Here is why. I was out to dinner with my extended family: my older brother, his wife and two children, my dad, and my younger brother and his wife and one child. It gradually became apparent to all that my daughter was not eating her vegetable, lima beans, and that I should say something. She had never seen a lima bean: the one veggie I did not like. Nonetheless, I felt forced to at least encourage the veggie I had not even touched. "Sweetie," I said, ""Why not try that vegetable?" She said, "I don't like it." In perfect logic, I responded, "How do you know you don't like if you have not tried it?"

And she replied in your nonsensical way but in her cute for a four year old way, "Why would I try something I don't like?" "Why should I bother debunking something that is not true?" Infantile or dopey?

I didn't say there was no evidence...just not the type that you are demanding. You seek to prove something based on evidence of a type that is foreign to the entity. The fact that whales (mammals) are not found on land does not equate that they don't exist. The fact that you won't find a lion in the middle of the Pacific Ocean does not equal that lions do not exist. This is what you are doing... because we cannot demonstrate physical proof of God, you assume He doesn't exist. And you do know what happens when you assume.

http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.com/



FRIDAY, 27 NOVEMBER 2015

Does God Like Bats But H**e The Rest of Us?
The evolution of bat nucleic acid-sensing Toll-like receptors - Escalera-Zamudio - 2015 - Molecular Ecology - Wiley Online Library

Here is today's embarrassing question for creationists. Does your hypothetical intelligent designer favour bats and h**e the rest of us?

The reason you need to answer this is because a paper published today shows that bats have a better i****e s****m than other mammals. I'm assuming that creationists only believe in one intelligent designer and not millions of competing intelligent designers all closely guarding their designs and refusing to share.

So, if this supposed intelligent designer can design a better i****e s****m for bats, why did it design a lesser one for the rest of us? Of course, this ignores considerations about why an i****e s****m is needed at all and why a benevolent god would have designed parasites from which an i****e s****m tries to protect us but that's a different issue. I have never managed to find a creationist with the honesty, integrity and courage to tackle the question of there parasites fit in a perfect world designed by a perfect and maximally benevolent designer so I doubt I'll get one now.

So, let's just concentrate on why this supposed designer gave bats a better i****e s****m.

The paper was published in Molecular Ecology by an international team lead by Marina Escalera-Zamudio from the Department of Wildlife Diseases, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Berlin, Germany. It shows that bats have a much more efficient system of Toll-like Receptors (TLRs). TLRs are considered to be the first-line defense against pathogens and recognise a wide range of pathogenic molecular signatures.

Bats exhibit traits unique amongst mammals, such as flight, and across different species they have an exceptional breadth in diet, a result of their long-term adaptation to a wide variety of environments and ecological niches. These niches also have specific pathogen profiles which are likely to have shaped the evolution of the bat TLRs in an order-specific manner.

Marina Escalera-Zamudio
Regrettably, the paper published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. is copyright protected and, although the abstract is available online, permission to reprint it is closely guarded. If I obtain this permission I will reprint it here. Meanwhile one can only hope for the day when all scientific research is freely available and accessible to all.

What this finding suggests is an answer to the problem of why bats seem to act as a reservoir species for some pathogens like rabies which can be t***smitted by a bat bite but from which bats appear to be immune. Bats have also recently been implicated as a reservoir species for ebola.

So, from an intelligent design perspective, it's hard not to conclude that such an intelligent designer is not favouring bats by designing a superior i****e s****m for them but deliberately withholding this new, improved design from other mammals, including its supposed favourite species, and what it created all the others for, humans.

Would any creationist like to deal with this question, or is it to be the usual avoidance of these difficult questions yet again whilst pretending the intelligent design notion is the best available explanation of the way things are?

Reference:
Escalera-Zamudio, M., Zepeda-Mendoza, M. L., Loza-Rubio, E., Rojas-Anaya, E., Méndez-Ojeda, M. L., Arias, C. F. and Greenwood, A. D. (2015), The evolution of bat nucleic acid-sensing Toll-like receptors. Mol Ecol, 24: 5899–5909. doi:10.1111/mec.13431

http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.com/

FRIDAY, 27 NOVEMBER 2015

Does God Like Bats But H**e The Rest of Us?
The evolution of bat nucleic acid-sensing Toll-like receptors - Escalera-Zamudio - 2015 - Molecular Ecology - Wiley Online Library

Here is today's embarrassing question for creationists. Does your hypothetical intelligent designer favour bats and h**e the rest of us?

The reason you need to answer this is because a paper published today shows that bats have a better i****e s****m than other mammals. I'm assuming that creationists only believe in one intelligent designer and not millions of competing intelligent designers all closely guarding their designs and refusing to share.

So, if this supposed intelligent designer can design a better i****e s****m for bats, why did it design a lesser one for the rest of us? Of course, this ignores considerations about why an i****e s****m is needed at all and why a benevolent god would have designed parasites from which an i****e s****m tries to protect us but that's a different issue. I have never managed to find a creationist with the honesty, integrity and courage to tackle the question of there parasites fit in a perfect world designed by a perfect and maximally benevolent designer so I doubt I'll get one now.

So, let's just concentrate on why this supposed designer gave bats a better i****e s****m.

The paper was published in Molecular Ecology by an international team lead by Marina Escalera-Zamudio from the Department of Wildlife Diseases, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Berlin, Germany. It shows that bats have a much more efficient system of Toll-like Receptors (TLRs). TLRs are considered to be the first-line defense against pathogens and recognise a wide range of pathogenic molecular signatures.

Bats exhibit traits unique amongst mammals, such as flight, and across different species they have an exceptional breadth in diet, a result of their long-term adaptation to a wide variety of environments and ecological niches. These niches also have specific pathogen profiles which are likely to have shaped the evolution of the bat TLRs in an order-specific manner.

Marina Escalera-Zamudio
Regrettably, the paper published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. is copyright protected and, although the abstract is available online, permission to reprint it is closely guarded. If I obtain this permission I will reprint it here. Meanwhile one can only hope for the day when all scientific research is freely available and accessible to all.

What this finding suggests is an answer to the problem of why bats seem to act as a reservoir species for some pathogens like rabies which can be t***smitted by a bat bite but from which bats appear to be immune. Bats have also recently been implicated as a reservoir species for ebola.

So, from an intelligent design perspective, it's hard not to conclude that such an intelligent designer is not favouring bats by designing a superior i****e s****m for them but deliberately withholding this new, improved design from other mammals, including its supposed favourite species, and what it created all the others for, humans.

Would any creationist like to deal with this question, or is it to be the usual avoidance of these difficult questions yet again whilst pretending the intelligent design notion is the best available explanation of the way things are?

Reference:
Escalera-Zamudio, M., Zepeda-Mendoza, M. L., Loza-Rubio, E., Rojas-Anaya, E., Méndez-Ojeda, M. L., Arias, C. F. and Greenwood, A. D. (2015), The evolution of bat nucleic acid-sensing Toll-like receptors. Mol Ecol, 24: 5899–5909. doi:10.1111/mec.13431