Try this one: Lacewings hunt small aphids etc all over the land, when suddenly one of them has a mutation, which makes it produce a tiny bit of the chemical. It's not eaten by termites and passes the mutation to it's children in varying degrees. The children producing most chemicals survive and produce more children. After some generations they are strong enough to fight the termites. This allows them to evolve so that they take advantage of termites.
@BereanBeacon1 I agree, there was no science behind my "story". It was just a more plausible alternative for your story. That is how evolution could have worked.
Why do you assume lacewings would have been "madly waving their abdomens" at insects before it was any use for them?
@BereanBeacon1 That's easy to answer. Supporters of ID and creationism disrecard most of scientific evidence and the tough questions like "Why do you assume lacewings would have been "madly waving their abdomens" at insects before it was any use for them?" The scientific evidence that is not disrecarded by them is usually twisted somehow to seemingly support something very unscientific. You should also familiarize yourself with Russell's teapot (Can be found on Wikipedia)
@BereanBeacon1 Ah, a great thing about science is, much of it IS in the open, and anyone can read it!
"If you have evidence that evolution is false, you are entirely at liberty to submit a paper to the Editor of Nature, or Science[...] Do not fear that Editors will reject it simply because it opposes evolution. [...] the journal that published a paper which really did discover a fallacy in evolution [...] would have the scoop of the century!"
@BereanBeacon1 I knew you wouldn't be able to give me any logical answers. The only options for you were the one you just used or some conspiracy theory. Just as you aren't able to give me an answer to my question: Why do you assume lacewings would have been "madly waving their abdomens" at insects before it was any use for them?
@luovahulluus Christians don't "twist" things and more scientific theories support creation than do evolution, notice how evolutionists change entire theories as new evidence comes to fit evolution howeverit already fits creation. evolutionists "twist" things not christians.
@agchains78543 When a creationist hears about a new scientific find he simplifies or adds to it to make it fit his story. When a scientist hears about the new find he examines it and compares it to the current theory. If the find doesn't support the theory, he adjusts the theory to make it as close to the truth as possible. Scientists don't know everything but they strive for the truth. Creationists don't know everything, but they make their best to twist the evidence to support their story.
@luovahulluus We still dont twist things, we strive for the truth as much as you do but most things already fall into our theories and the bible. Most evolutionary theories change as new things are discovered, neither of the two sides twist things, but both try to understand things about earth and life in the best and most logical way possible carbon dating has faults and according to creation those genetics were created in life and the bible DOES NOT state the age of the earth. research it.
@agchains78543 Perhaps the two strongest evidences of evolution are genetics and radiocarbon dating. These both completely DESTROY any credibility that the creationists may ever have had. Those both are pretty well explained in Wikipedia. For once have an open mind and check them out.
wow
one eyed man is kind and all that
fume0ne 6 months ago
This is hilarious and sad at the same time
Try this one: Lacewings hunt small aphids etc all over the land, when suddenly one of them has a mutation, which makes it produce a tiny bit of the chemical. It's not eaten by termites and passes the mutation to it's children in varying degrees. The children producing most chemicals survive and produce more children. After some generations they are strong enough to fight the termites. This allows them to evolve so that they take advantage of termites.
luovahulluus 10 months ago
@luovahulluus Great science fiction story,but not real science. Once upon a time....
BereanBeacon1 10 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 I agree, there was no science behind my "story". It was just a more plausible alternative for your story. That is how evolution could have worked.
Why do you assume lacewings would have been "madly waving their abdomens" at insects before it was any use for them?
luovahulluus 10 months ago
@luovahulluus There are NO evolutionists who will defend there position in a science controlled public forum.
Why is that? If you can find one, you will be paid a $1,000.
BereanBeacon1 10 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 That's easy to answer. Supporters of ID and creationism disrecard most of scientific evidence and the tough questions like "Why do you assume lacewings would have been "madly waving their abdomens" at insects before it was any use for them?" The scientific evidence that is not disrecarded by them is usually twisted somehow to seemingly support something very unscientific. You should also familiarize yourself with Russell's teapot (Can be found on Wikipedia)
luovahulluus 10 months ago
@luovahulluus Ah, a debate would would bring all your "science" into the open and then you would lose.
BereanBeacon1 10 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 Ah, a great thing about science is, much of it IS in the open, and anyone can read it!
"If you have evidence that evolution is false, you are entirely at liberty to submit a paper to the Editor of Nature, or Science[...] Do not fear that Editors will reject it simply because it opposes evolution. [...] the journal that published a paper which really did discover a fallacy in evolution [...] would have the scoop of the century!"
-Richard Dawkins
Haven't seen articles like that.
luovahulluus 10 months ago
@luovahulluus LOL
BereanBeacon1 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BereanBeacon1 I knew you wouldn't be able to give me any logical answers. The only options for you were the one you just used or some conspiracy theory. Just as you aren't able to give me an answer to my question: Why do you assume lacewings would have been "madly waving their abdomens" at insects before it was any use for them?
luovahulluus 10 months ago
@luovahulluus Christians don't "twist" things and more scientific theories support creation than do evolution, notice how evolutionists change entire theories as new evidence comes to fit evolution howeverit already fits creation. evolutionists "twist" things not christians.
agchains78543 7 months ago
@agchains78543 When a creationist hears about a new scientific find he simplifies or adds to it to make it fit his story. When a scientist hears about the new find he examines it and compares it to the current theory. If the find doesn't support the theory, he adjusts the theory to make it as close to the truth as possible. Scientists don't know everything but they strive for the truth. Creationists don't know everything, but they make their best to twist the evidence to support their story.
luovahulluus 7 months ago
@luovahulluus We still dont twist things, we strive for the truth as much as you do but most things already fall into our theories and the bible. Most evolutionary theories change as new things are discovered, neither of the two sides twist things, but both try to understand things about earth and life in the best and most logical way possible carbon dating has faults and according to creation those genetics were created in life and the bible DOES NOT state the age of the earth. research it.
agchains78543 7 months ago
@agchains78543 Perhaps the two strongest evidences of evolution are genetics and radiocarbon dating. These both completely DESTROY any credibility that the creationists may ever have had. Those both are pretty well explained in Wikipedia. For once have an open mind and check them out.
luovahulluus 7 months ago
Wow. Inspiring.
Tell me. Have scientists discovered anything else?
hairyreasoner 2 years ago