quoted from the
journal of creation
This research has inspired the design of very effective ‘
Super Black’ coatings, and might inspire other sorts of coatings that produce striking colours without the chemical waste in production of pigments and dyes. This is yet another example of
biomimetics: human technology copying nature—in reality,
taking lessons from the Designer of nature
in
(sic) order for this butterfly to evolve it must have
know (sic) all the the properties of the Electromagnetic spectrum(light) beforehand.
there (sic) is No Way this could have evolved through genetic mistakes over millions of years. Since you guys say the facts speak for themselves then this fact screams of an all knowing designer.
I'm not bothering to quote the rest as it has nothing to do with proving or disproving creation (it is simply a description of the mechanics of butterfly colour pigmentation) I've bolded the most ridiculuously stupid points made in the post.
1) This is what is known in the business as an unwarranted assumption. Of course we may have taken inspiration (I'm not well read enough on the specifics to be certain), we do that a lot. But then to ass-u-me that it is a proof of creation, with no way of getting from a to b is the height of laziness, stupidity and bad thinking. Magicfan if these are the people you look up to you need to find better role models, these people are simply taking you for a ride.
2) No need to know the Electromagnetic spectrum. Natural selection will hit on the best colour very quickly. Either a) the colour is perfect for hiding the butterfly from potential predators, b) it makes the butterfly look unappetising to potential predators, or c) it makes potential mates more likely to choose a butterfly with such a colour scheme. Every single one of those choices gives you a butterfly more likely to have progeny, and thus pass on the genes which select that colour scheme. Over time the increased mating success of butterflies will kill off all other types of butterfly in the species which carry a different colour scheme. No knowledge of the electromagnetic spectrum is required.
P.S. I'm certain also that everybody here who is opposing your viewpoint knows what the ES is. We actually have scientific knowledge.
3) Unwarranted assumption. This shows your total ignorance of natural selection (examples of how it works I've cited in no. 2) above), and also shows that you maintain the mistaken assumption that the world is a static system, where nothing changes and no outside forces impinge on species at all. This assumption is so obviously wrong that I'm flabbergasted that you still cling to it. Just look outside the window and you will see so much evidence which point to the obviousness of the world being a dynamic system.
Again, and again, and again you post stuff which you think proves creation, and again, and again, and again it takes no time or effort to show you where exactly you have gone wrong in your "proof" and how it nullifies creation as a valid theory and actually counts as evidence for Evolution! Are you not getting tired of being constantly proved wrong, and making yourself look very foolish in the process.
@Seon here you go:
{IMG]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/49805/Facepalm.png[/IMG}
