Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 111 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-25-2017 8:33 AM
415 online now:
AZPaul3, bluegenes, Chiroptera, CRR, edge, frako, JonF, kjsimons, PaulK, Percy (Admin), RAZD (11 members, 404 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,170 Year: 9,776/21,208 Month: 2,863/2,674 Week: 287/961 Day: 17/134 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
15NextFF
Author Topic:   If evolution is true, where did flying creatures come from?
Bookworm7890
Junior Member (Idle past 849 days)
Posts: 13
From: mississippi
Joined: 09-25-2014


(1)
Message 1 of 225 (737571)
09-26-2014 10:26 PM


Think about it. Say we have a species that has never flown before, and has absolutely no instincts about how to fly. One day one of this species is born/hatched with flaps similar to wings. How would it know that it could use these flaps to glide/fly? And even if it did, it would not know how to fly, and its attempts at flight would probably either kill it or attract predators. And flying squirrels, how would they know to glide? Lets say we have a squirrel born with half developed flaps that do not allow flight, it decides to jump out of a tree, splat! Now we wait 1,000,000+ years for another wing flap squirrel to appear! This is my opinion, but i would like to hear yours! Any evidence FOR OR AGAINST evolution/creation of birds and flying creatures is appreciated!
Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by subbie, posted 09-27-2014 8:22 AM Bookworm7890 has responded
 Message 5 by jar, posted 09-27-2014 9:24 AM Bookworm7890 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 6 by NoNukes, posted 09-27-2014 9:39 AM Bookworm7890 has responded
 Message 7 by mike the wiz, posted 09-27-2014 9:40 AM Bookworm7890 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 8 by Tangle, posted 09-27-2014 10:23 AM Bookworm7890 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 18 by ringo, posted 09-27-2014 12:32 PM Bookworm7890 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 21 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-27-2014 2:33 PM Bookworm7890 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 53 by Pressie, posted 09-29-2014 5:46 AM Bookworm7890 has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12427
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 2 of 225 (737573)
09-27-2014 8:01 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the If evolution is true, where did flying creatures come from? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
subbie
Member (Idle past 87 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 3 of 225 (737574)
09-27-2014 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Bookworm7890
09-26-2014 10:26 PM


Your opening sentence is one of the most ironic things ever said at this site. You are asking easily answered questions, simply because you haven't bothered to think about it, or even performed the most basic search for information.

There are any number of resources that you can turn to that will show you the answers that science currently provides to those questions. If you really want to know, we'd be happy to direct you there. However, I'm quite certain you don't want to know the answers. I'm quite sure that you consider these to be deep questions, unanswerable by science. And, the fact that you think these questions are unanswerable makes you feel more secure in your faith in some deity or other, most likely the Christian god.

Be careful where you tread here. If you look too closely, you will find there are many, many answers to questions that will make you quite uncomfortable. Or you will learn to ignore the answers that make you uncomfortable and whistle past the graveyard.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Bookworm7890, posted 09-26-2014 10:26 PM Bookworm7890 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by mike the wiz, posted 09-27-2014 8:39 AM subbie has acknowledged this reply
 Message 9 by Bookworm7890, posted 09-27-2014 10:27 AM subbie has responded
 Message 217 by Belcher, posted 05-26-2015 2:07 AM subbie has acknowledged this reply

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4549
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 4 of 225 (737575)
09-27-2014 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by subbie
09-27-2014 8:22 AM


You are asking easily answered questions

Yet I noticed that you didn't answer his question, instead you gave an anti-Christian rant. If this is a debate board, then the poster named Bookworm asked a debate-question, to then state things about his motives is highly inappropriate, the purpose is to debate the question, within the context of it being asked. I thought it was a pretty thoughtful question actually.

And, the fact that you think these questions are unanswerable makes you feel more secure in your faith in some deity or other, most likely the Christian god.

Or it makes logical sense to ask ourselves if complete designs can be irreducibly deconstructed in a way that will make sense over eons of great time, or does it make more sense to say they are complete and whole designs.

For example the Pteroid-bone in the Pterosaur might be described as an essential rod pertaining to lift, but then it is a reasonable question to ask what Bookworm asked - what about the brains to fly? We know that things that fly have tremendous flight-sense, almost like satellite-navigation systems, we also know there are other analogous designs (metaphorically, I don't refer to homoplastic features) that are equatable such as echolocation in bats and oil birds.

However, I'm quite certain you don't want to know the answers.

We don't mind because those answers are only conjectural. They can only be conjectural because nobody has shown evidence showing a bellows-type lung evolving into a contraflow lung, for example, or direct empirical evidence showing reptile-skin slowly changing into feathers.

It is quite reasonable, whether you have faith as a Christian, or are even agnost or atheist, to consider whether such changes are plausible, given the objects in question are so sophisticated.

The insect-wing for example, in regards to Bio-mimetics, the designers simply couldn't come up with something as brilliant as that wing, so it is reasonable to ask why, if the best brains can't design a wing as good, it should have evolved, with no intelligence involved.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by subbie, posted 09-27-2014 8:22 AM subbie has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 28667
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


(2)
Message 5 of 225 (737577)
09-27-2014 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Bookworm7890
09-26-2014 10:26 PM


they did not get et!
Two squirrels are in a tree. One was born deformed; there was an extra flap of skin between his forearm and body. They jumped from the tree and one went splat; no kids for that one. The other glided down to the ground and met a beautiful girl squirrel and they had lots of little babies that had little flaps of skin between their foreleg and body.

It really is that simple.

Creationism is simply stupid.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Bookworm7890, posted 09-26-2014 10:26 PM Bookworm7890 has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9431
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 6 of 225 (737578)
09-27-2014 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Bookworm7890
09-26-2014 10:26 PM


Think about it. Say we have a species that has never flown before, and has absolutely no instincts about how to fly. One day one of this species is born/hatched with flaps similar to wings.

Sounds exactly the way someone who has rejected evolution and is looking for confirmation would think. But why is it that things must happen only in the way that makes evolution fail? If the squirrel in question dies, would that end the opportunity for evolution of flight? All that is needed is an opportunity for successful paths to work.

Flying things evolved from gliding things which evolved from things that could fall with style.

And flying squirrels, how would they know to glide? Lets say we have a squirrel born with half developed flaps that do not allow flight, it decides to jump out of a tree

What if instead the squirrel simply fell from a height that would have killed his brother squirrels and the flaps caught air and allowed survival. What might that squirrel learn during its lifetime about the use of those flaps?

This is my opinion, but i would like to hear yours!

I don't think very much of the method you used to form your opinion. Perhaps more reflection and more study before reaching your conclusion?

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Bookworm7890, posted 09-26-2014 10:26 PM Bookworm7890 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Bookworm7890, posted 09-27-2014 10:33 AM NoNukes has responded

    
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4549
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 7 of 225 (737579)
09-27-2014 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Bookworm7890
09-26-2014 10:26 PM


Hi Bookworm.

Any evidence FOR OR AGAINST evolution/creation of birds and flying creatures is appreciated!

I would say that the chief-candidate for an alleged transitional intermediate for evolution of birds would be Archae-optical-trix. Although logically speaking it's only "partly" transitional. For the sake of fairness it could be argued to be a candidate for bird-evolution because of it's dinosaur-features, so we have to be respectful towards the evolutionist in that regard, logically we can't move the goal-posts on them. This does count as confirmation evidence in that it fulfills the ponen-rule,( it would follow that such a creature might exist if evolution occurred.)

But I myself would say it's more of a Chimera than a transitional. Odd Chimeras do exist, such as the Platypus.

As for direct evidence of birds and flying creatures, I would say that the evidence for design is overwhelming. If we look at what makes a birds' feather, there is a velcro-type locking system, the hooks, barbs, barbules and barbicells all interlock, the anterior barbules to the posterior barbules. The feather itself is aerodynamic, efficient, strong, lightweight in correspondence with the contraflow, through-flow lung-system incorporating air sacs, hollow bones, and obviously provides a system for immensely fast heart-rate and metabolism.

As to the achievements in flight the dexterity of a small bird is quite simply not to be believed in it's excellence. It can land on a vertical branch perfectly from flight in the space of a few tenths of a second, and the vice-like grip is designed for tree-branches.

Also the evidence that the Butterfly is designed, can be read in this short link of some of the amazing design-features it has:

http://creation.com/butterfly-designer-wings

I would say the evidence for design must be qualified by all of the elements of design being present, all of which are present in flying creatures. There are a variety of flying creatures that all qualify as overwhelmingly designed, therefore the evidence is incontrovertible, IMHO.

Generally speaking, the general evidence of the fossil record shows abrupt appearance, pertaining to bats, Pterosaurs, Pterodactyls, and birds. That is to say, their flying-capabilities appear, fully formed with variations, and there is no evolutionary history except for the alleged histories, which is conjectural.

Logically speaking, I haven't found any sound reasons to believe such sophisticated designs could evolve, given the designs are clearly meant to be in place, wholly, as the empirical evidence shows.

This concludes my participation in this thread. Thanks for your time, and sorry if I don't get back to you, I don't spend much time at forums like this anymore but if you click on my name, you will see some posts I have made, that could be helpful to you, if you read through my posts.

All the best.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Bookworm7890, posted 09-26-2014 10:26 PM Bookworm7890 has acknowledged this reply

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4533
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 8 of 225 (737580)
09-27-2014 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Bookworm7890
09-26-2014 10:26 PM


There's an easy to follow explation of the evolution of bird flight here:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/evolve.html

Why don't you read that and get back to us with questions.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Bookworm7890, posted 09-26-2014 10:26 PM Bookworm7890 has acknowledged this reply

  
Bookworm7890
Junior Member (Idle past 849 days)
Posts: 13
From: mississippi
Joined: 09-25-2014


Message 9 of 225 (737581)
09-27-2014 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by subbie
09-27-2014 8:22 AM


Reply to subbie
I see you saying that i am asking easily answered questions, well then, by all means answer them. Really, link to the evidence please. Just saying that there are answers but not providing answers is like taking a test and saying"I know all the answers to the questions but do not feel like writing them down" Anyone can say they are right without stating any evidence. I dont care about being "Quite uncomfortable", and do not ignore the "answers" Also i would like to point out that i said "any evidence FOR OR AGAINST creation/evolution is appreciated, I also said "EVIDENCE"

Yet i notice that you say that i blindly accept christianity, and ignore any contrary evidence, that is irrelevant, the topic is how flying creatures came to be, not if I am an idiot who plugs his ears every time someone challenges his belief.

Please link to the evidence next time. -Bookworm


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by subbie, posted 09-27-2014 8:22 AM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Capt Stormfield, posted 09-27-2014 3:43 PM Bookworm7890 has responded
 Message 33 by subbie, posted 09-27-2014 10:36 PM Bookworm7890 has not yet responded

    
Bookworm7890
Junior Member (Idle past 849 days)
Posts: 13
From: mississippi
Joined: 09-25-2014


Message 10 of 225 (737582)
09-27-2014 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by NoNukes
09-27-2014 9:39 AM


Nonukes is getting closer.
At least you supplied a theory after you insulted me. That is one step closer to talking about the topic WITHOUT calling me a blind numbskull with no brain!

Next time just present evidence please.

Edited by Bookworm7890, : Subtitle mistake


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by NoNukes, posted 09-27-2014 9:39 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by mike the wiz, posted 09-27-2014 10:47 AM Bookworm7890 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 13 by NoNukes, posted 09-27-2014 11:05 AM Bookworm7890 has acknowledged this reply

    
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4549
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 11 of 225 (737583)
09-27-2014 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Bookworm7890
09-27-2014 10:33 AM


Re: Nonukes is getting closer.
Yeah I also appreciate NoNukes's attitude there, he also provided some explanation of flight, which I have taken a look at, here is my opinions from his link, Bookworm: mikey-responses interspersed in bold:

(it is good you yourself have behaved well if you are a Christian, as we are so inclined to do, even when insulted, and I have a long history of being insulted, your light will shine indeed bright, if you do not return any ad hominem attacks, that would be my advice, -- not that you need my advice, of course, as I am sure you don't need the basics of morality teaching you, but obviously we can do a good job by showing our good behaviour, and thus we can refute them using sound wisdom, which is a lot harder to achieve, of course.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"If our study of functional morphology determines that the ancestor of a flying group must have been a glider, and we think that it was arboreal (like all modern non-aquatic gliders) then flight must have evolved from an arboreal gliding ancestor."

Non Sequitur.

"Before we can answer how and why flight evolved, we must understand how and why wings evolved;"

Begging-The-Question. "Interpreted: First we assume evolution is true, before proving it."

"Scientists generally agree that wings must have been exaptations; they were used by the ancestor for one function, and became useful for flight among the descendants"

I also agree with my relatives that my meal last night was cooked well. (forgive my temptation to be flippant, I'm sure the details of investigation are properly scientific even if I disagree with the conclusions. Mikey can't help but have a pop)

"A comparative study of the functional morphology of the wings of the earliest known flying members of the lineage with the "pre-wing" structures of likely ancestors and close relatives provides the best evidence for how wings evolved."

No it doesn't, it just shows different morphologies. in this case, as you earlier admitted, the fossil record doesn't offer anything but flyers, so you take something that can already fly and propose it is your "simplest" ancestral flyer, your exaptation. But gliders can lead to gliding only, you have to show evidence that gliding leads to flight, whereas you are showing flyers becoming flyers, so logically to prove an exaptation, this must be considered.

"It seems that #1, #2, and #4 are the best hypotheses to use for the origin of wings because they can be tested by bringing in other lines of evidence"

Incorrect. It will be A hypothesis, and arguing exclusive-hypothesis is tautological, because let's not pretend scientists would consider a hypothesis for design!

on the following page an admission takes place: I quote:

"A debate that has continued since the 1880s concerns the question of whether flight developed from the ground up (did flight evolve from a bipedal, cursorial, ground-dwelling ancestor?) or from the trees down (did flight evolve from a semi-bipedal, arboreal, leaping and gliding ancestor?). This debate will no doubt continue, however, it is a pointless debate, as neither hypothesis is testable. The important question is, how did the flight stroke evolve?"

If they can't be tested, why then conclude they evolved anyway? Again there is a Begging-The-Question supposition that "general evolution" is already true. That would be to apply the whole to the parts anyway, even if general evolution was true, which would be compositional error like saying, "a plane can fly, so it's part must be able to individually fly". But perhaps flight itself was too hard for evolution, and requires intelligent design, which is another potential conclusion

Arboreal versus Terestrial is well known by Creationists, Sarfati PHD uses this to prove the rule of the excluded middle.

1. Both theories can't be tested. Not enough evidence, which means an conspicuous absence of evidence for either, meaning we can reasonably infer NEITHER.

2. Sarfati argues that the points against each knock down the respective other leading to the inference of neither.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Bookworm7890, posted 09-27-2014 10:33 AM Bookworm7890 has acknowledged this reply

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4549
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 12 of 225 (737584)
09-27-2014 10:59 AM


NoNukes, I appreciate the investigative-side to your linked article, however, don't take my mikeyness personally, it is reasonable, generally, what he written, the manner in which it is scientifically written, but the assumption that evolution is the only conclusion is exclusively argued, and a common fallacy amongst science-writers.

Evolution isn't true by assumption or consensus, but by a sound syllogism that can't be broken, and there is no such syllogism because evolution is inductive and tenuous and limited as science in that it's historical.


Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by NoNukes, posted 09-27-2014 11:08 AM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 20 by Percy, posted 09-27-2014 1:33 PM mike the wiz has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9431
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 13 of 225 (737585)
09-27-2014 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Bookworm7890
09-27-2014 10:33 AM


Re: Nonukes is getting closer.
At least you supplied a theory after you insulted me.

Next time just present evidence please.

Actually I don't need a theory or evidence to address your post which itself contained neither. You posted an argument that evolution could not produced wing flight based on showing that there was no path between non-winged animals and winged fliers.

All that is necessary to refute your argument is to outline a possible path. I believe I did that.

And you could have done that too. If you were incapable of coming up with a possible path yourself you could have searched for one on the internet.

And I did not call you a numbskull. If I were prone to using insults I would instead use words like lazy and its close synonyms. Slack seems like the best fit.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Bookworm7890, posted 09-27-2014 10:33 AM Bookworm7890 has acknowledged this reply

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9431
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 14 of 225 (737586)
09-27-2014 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by mike the wiz
09-27-2014 10:59 AM


Thanks Mike, but I didn't do the linking. My post was pure mouthing off.

I agree that in a discussion about whether evolution actually happened we should present evidence. But in a discussion that concludes based on nothing that evolution could not possibly have happened, far less is required in response.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by mike the wiz, posted 09-27-2014 10:59 AM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by mike the wiz, posted 09-27-2014 11:14 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4549
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 15 of 225 (737587)
09-27-2014 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by NoNukes
09-27-2014 11:08 AM


Sorry for the post I got Tangled. I also think my words might be tangled, I don't remember if it is the cursorial theory of terrestrial, but it will be funny if it is neither. Lol, what I mean is that there is a theory the birds stemmed from trees, and one that they stemmed from the ground.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by NoNukes, posted 09-27-2014 11:08 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
1
23456
...
15NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017