How did Rolly Pollies Evolve?

And speaking or evolutionary precursors, I have questions about a couple of other fun creatures.

One involves the ‘roly poly’ that suggests something about the Creator’s sense of fun. Aka the ubiquitous pill bug, woodlouse or armadillid, it rolls up into an amazingly precise spherical shape. When I discovered the little-known fact that it delivers rectangular-ish, even square, excrement, I laughed out loud. (And I’m sure THAT detail was important for its adaptive survival! :slightly_smiling_face:) I still smile or chuckle when I think of it.

The other involves the early evolutionary precursors for the Issus planthopper, and what the narrative is about how the gears came to appear from an ‘ungeared’ predecessor, and only in the adolescent:

Excellent article on this here:


I assume you’re asking these questions because you believe it was designed. But on what evidence? What testable predictions does a design-hypothesis make for the pill bugs, or the “gears” on the insect legs?

I don’t know. I’m hoping that the more we learn about biocomplexity (especially on the cellular and molecular level), and biodiversity, and maybe the shortness of time and ‘length’ of information (@swamidass – speaking of DNA :slightly_smiling_face:), that a nontheistic answer will become a non sequitor like it already has for the beginning in cosmology. I do know that we can predict and already do expect to find beauty, humor, extremes, subtle and maybe unexplainable differences (artists in both the visual arts, including architecture, and of course music, frequently do variations on a theme) and the bizarre (artists like to play with extremes) since we in truth have a personal Creator. I’m looking forward to more from Winston Ewert et al., too.

A favorite example of the extreme (I dislike ‘absurd’):

I guess the mandarin duck should certainly qualify as an example of the extreme, as well as the amazing extremes of variety of the birds of paradise.

So you believe they were designed, but you have no idea why. OK.

This is like saying that Ganymede will be shown to be made of cheese like we already know the moon is.

Odd that when it comes to predictions about creation, creationists always predict what we already have seen. It’s also odd that you know so much about God’s character and motives, yet shy away from such knowledge whenever there are other data to explain, like those starving kids in Yemen. I’m afraid this exercise is vacuous.

1 Like

Incidentally, pharyngeal jaws are found not just in morays but in most teleosts.

No, it’s more like saying your worldview fallaciously excudes God and you desperately cling to your fallacies of incredulity.

Did you already know that pill bugs had rectangular feces? You don’t expect to find new beauty and extremes, and even humor in new discoveries? If no, I’m sorry for you. And if yes, how scientific is that?

And bringing up red herrings and straw men is also fallacious. I’ll have you know that I wept at the pictures of the children on the news last week.

And I’m not shying away from the subject, I’m just not addressing your repetitive fallacies. I you really want to talk about it, start a new thread and tag me.

As extreme as functional as the moray’s? Variations on a theme.

Presumably, if you had the power to alleviate their suffering, you would. That’s what a good person would do, given the means and opportunity. But you’re halfway around the world, and you’re just one man.

God, however, according to common definitions as an omnipotent and omnipresent being, has all the means and opportunity it is possible to even concieve of, yet does nothing.

Personally I don’t exclude anything. I’d just like some evidence. As in predictions that can be tested by observation. Not after-the-fact rationalizations like “I predict all the things we already see”.

Got any?

No. But you didn’t predict it either. I expect to find all manner of surprises in life, but I don’t see that as a prediction of God.

How is that a red herring? And how is your reaction relevant? The point is that you think it tells us nothing about God, while you think square frass tells us something.

Please take more care with your sentences; your meaning is not quite clear. The pharyngeal jaws of teleosts vary considerably in function and anatomy. I take variation on a theme as expected from evolution, since it works upon variation in existing characters. It’s evidence of common descent, as we would not expect a nested hierarchy to result from separate creation.

To eliminate evil, God would have had to make us automatons, and that precludes love.

The fact that we’re still here is evidence of his patience. If it were not for God’s patience and love through the work of Christ, wanting to adopt more into his family, the earth would have been a cinder long ago.

You certainly make a lot of unsupported assertions.

Who is being made an automaton by not having to starve to death as a young child? Your rationalization here doesn’t even make sense.

That isn’t a self-evident assertion and needs more support. (← That that is irony will not be further supported, either. :slightly_smiling_face:)

Choice to be at war is what is what is causing the starvation.

Unintentionally, you state the truth.

And yet God has been credited with both starting and ending wars in the past. Where’s your free will in that?

John has to reinforce his credibility somehow. :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes: You seemed to have missed the irony. Again.

1 Like