If evolution is true, where did flying creatures come from?

Percy,Is there also a way to move a post to another thread altogether, so not mere copying it but actually replacing?I guess, if not, you better use the Edit box when copying, in order to retrieve and incorporate the dbCodes.Thanks in advance!

Thanks for the tips! No, that would be too much credits!
Just a nice Avatar name I choose.

Guess what, I just moved from Topix to here. On the Topix threads the level and quality of debating was so bad it urged me to move on, can you imagine?I don't smoke, hardly drink, do not play games until unseasonable hours so evcforum will be the only addiction I permit myself..... I like the way Keep describes the case. Animals like Scansoriopterygidae are very difficult to taxonomically classify.
Is it avian? Could it fly? Or did it just glide? Feathers all over or only on some spots? Pygostyle present? Hollow bones? Etc. etc.Often this mere difficulty is mentioned by creationists being yet another example how evolution theory fails. It would demonstrate how blurry and unreliable evolutionary definitions are and, therefore, how lousy the science behind it.But a taxonomically polysemic and ambiguous fossil record is exactly what evolution theory predicts. The more difficulty in taxonomically classifying a fossil, the better evidence it is. Fossils that blur the demarcation between, for instance, dinosaurs and birds are the hallmark of evolution.Moreover, creationists also demand evidence for evolution to be a mere genealogical lineage of species from ancestor all the way up to its identified descendant(s). Of course every single step must be provided. If you present one to fill the gap, they compare it with the very next one and now of course we have two gaps. Their hunger to fill the gaps is impossible to alleviate.It is as if they want prove for someone having been travelled from LA to NY by demanding an extensive list of photos taken of every mile marker covering the whole route, recorded on a detailed time table. For anyone else 3 or 4 photos will suffice of some cities on the route with the correct time stamp, corresponding with the time span normally needed to travel from LA to NY - maybe augmented by an ATM photo taken on a consistent moment en route.Evolution does even not need the exact genealogical lineage spelled out in absurd detail. It only demands a transitional sequence of relevant traits, in an correct temporal consistence. Creationists always cry victory when careful and more detailed study reveals that some species nonetheless turns out to be not the actual "genealogical" ancestor of the alleged descendant.Archaeopteryx is an example of this.Tiktaalik is even a more interesting one. Footprints and trackways in Poland were found to be of unambiguous tetrapod origin and turned out to be older than Tiktaalik. (BTW, it is always very funny and telling to see creationists accepting SUCH results of radiometric dating, as long as it proves their case - in other instances of course they will refute it)."Wow! In that case Tiktaalik can't be the ancestor of tetrapods!" they think. But it's all irrelevant. Say we have person A of whom we want to know whether he is the father of person B. But person B is dead. But we know for sure that person C was his son. In that case taking the DNA from A and C will be perfectly valid to 100% prove the relationship of A to B.Creationists often cry Pyrrhic victories, based upon a gross misunderstanding of evolution theory and of scientific methodology as well.Edited by Denisova, : No reason given.Edited by Denisova, : No reason given.Edited by Denisova, : Language issues.

Since when does science justify things?
Science is not to justify, it is to provide valid knowledge about observable phenomena.Science can EXPLAIN death and birth rates.
What do you mean with the "milk phenomenon"?
But milk production by mammals is also pretty much well understood.Which confusing answers by science? Why exactly confusing?No doubt you get "firm answers from true faith".
That's what always worries me about faith - "firm answers".
Because there ARE NO firm answers to our questions.Unfortunately nobody can tell which faith were to be "true".
How shall I put it? Well, maybe: you are a disguised atheist yourself. You disbelieve already the 4,200 other religions. So only 1 for you to go Or maybe "The invisible sky wizard made it, 6000 years before he miraculously impregnated a Jewish, probably not virgin (did she had no sex at all with her husband before?), so he let his child be killed, because the talking snake made the clay-man and the rib-woman eat an apple."Say, you are born in Russia, which happens to be a Christian nation since 863—69, when Cyril and Methodius spread "the word".If you had been born before 863 in Russia, you would believe the old Slavonic supreme god Rog or Svarog and any of the other, lower deities in the former Slavonic pantheon.When you were born in Iran before the Islamic conquest, you would have been a Zoroastrian. After the Islamic conquest you believe in Allah.Born in India, you either would be a Hinduist, a Buddhist, a Jainist or a Sikh. Or maybe you would worship any of the numerous minor ethnically-bound faiths.Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera (to be repeated ad finitum).Finally got the picture?
The PARTICULAR "eternal truth" you are believing, depends on the particular spot you were born and on the particular era you were living.The whole of language Christians talk, the arguments they use and the mindset are the very same when discussing a Muslim. If you leave away "Jesus" or "Allah", you hardly can't tell the difference. The same claims in the same words and with the same kind of reasoning.If I would follow the Christian claims, I inevitably STILL go to hell - the Muslim one, due to still being an infidel. Or any other hell of some other random religion. And if by splendid and delightful Benevolence by His Almighty Allah I was granted to leave the Muslim hell after 3 trillion years (be praised His Righteousness), I yet would be claimed by any other god to nonetheless serve my punishment in HIS hell. After thousands of Benevolences (that many religions mankind came up with) and quadrillions of years in numerous hells I would at last be reincarnated as a miserable bug - the Hinduist punishment for not fulfilling one's karma. And the shit starts all over again.You are an infidel like any atheist because you don't believe in any of the other few thousands of gods mankind came up with. The only difference with you is the atheist disbelieves ONE more.Doesn't it ring you a bell about the "eternal" claims of your "truth"?But, ANYWAY, this is a scientific thread.
Science does not believe in "firm" answers.
The reason for that it's based on observations under scrutiny of harsh methodology and fierce falsifiability. The latter means a scientific idea is deliberately prone to critics and attack. If a scientist says "must be true because the Book says so" he only will be mocked and asked for the OBSERVATIONAL evidence for his position.ANY MOMENT a "well established" scientific theory can be overthrown by new, contradicting observations. The ONLY final certainty scientists have about the validity of their ideas, are:

1. there is observational evidence for it
2. this evidence is established by applying austere methodology
3. despite decades (or more) of attacks by opponents the theory still stands
4. despite decades of observations in the field or lab experiments, the theory has not been falsified by counter evidence.

Evolution is such a theory that could withstand the ravages of 150 years of time.But, as said before:

• any time new evidence may spoil the fun
• any time another theory may be formulated that explains the observations better
• any time someone else may still find a methodological flaw or other severe problem
• any time someone may find new counter evidence.

Really, the only certainty science has is that even after decades a theory still holds - but always leaving a small chink, belatedly open to refutation.YET, science produces more valid knowledge and technology in any random decade than your religion in its entire 3,500 years history.And the very reason for that is because science is BASED on uncertainty.
As soon as you "find" "firm" answers, you just closed your mind.
And closing minds is fatal to science.Nobody expressed this better than deGrasse Tyson, the astrophysicist:
I just don’t mind when someone says ‘you don't understand that, so god did it’. That doesn’t even bother me. But what really bothers me is as if you were so content in that answer that you no longer had curiosity to learn how it happened. The day you stopped looking because you content ‘god did it’, I don’t need you in the lab. You’re useless on the frontier of understanding the nature of the world. Neil deGrasse Tyson, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzjuSjJF9QY."Edited by Denisova, : dbCodes corrected.Edited by Denisova, : No reason given.Edited by Denisova, : No reason given.