« Stories from Computing History Ch. 2 | Main | There's a 100% chance you're an idiot. »

September 02, 2004

Comments

Momotaro

Yeah, as a kid, I always knew the cicada as a 'locust'. I guess somebody was told wrong and it just perpetuated itself. You should go on further about the daddy longlegs/harvestman difference. I've made that change and I like to point it out whenever I get the chance.

Knowledge is power!

TealTerror

I won't comment on the cicada/locust thing, because I don't disagree with it.

Anyway, this life cycle is nothing special. Wow, the cicada lays its eggs, and the hatchlings burrow, and then they become adults. Please explain to me how this disproves macroevolution.

And evolution has a LOT of proof. Creation is the theory that is lacking scientific evidence...

SuperPope

As I said, "if any individual part of this life cycle wasn’t inherent in the very first cicada ever, it would have died immediately and never been able to reproduce."

Darwin didn't know about DNA. Darwin believed that single-cell organisms were disordered blobs of jelly. If he had known how complex the inner workings of the cell are, even he might have changed his tune. Too bad we couldn't even see into the nucleus of a cell until the 1950s.

TealTerror

Maybe the cicada had a different way of reproducing at first, and then slowly integrated that way into this new way. Or maybe this way of reproducing existed before the cicada, and when the cicada evolved, it kept this instinct in its brain. Maybe in the old species, the absence of one of the parts let it reproduce still.

In any case, there are many other alternate explanations.

SuperPope

And maybe cicadas materialized on earth via telepathic interdimensional teleportation from the planet Xarxxon. I can't provide any evidence for my ad hoc theory, either. ;)

TealTerror

I would think a Supreme God would have a better system for the cicada.

SuperPope

You believe the life cycle of the cicada is flawed or incomplete? How would you improve on it?

Jay

TealTerror, I'm wondering why you have so much joy for posting on just about every post made on this site. Do you have that much free time to devote an arguement on every little thing David says on something? Even posts that don't deal with Christianity you feel you need to pollute the conversation with your off-topic discussions on whether there is a God or not. Not angry, just curious...

Also, there's no need to mock things during your rebuttles. It just shows how small minded you thinking is. If you're that good of a debater, don't stoop low to poke fun or belittle. It's childish.

TealTerror

Superpope:
I cannot understand the ways of god. ~_^
Seriously, though, why doesn't the female cicada plant the eggs directly into the ground?

Jay:
-"Just about every post"? You are mistaken. I just like posting on the Religion ones, because religion is a hot button for me.
-While this didn't have anything to do with Christianity, it did have something to do with evolution.
-I don't see my actions as "polluting" the posts. Hell, these discussions are much more interesting than people going "You're so right!"
-Yes, I have a lot of free time. I have no life. ;_;
-With your "mocking" thing, are you referring to my previous comment? I guess I can kinda see your point. It wasn't intended as a mock, though.

SuperPope

TealTerror, because the larval cicadas live off of the nutrients in the young branches of the tree for the first part of their lives, and because their doing so is beneficial to the tree as a natural pruning. Also some of them are fed to baby birds as nutrition-packed snacks. You're right: From an evolutionary standpoint none of these aspects make sense. The simplest form of cicada would probably never leave the ground. But in a universe designed by God, you'd expect such overwhelming diversity and inventiveness.

TealTerror

Couldn't God have invented a better birth cycle? Couldn't he have made the trees auto-prune themselves or something? Couldn't He have made the ground more nutritous? Couldn't he have come up with an even more nutrient-packed snack for birds? Couldn't He have...

The comments to this entry are closed.

Favorite Books

  • Ravi Zacharias: Can Man Live Without God?

    Ravi Zacharias: Can Man Live Without God?
    An amazing book that makes the case for God not by citing the Bible or great theologians, but by analyzing the philosophies of famous atheists and showing their flaws.

  • C. S. Lewis: Mere Christianity

    C. S. Lewis: Mere Christianity
    C.S. Lewis was an atheist for much of his life. Appropriately, this book makes the case for the existance of God first and Christianity second with carefully outlined and surprisingly simple reasoning. I consider this required reading for anyone searching for meaning.

  • C. S. Lewis: Space Trilogy

    C. S. Lewis: Space Trilogy
    Religious Sci-Fi Fantasy: A very tiny genre. In "Out of the Silent Planet", "Perelandra", and "That Hiddeous Strength", C.S. Lewis manages to tackle difficult theological questions as we follow Dr. Ransom in his adventures on Mars, Venus, and back on Earth. My favorite science fiction series by far.