Gekko gecko

I command van der Waals forces, and swallow cockroaches.

Try that, puny humans.*

Glen Davidson

*Oh, and I'm evidence for Intelligent Design, because IDiots lack creative minds.

Not knowing better, I referred to these as "barking lizards" when I was at Cam Ranh Bay '67-'68. They're totally cool.

Buffalo buffalo Gecko gecko.

Hrm, should be another "buffalo" in there.

They have an awful bite as a couple of herpetologists I know have scars on their hands. I had graduate students work with Tokays, but with metal gloves for protection. BUT, THEY ARE BEAUTIFUL.

They have an awful bite

Creationist argument #32-J: The gecko is way beyond anything ever designed by human intelligence. Therefore, it must have been designed by an intelligence.

So much more beautiful than that damned insurance lizard.

diogeneslamp0 said: Creationist argument #32-J: The gecko is way beyond anything ever designed by human intelligence. Therefore, it must have been designed by an intelligence.

We have very complex creatures all around us, we have never witnessed a creature evolve as much a primate becoming a human, thus there is nothing to back up that assumption. However we have witnessed technology that is less complex than living creatures, thus ... I deduce that we were created[.]

Should the universal, relative simplicity of our own creations argue AGAINST the Createdness of living things? You should be thinking that the fact that living things are always more complicated than designed human artefacts implies that living things did not come about by design like human artefacts. According to our direct experiences, designed things are always less complex than living things. That's a difference, not a similarity.

ksplawn said:

diogeneslamp0 said: Creationist argument #32-J: The gecko is way beyond anything ever designed by human intelligence. Therefore, it must have been designed by an intelligence.

Yeah, I had to bring that up on another site just yesterday. That part of the argument started off with the claim that we have "no direct evidence" of macroevolution, such as from earlier hominids to modern humans, therefore it our common ancestry was a flimsy hypothesis at best. It went like this:

We have very complex creatures all around us, we have never witnessed a creature evolve as much a primate becoming a human, thus there is nothing to back up that assumption. However we have witnessed technology that is less complex than living creatures, thus ... I deduce that we were created[.]

Should the universal, relative simplicity of our own creations argue AGAINST the Createdness of living things? You should be thinking that the fact that living things are always more complicated than designed human artefacts implies that living things did not come about by design like human artefacts. According to our direct experiences, designed things are always less complex than living things. That's a difference, not a similarity.

I haven't gotten a rebuttal back yet.