Tweet
This is a very interesting life form. I'm curious to get an atheist opinion on its evolutionary origins and how they fathom there is no intelligence whatsoever in the workings of anything.
How does evolution explain this? Or does it simply ignore the philosophical context, in turn not really begging the next question. I ask this because I've heard many atheist insist that science proves atheism. That science and any form of "extra-knowable intelligence", for lack of a better phrase, are incompatible (or is it just certain religions?).
To be more precise, is it your opinion that the mutations that lead to this creature's unique biological properties and sexual dimorphism are just a matter of chance;
That out of the blue it simply adapted, by pure happenstance, these traits which are perfectly suited for deep sea, pitch black environments?
That the male role is not an adaption designed to increase the chances of procreation. But merely a random mutation with no rhyme or reason?
That the glowing light hanging from the female head is not intended to attract prey, but is just some weird appendage that is there for no particular reason?
Now the logical question might be to ask, if it is all completely a matter of chance - chance that its predecessor species just so happened to mutate in a way that facilitated a new environment - how did this parent species survive for millions of years prior to the full onset of its current biology if we can call it an adaptation?
And if we assume the changes are not reactionary or premeditated, but again pseudo random, why do we find such environmental adaptations throughout the entire animal kingdom? In terms of genetic transfer it would seem as likely as a single Negroid male being deposited into an all Caucasoid gene pool and expecting the Negroid features to not only still persist millions of years later, but to have completely replaced the Caucasoid features. This seems to me to be the only logical analogy. Please correct me if I'm missing something.
This species' males have effectively evolved into a female testicle. That's a pretty drastic transformation.
How do you rationalize this scientifically? Or do you not rationalize it, stopping at the face value, merely accept it for what it is and ignoring the philosophical inquires/implications?
Now it is okay to simple acknowledge natural phenomenon at face value, however in doing so you don't form a complete circle of understanding. In which case, on what basis do you affirm atheism vs. the uncertainty of agnosticism? Where in is it found the certainty of your assumptions?
One of the amazing things about life on the earth is that life exists in places where the conditions are so severe that it would seem impossible for any kind of life to be there. Imagine living in a place where there is no sunlight, the temperature is slightly above freezing, and pressure is greater than 150 tons per square foot. This is the home of the deep sea anglerfish also known as the triplewart sea devil and wolf-trap anglerfish. These names got applied when people found dead specimens floating in the ocean and could not imagine what they were like when they were alive. Now that scientists have seen them in their natural environment, the awe of these creatures has just gotten bigger.
Eating is a major issue for this fish. How do you locate food in totally
dark, sparsely populated regions of the sea? The deep sea anglerfish has a rod running off its head with a light-giving enzyme called luciferase on its tip. This enables the fish to attract prey and/or mates. The tip is a fleshy wad that wiggles, looking like a small fish. The jaw of the fish produces suction when the mouth is opened and it has retractable teeth that face into the mouth. An approaching fish will be sucked into the mouth and cannot get out. The mouth can open in four milliseconds so the suction is very fast. The stomach of the fish is expandable so it can actually swallow something larger than itself.
Finding a mate is an issue in the conditions of the deep sea, but the male
anglerfish is 25 times smaller than the female, and when they find each other he chomps down on the female and never lets go. His circulatory system fuses with hers and all his organs except the reproductive organs shut down, so he becomes a permanent sperm bank. One species of anglerfish has a male that is 6.2 mm long, the smallest vertebrate known to man.
Eating is a major issue for this fish. How do you locate food in totally
dark, sparsely populated regions of the sea? The deep sea anglerfish has a rod running off its head with a light-giving enzyme called luciferase on its tip. This enables the fish to attract prey and/or mates. The tip is a fleshy wad that wiggles, looking like a small fish. The jaw of the fish produces suction when the mouth is opened and it has retractable teeth that face into the mouth. An approaching fish will be sucked into the mouth and cannot get out. The mouth can open in four milliseconds so the suction is very fast. The stomach of the fish is expandable so it can actually swallow something larger than itself.
Finding a mate is an issue in the conditions of the deep sea, but the male
anglerfish is 25 times smaller than the female, and when they find each other he chomps down on the female and never lets go. His circulatory system fuses with hers and all his organs except the reproductive organs shut down, so he becomes a permanent sperm bank. One species of anglerfish has a male that is 6.2 mm long, the smallest vertebrate known to man.
To be more precise, is it your opinion that the mutations that lead to this creature's unique biological properties and sexual dimorphism are just a matter of chance;
That out of the blue it simply adapted, by pure happenstance, these traits which are perfectly suited for deep sea, pitch black environments?
That the male role is not an adaption designed to increase the chances of procreation. But merely a random mutation with no rhyme or reason?
That the glowing light hanging from the female head is not intended to attract prey, but is just some weird appendage that is there for no particular reason?
Now the logical question might be to ask, if it is all completely a matter of chance - chance that its predecessor species just so happened to mutate in a way that facilitated a new environment - how did this parent species survive for millions of years prior to the full onset of its current biology if we can call it an adaptation?
And if we assume the changes are not reactionary or premeditated, but again pseudo random, why do we find such environmental adaptations throughout the entire animal kingdom? In terms of genetic transfer it would seem as likely as a single Negroid male being deposited into an all Caucasoid gene pool and expecting the Negroid features to not only still persist millions of years later, but to have completely replaced the Caucasoid features. This seems to me to be the only logical analogy. Please correct me if I'm missing something.
This species' males have effectively evolved into a female testicle. That's a pretty drastic transformation.
How do you rationalize this scientifically? Or do you not rationalize it, stopping at the face value, merely accept it for what it is and ignoring the philosophical inquires/implications?
Now it is okay to simple acknowledge natural phenomenon at face value, however in doing so you don't form a complete circle of understanding. In which case, on what basis do you affirm atheism vs. the uncertainty of agnosticism? Where in is it found the certainty of your assumptions?
of a light?
Comment