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

CrowCross said:
Why would ID be required to explainsomething that doesn't exist? Perhaps your pseudo science evo-ism can.
Click to expand...
ID cannot explain why mermaids do not exist. Evolution can.

The ID designer could have produced mermaids. Evolution cannot produce mermaids. Hence the non-existence of mermaids is evidence for evolution, but is not evidence either for or against ID.

Evolution can predict what cannot evolve. So far I have not seen any predictions from ID about what cannot be designed.

Finding a living mermaid would falsify evolution. Such a find would not falsify ID. The inability of ID to specify a possible falsification is a scientific weakness in ID.
 
rossum said:
ID cannot explain why mermaids do not exist. Evolution can.

The ID designer could have produced mermaids. Evolution cannot produce mermaids. Hence the non-existence of mermaids is evidence for evolution, but is not evidence either for or against ID.

Evolution can predict what cannot evolve. So far I have not seen any predictions from ID about what cannot be designed.

Finding a living mermaid would falsify evolution. Such a find would not falsify ID. The inability of ID to specify a possible falsification is a scientific weakness in ID.
Click to expand...
Why couldn't a mermaid have evolved?
 
MrIntelligentDesign said:

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?
Click to expand...
Oh my, you seem to be confirming what we've told you about science: you don't understand it.

Do you know what an abstract is, in the context of a scientific publication? I'll assume "no" and explain: it's a single-paragraph summary of the publication which follows it. It provides a high-level explanation of what was being researched/tested, what the research/test found, and what those results mean/imply. It contains no data, no proof, and (often) no references.

If all you do is read the abstract, you'll never see the evidence or methodology or references the publication used to come to its conclusion.

You should definitely avoid pretending to be a scientist until you're willing to learn the basics.
 
CrowCross said:
Why couldn't a mermaid have evolved?
Click to expand...
Because a classic mermaid is a mixture of two very different clades. The top half has air-breathing lungs, while the lower half is fish. with a low pressure circulation system, not able to cope with the blood pressure from a mammalian heart. Temperature control will also be a major problem with the body having an endothermic upper half and an exothermic lower half. In short, evolution cannot fit two incompatible pre-existing halves together.

The closest you will get is something like a dugong, which is an air-breathing seagoing mammal, which has a very vague resemblance to a mermaid, and is probably the origin of the story. The configuration of the tail is significant.
 
rossum said:
Because a classic mermaid is a mixture of two very different clades. The top half has air-breathing lungs, while the lower half is fish. with a low pressure circulation system, not able to cope with the blood pressure from a mammalian heart. Temperature control will also be a major problem with the body having an endothermic upper half and an exothermic lower half. In short, evolution cannot fit two incompatible pre-existing halves together.

The closest you will get is something like a dugong, which is an air-breathing seagoing mammal, which has a very vague resemblance to a mermaid, and is probably the origin of the story. The configuration of the tail is significant.
Click to expand...
Who says a mermaid would have a mammalian heart?

Now I know the mermaid could not have evolved because evolutions...descent with modification....is impossible.
 
CrowCross said:
Who says a mermaid would have a mammalian heart?
Click to expand...
The definition of mermaid: a fictitious or mythical half-human sea creature with the head and trunk of a woman and the tail of a fish, conventionally depicted as beautiful and with long flowing golden hair

If the hot fish lady has breasts, she has a chest, and that's where the human (aka. mammalian) heart is located.

You should spent more time following along the thread of a conversation before trying to take part in it...
 
mikeT said:
The definition of mermaid: a fictitious or mythical half-human sea creature with the head and trunk of a woman and the tail of a fish, conventionally depicted as beautiful and with long flowing golden hair

If the hot fish lady has breasts, she has a chest, and that's where the human (aka. mammalian) heart is located.

You should spent more time following along the thread of a conversation before trying to take part in it...
Click to expand...
Maybe the breast are mimics....no? Kinda like the false eyed frog.
 
Temujin said:
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.
Click to expand...
All living animals can do and cannot do something to protect their life, Life must be protected.

What I am saying that in all biological systems to live, to protect lives, or to protect "life", there are always internal defense mechanics that the Creator of Life had intelligently designed, put inside simultaneously with life (one predictions of intelligence) for individual to live, without consulting or asking the participation of the actual individual living organisms. (I will show you some real example for yourself below). I think it was best explained by the new Intelligent Design on its main mechanism, the Intelligent Selection, from Biological Intertrelation, BiTs.

BiTs predicts that all living organisms are created by the Creator of Life, the Intelligent Agent , the real IA, since biological cell is intelligently designed (intellen), or if you hated the word intelligence, intentionally designed (intellen) for having multiple defense mechanisms. The new ID counted at least 7 defense mechanisms for life to exist, inside the living biological cell, without counting the external or bodily defense mechanisms yet, like camouflages.. In the new ID and Creationism, life is very important! To Evolution, life is not important, that is why you can bully or permitted to bully another person in Evolution, since they are both evolving.


If you read the ABSTRACT, the authors were trying to explain CAMOUFLAGE, as probably the product of Evolution, caused by Natural Selection. That was the main topic. See below the part in where they wrote their aims.

Transparency in animals is a complex form of camouflage...

https://www.plt.org/educator-tips/camouflage-nature-examples ...some examples of camouflages

Supporters of Evolution thought that camouflages (one of many defense mechanisms for life) had evolved gradually, with the direct participation of those animals that have camouflages. And those animals had thought to themselves directly that they needed camouflages to life, to protect life, like glassfrogs, or chameleons, just click the link above.

In another words, FABLES are everywhere in Evolution, in where according to FABLES, the science of Evolution, both the chameleons and glassfrogs etc were being eaten by their predators. And they were very afraid and asked help to Darwin but Darwin did not help them, so they thought new ways to defend them. Both glassfrogs and chameleons had realized one day that they must have the defense mechanisms to live. Now, to form transparency, for the glassfrogs, the glassfrogs had literally sacrificed and killed one of its fellow one glassfrog, cut the stomach of that dead glassfrog without anesthesia, the glassfrog had studied the anatomy and the nervous system of that dead glassfrog, studied the red blood cells (RBCs) of that glassfrog, and found a way to reroute the RBCs to liver, to achieve TRANSPARENCY! WOW! The glassfrogs had created and formed a new defense mechanism, called transparency, and all credits must be to the glassfrogs!

How about chameleons? The same. The chameleons were very afraid that they were being eaten by their predators, so the prayed to Darwin for help, but Dawkins had blocked their prayers since Darwin was very busy writing his book, "On The Origin Of Stupidity...", oh sorry, I mean "On the Origin of Species..". So, the BOSS chameleons had studied one of its fellow servant chameleon's skin, studied color variations, studied background variations, studied skin coloring and found some ways to transform (WOW!! I wished I could do, too! I REALLY LIKE TO WATCH the Transformers movies!) and change its skin colors based on surrounding...done by chameleons themselves!

And the supporters of Evolution called that explanation science and should be published in Science Journal!
That is why boys and girls, Aesop had missed these stories, now Evolution and its supporters are telling that story, on the Show , the Greatest Show of Stupidity On Earth! and they called it SCIENCE!

Oh my goodness... that is why all my real science articles were rejected in a FABLED-like Science Journal...
 
MrIntelligentDesign said:
All living animals can do and cannot do something to protect their life, Life must be protected.

What I am saying that in all biological systems to live, to protect lives, or to protect "life", there are always internal defense mechanics that the Creator of Life had intelligently designed, put inside simultaneously with life (one predictions of intelligence) for individual to live, without consulting or asking the participation of the actual individual living organisms. (I will show you some real example for yourself below). I think it was best explained by the new Intelligent Design on its main mechanism, the Intelligent Selection, from Biological Intertrelation, BiTs.

BiTs predicts that all living organisms are created by the Creator of Life, the Intelligent Agent , the real IA, since biological cell is intelligently designed (intellen), or if you hated the word intelligence, intentionally designed (intellen) for having multiple defense mechanisms. The new ID counted at least 7 defense mechanisms for life to exist, inside the living biological cell, without counting the external or bodily defense mechanisms yet, like camouflages.. In the new ID and Creationism, life is very important! To Evolution, life is not important, that is why you can bully or permitted to bully another person in Evolution, since they are both evolving.


If you read the ABSTRACT, the authors were trying to explain CAMOUFLAGE, as probably the product of Evolution, caused by Natural Selection. That was the main topic. See below the part in where they wrote their aims.

Transparency in animals is a complex form of camouflage...

https://www.plt.org/educator-tips/camouflage-nature-examples ...some examples of camouflages

Supporters of Evolution thought that camouflages (one of many defense mechanisms for life) had evolved gradually, with the direct participation of those animals that have camouflages. And those animals had thought to themselves directly that they needed camouflages to life, to protect life, like glassfrogs, or chameleons, just click the link above.

In another words, FABLES are everywhere in Evolution, in where according to FABLES, the science of Evolution, both the chameleons and glassfrogs etc were being eaten by their predators. And they were very afraid and asked help to Darwin but Darwin did not help them, so they thought new ways to defend them. Both glassfrogs and chameleons had realized one day that they must have the defense mechanisms to live. Now, to form transparency, for the glassfrogs, the glassfrogs had literally sacrificed and killed one of its fellow one glassfrog, cut the stomach of that dead glassfrog without anesthesia, the glassfrog had studied the anatomy and the nervous system of that dead glassfrog, studied the red blood cells (RBCs) of that glassfrog, and found a way to reroute the RBCs to liver, to achieve TRANSPARENCY! WOW! The glassfrogs had created and formed a new defense mechanism, called transparency, and all credits must be to the glassfrogs!

How about chameleons? The same. The chameleons were very afraid that they were being eaten by their predators, so the prayed to Darwin for help, but Dawkins had blocked their prayers since Darwin was very busy writing his book, "On The Origin Of Stupidity...", oh sorry, I mean "On the Origin of Species..". So, the BOSS chameleons had studied one of its fellow servant chameleon's skin, studied color variations, studied background variations, studied skin coloring and found some ways to transform (WOW!! I wished I could do, too! I REALLY LIKE TO WATCH the Transformers movies!) and change its skin colors based on surrounding...done by chameleons themselves!

And the supporters of Evolution called that explanation science and should be published in Science Journal!
That is why boys and girls, Aesop had missed these stories, now Evolution and its supporters are telling that story, on the Show , the Greatest Show of Stupidity On Earth! and they called it SCIENCE!

Oh my goodness... that is why all my real science articles were rejected in a FABLED-like Science Journal...
Click to expand...
Your articles were rejected because they are rubbish, written by an idiot, making no sense, with no evidence to support them. They are not published because they don't meet the minimum standard required for publication. You must learn that the fault lies with you. You must up your game, learn some basics about science and how new discoveries are promulgated. Curb your arrogance. Get help. Ask for, and take advice. Everyone here is being supportive, even if it doesn't seem like it. There's nothing wrong with fresh thinking, but that's not the same as lunacy, which is what you are presenting.
 
Last edited:
Temujin said:
Your articles were rejected because they are rubbish, written by an idiot, making no sense, with no evidence to support them. They are not published because they don't meet the minimum standard required for publication. You must learn that the fault lies with you. You must up your game, learn some basics about science and how new discoveries are promulgated. Curb your arrogance. Get help. Ask for, and take advice. Everyone here is being supportive, even if it doesn't seem like it. There's nothing wrong with fresh thinking, but that's not the same as lunacy, which is what you are presenting.
Click to expand...
LOL!!!

Our discussion shows that supporters of Evolution like you are not doing any real science but lunacy and ignorance of reality.

My posts show how the Science Journal, for example, had become stupid because of Evolution. WHY? They let published an article that has similar with fables.. YOU CANNOT even rebut, lol!

The glassfrogs did it, the chameleons did it.. oh my goodness, And the lion said to Darwin, "You, Darwin the new prophet of stupidity". And all ants replied, "Amen!"...and that is science!

Yes, boys and girls, our topic for today is about Aesop in science.

BELOW IS EVOLUTION, right?


In another words, FABLES are everywhere in Evolution, in where according to FABLES, the science of Evolution, both the chameleons and glassfrogs etc were being eaten by their predators. And they were very afraid and asked help to Darwin but Darwin did not help them, so they thought new ways to defend them. Both glassfrogs and chameleons had realized one day that they must have the defense mechanisms to live. Now, to form transparency, for the glassfrogs, the glassfrogs had literally sacrificed and killed one of its fellow one glassfrog, cut the stomach of that dead glassfrog without anesthesia, the glassfrog had studied the anatomy and the nervous system of that dead glassfrog, studied the red blood cells (RBCs) of that glassfrog, and found a way to reroute the RBCs to liver, to achieve TRANSPARENCY! WOW! The glassfrogs had created and formed a new defense mechanism, called transparency, and all credits must be to the glassfrogs!

How about chameleons? The same. The chameleons were very afraid that they were being eaten by their predators, so the prayed to Darwin for help, but Dawkins had blocked their prayers since Darwin was very busy writing his book, "On The Origin Of Stupidity...", oh sorry, I mean "On the Origin of Species..". So, the BOSS chameleons had studied one of its fellow servant chameleon's skin, studied color variations, studied background variations, studied skin coloring and found some ways to transform (WOW!! I wished I could do, too! I REALLY LIKE TO WATCH the Transformers movies!) and change its skin colors based on surrounding...done by chameleons themselves!
 
Last edited:
mikeT said:
Oh my, you seem to be confirming what we've told you about science: you don't understand it.

Do you know what an abstract is, in the context of a scientific publication? I'll assume "no" and explain: it's a single-paragraph summary of the publication which follows it. It provides a high-level explanation of what was being researched/tested, what the research/test found, and what those results mean/imply. It contains no data, no proof, and (often) no references.

If all you do is read the abstract, you'll never see the evidence or methodology or references the publication used to come to its conclusion.

You should definitely avoid pretending to be a scientist until you're willing to learn the basics.
Click to expand...
I knew the ABSTRACT!

Do you think that the living organisms, especially, the glassfrogs are exclusive only to Evolutionists, and we do not see any frogs or other animals or plants in our lifetime? Since living organisms are around us and are with us humans, then, any scientists who would like to explain the biological living world in science must be précised, especially in the topic of CAMOUFLAGE or defense mechanisms, and one of many camouflages is transparency, as reported.

Is it really true that besides human, other animals could make their own camouflages, studied the surroundings, studied their enemies, studied science and anatomy, went to Harvard University, get PhDs, and put pressure or force or magic spells into their bodies, and they now possess a system for camouflages like chameleons or glassfrogs? Oh I forget the most important part of science: study Evolution! Yes, folks, the glassfrogs and chameleons had studied Evolution and wow, like a genius of Einstein, they formed transparency and color blending camouflages! WOW!!

Hey, you, do not criticize me about that story! That is science! Let us publish that in Science Journal.. peer-reviewed! WOW!! WOW!!

Are below the real EVOLUTION?

In another words, FABLES are everywhere in Evolution, in where according to FABLES, the science of Evolution, both the chameleons and glassfrogs etc were being eaten by their predators. And they were very afraid and asked help to Darwin but Darwin did not help them, so they thought new ways to defend them. Both glassfrogs and chameleons had realized one day that they must have the defense mechanisms to live. Now, to form transparency, for the glassfrogs, the glassfrogs had literally sacrificed and killed one of its fellow one glassfrog, cut the stomach of that dead glassfrog without anesthesia, the glassfrog had studied the anatomy and the nervous system of that dead glassfrog, studied the red blood cells (RBCs) of that glassfrog, and found a way to reroute the RBCs to liver, to achieve TRANSPARENCY! WOW! The glassfrogs had created and formed a new defense mechanism, called transparency, and all credits must be to the glassfrogs!

How about chameleons? The same. The chameleons were very afraid that they were being eaten by their predators, so they prayed to Darwin for help, but Dawkins had blocked their prayers since Darwin was very busy writing his book, "On The Origin Of Stupidity...", oh sorry, I mean "On the Origin of Species..". So, the BOSS chameleons had studied one of its fellow servant chameleon's skin, studied color variations, studied background variations, studied skin coloring and found some ways to transform (WOW!! I wished I could do, too! I REALLY LIKE TO WATCH the Transformers movies!) and change its skin colors based on surrounding...done by chameleons themselves!
 
Last edited:
MrIntelligentDesign said:
... the Creator of Life ...
Click to expand...
Since the Abrahamic God is already alive, see Psalm 42:2, then the Abrahamic God cannot be the creator of life. The Abrahamic God is one living thing creating other living things.

The creator of life cannot itself be alive, but must be non-living.

Do you have any source of information about this non-living entity you are proposing?
 
MrIntelligentDesign said:
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?
Click to expand...
That one organism can't do thing A (humans can't grow horns) isn't evidence that another organism can't do thing B (glass frogs can't hide their RBC).
 
rossum said:
Since the Abrahamic God is already alive, see Psalm 42:2, then the Abrahamic God cannot be the creator of life. The Abrahamic God is one living thing creating other living things.

The creator of life cannot itself be alive, but must be non-living.

Do you have any source of information about this non-living entity you are proposing?
Click to expand...
I understood it.

Thank you for correction and clarification, I was careless in writing it down. You explained it well. I agreed.

Yes, if God exist, then, He must be the Source of all existence and life, the thing that intelligence had predicted.

Intelligence is being used for existence and life, if not, there will be no existence and death only, and since intelligence is a concept/method, then, intelligence is eternal, that predicts that there must be an eternal Entity, like God who will be using intelligence.

Thus, God exist and is eternal.
 
MrIntelligentDesign said:
Yes, if God exist, then, He must be the Source of all existence and life
Click to expand...
As I have already indicated a living God cannot be the source of life. Similarly, an existing God cannot be the source of existence. An existing god cannot be the source of that same existing God.

If God exists, then there is already existence. God cannot be the source of existence.

As an aside, capitalising words, as your "Source", is often an indication of reification. Reification is almost always an error—moving something from an abstract category to a non-abstract category.
 
rossum said:
As I have already indicated a living God cannot be the source of life. Similarly, an existing God cannot be the source of existence. An existing god cannot be the source of that same existing God.

If God exists, then there is already existence. God cannot be the source of existence.

As an aside, capitalising words, as your "Source", is often an indication of reification. Reification is almost always an error—moving something from an abstract category to a non-abstract category.
Click to expand...
What I wanted to say is that God is the Source of all existence like the existence of universe, life and everything, except Him, since an Entity must be the Source of all sources since intelligence exist, and intelligence predicts the eternal Entity, aka God.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top