it's common sense that this ability evolved.

Perhaps you could tell us why its common sense this ability evolved?

You can state it..but can you demostrate it.

Evolution is the background to all biology. Every other natural ability evolved. The mechanisms by which this ability work evolved. Indeed, they may have implications for human physiology, which gives this study extra interest.

Simply more unsupported claims.
The evos can only make claims....then present them as fact.

The notion that this ability was created by an intelligent designer is farcical.

The sophistication that would have been required to evolve via a process that contained for the most part random chance mutations doesn't have that ability.
The excuse because it's here doesn't prove anything.

For one thing, why bother designing such an intricate and fascinating organism only to render it virtually extinct due to vulnerability to disease?

Was disease present when the original kind was created?
Tell us why if the frog could turn virtually invisible...evolve that ability....it couldn't evolve the bility to defend against its vulnerability to disease?

Do you see how your rgument is falling apart?

The glass frog is a quirk of nature, it's biological mechanisms are interesting, but it is no more evidence of intelligent design than any of the other busted bits of evidence trotted out at regular intervals by the bewildered.

Then please do tell us how the glass frog evolved...So far all you have is...it's here so it must have evolved....not good enough.

 

[Temujin]

Perhaps you could tell us why its common sense this ability evolved?

You can state it..but can you demostrate it.


Simply more unsupported claims.
The evos can only make claims....then present them as fact.


The sophistication that would have been required to evolve via a process that contained for the most part random chance mutations doesn't have that ability.
The excuse because it's here doesn't prove anything.

Was disease present when the original kind was created?
Tell us why if the frog could turn virtually invisible...evolve that ability....it couldn't evolve the bility to defend against its vulnerability to disease?

Do you see how your rgument is falling apart?

Then please do tell us how the glass frog evolved...So far all you have is...it's here so it must have evolved....not good enough.

We have mountains of evidence for evolution. There's no evidence at all for any other mechanism. You are the sceptic. You need to show that evolution doesn't apply here, in this specific tiny quarter of the natural world, or indeed anywhere else. If you want to overturn the accepted and highly successful theory of Evolution, you will need to produce something yourself, rather than waste time. As I say, there's no reason to suppose any other mechanism is involved other than evolution. You think that there is a reason, you provide the evidence.

 

[CrowCross]

We have mountains of evidence for evolution. There's no evidence at all for any other mechanism. You are the sceptic. You need to show that evolution doesn't apply here, in this specific tiny quarter of the natural world, or indeed anywhere else. If you want to overturn the accepted and highly successful theory of Evolution, you will need to produce something yourself, rather than waste time. As I say, there's no reason to suppose any other mechanism is involved other than evolution. You think that there is a reason, you provide the evidence.

Where is the evidence that the glass frog evolved? You claim you have mountains of evidence for evolution..well?
Perhaps we can also bring up the false eyed frog......which is yet another frog feature the evos can't explain.

 

[Temujin]

Where is the evidence that the glass frog evolved? You claim you have mountains of evidence for evolution..well?
Perhaps we can also bring up the false eyed frog......which is yet another frog feature the evos can't explain.

No. It isn't can't explain It's cannot be bothered to explain. You are asking for a commitment of time and effort I'm not prepared to give, just to pander to your insecurities. You put some work in. You have exactly the same access to the same sources as I do. If you are keen to follow this avenue, you do so. I'm content to enjoy this paper at face value and the risible incredulity it has provoked in the OP. If you think that this bolsters your daft views on the feasibility of evolution, then you are mistaken. As always.

 

[The Pixie]

Where is the evidence that the glass frog evolved? You claim you have mountains of evidence for evolution..well?
Perhaps we can also bring up the false eyed frog......which is yet another frog feature the evos can't explain.

Can creationism or ID explain it?

I am interested to see if your "explanation" can also be applied to mermaids. Mermaids do not exist, so an explanation that as readily explains mermaids as false-eyed frogs is nonsense.

 

[CrowCross]

Can creationism or ID explain it?

I am interested to see if your "explanation" can also be applied to mermaids. Mermaids do not exist, so an explanation that as readily explains mermaids as false-eyed frogs is nonsense.

Why would ID be required to explainsomething that doesn't exist? Perhaps your pseudo science evo-ism can.

 

[Temujin]

Why would ID be required to explainsomething that doesn't exist? Perhaps your pseudo science evo-ism can.

As always, you miss the point. It's almost as if you do it deliberately.