Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-20-2019 4:14 PM
32 online now:
JonF, PaulK, Percy (Admin), PurpleYouko, Stile, Tangle, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (8 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,312 Year: 9,348/19,786 Month: 1,770/2,119 Week: 530/576 Day: 125/80 Hour: 4/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
34567Next
Author Topic:   Discussion on Creation article...
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 272 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 16 of 95 (324807)
06-22-2006 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by SR71
06-12-2006 11:47 AM


This is a very typical Creationism argument, in that it relies on the receiver being largely ignorant of general biology.

How did the gecko develop its outstanding ability to climb? Were the hairs on its toes useless up until the time they were just right? Why haven't a host of other lizards developed such a beneficial ability?

The hairs were not useless until they functioned as they do now. Salamander feet have what could be regarded as a simpler version of the gecko foot. They work by providing suction, gecko feet work by using the weak nuclear force but they also provide suction. Presumably the gecko ancestors slowly developed from using suction to using the weak nuclear force with an overlap in which they relied on both.

The third question is clearly from someone who has never observed lizards in their usual habitats. The answer is quite obvious - lizards don't lack in climbing ability, but they rely on claws and a slight roughness in the surfaces they are climbing. Providing they only need to climb such surfaces the geckos approach gives no advantage.

How did the bombardier beetle slowly evolve such a dangerous mechanism without obliterating itself into extinction? If the chemicals were not just the right strength or right ingredients, or if the control valve did not close when the explosion took place, think of the consequences. If the mechanism didn't work until fully formed, think of the extra baggage it would have been.

This is typical creationist mythology. I imagine the fact that Darwin got blasted by a Bombardier beetle adds to its appeal for them (he was collecting bombardier beetles and ran out of hands so held one between his teeth which promptly blasted him). Bombardier beetles blast is impressive, but it doesn't use unique materials to do so. The chemicals it uses occur in many other beetles, one as a metabolic by-product, the other as a noxious chemical to squirt over others. The "not fully formed" mechanism does work - we know this because there are actual living beetle that use it.

How did the hummingbird develop into such a high-metabolic bird? Why are there not many other birds similar to it? What fossils do we have that show its gradual development into what we know them as today?

Slowly. Their high metabolism is a product of several factors (size - smaller things have higher metabolism; diet - nectar is a very high energy food; habitat - nectar is highly available but difficult to collect). There aren't any birds similar to it, because there aren't any other habitats that offer such a high concentration of very high energy food in difficult to reach stationary containers.

Fossils? Come on. Everything we know about fossilisation should tell us that hummingbird fossils will be staggeringly rare - they have very small, delicate bones (which rarely fossilise) and they live in rain forests, which are extremely effective at destroying remains because they are wet and support a huge ecology of bacteria and fungi that eagerly destroys all trace of any carcass. And, finally, no-one has done much digging for fossils in rain forests.

How did the giraffe slowly develop such a brain structure that would allow it to raise and lower its head without any problems? If they are the result of millions of years of evolution, wherein they grew longer and longer necks overtime in order to eat from the trees, why aren't there hundreds of other animals with such necks?

By reinforcing and borrowing from existing structures, just like everything else evolves. Giraffes incidentally have a lovely example of evolution in the form of a nerve that runs all the way down their necks, only to come right back up again! Just as it does in all other mammals. They are not the only animals evolved to eat higher foliage, there are many monkeys, some apes, some birds, a lot of insects and, of course, elephants. The answer to the question is obvious, and two fold, it's not the only solution to the problem and giraffes have already filled the niche.

How did male seahorses ever evolve from non-pouch to pouch? Why would they ever develop a pouch in the first place? How did the eggs survive before the male ever developed a pouch, and who convinced the male to watch over the eggs once the pouch was developed?

This relies on ignorance; there are plenty of seahorse and sea dragons that use simpler methods than a pouch (simply gluing the eggs on in some cases, using a ridge in others). These clearly demonstrate the functionality of intermediate stages.

If the platypus developed from some type of rat millions of years ago, how did its fleshy snout develop into a leather bill? How did the electric sensors evolve where none existed before? And why do they lay eggs? Why don't many other mammals lay eggs?

"Some kind of rat"? They didn't. The monotremes are remarkable in that so few species of them remain. We can only presume that this is because they are out-competed my placental mammals in most cases (eggs are, after all, more vulnerable than foetuses). The "bill" of a platypus is nothing like the bill of a bird, but in fact much more like an extended and strengthened lip. It's not too difficult to imagine that extending and strengthening an ordinary lip would make it better for the purpose of rooting through mud. Indeed we also see enlarged lips on Manatee that do sometimes use a similar feeding method.

All animals are sensitive to electrical impulses (don't believe me? try rubbing yourself with an live electrical wire carrying a small current), the platypus simply extends this existing capability into a more useful means. Remember as well that water provides a much better medium to do this in than air.

Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SR71, posted 06-12-2006 11:47 AM SR71 has not yet responded

  
mr_matrix
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 95 (328786)
07-04-2006 2:34 PM


More Fantasies!
So you all decided that the author of the article, Niednagel, is ignorant and you are the smart ones! Neid has only mentioned very few of the numerous examples of intellegent and flawless designs in nature that evolutionists can only respond to with their imaginary fantasies. Your replies might look brilliant but they are typical evolutionary tales and they still failed to properly explain how these intellegent systems evolved.

The other features of a platapus are all easily explained by converget evolution.

Convergent evolution? How? This is just a claim to make evolution simple and an attempt to make an imaginary expalanation of structures that evolution cannot explain. Also, it lacks evidence and scientific basis. Check this link:
http://www.darwinism-watch.com/darwinist_prop_13.php

Not many birds? A quick Wikipedia search tells me that there's as many as 340 species of hummingbird, organized into two subfamilies.

You said it yourself, they are all species of hummingbird with their unique way of flight. The quesion asks how could this feature evolve from non-existance. Just writing the number of hummingbird species is not the answer.

In regards to bombadier beetles, there's hundreds of species of beetles with ealier versions of the bombadier mechanism. They don't, as a rule, tend to blow up.

They dont blow up because this is how they are intellegantly designed. Why dont you mention these species with the earlier version of the mechanism and give a proper scientific explanation of how it might have evolved and without imaginary tales.

those questions are not particularly important in evaluating the weight of the ToE. A scientific theory is not condemned simply because there are questions within the theory that cannot be fully answered.

In other words, ignore the details and stick to a dogmatic belief in evolution no matter how many opposing evidences you might face. If evolution is stuck on some details then how can you accept the bigger image? Other scientific theories can be demonstrated, experimented and proven. But evolution is more like a belief system rather than a clearly demonstrated and proven fact.

Since creationism, and intelligent design, don't explain anything, they fall far short of replacing the ToE.

Realy? Creationism is simple: There is intellegent design all over nature and has to be the product of an intellegent creator. But the ToE relies totally on blind and unconcious chances and mechanisms that can only provide and imaginary way of discarding the intellegent design in nature, but it fall far short of replacing intellegent design. And you call it a logical theory!!

Any one that has seen chameleons run up and down walls, trees, bushes, table legs and drainspouts knows that the Gecko is not unique. Lots of lizards climb.

It seems that you didnt realy understand the question. The article says: "scientists concluded that engineering a structure like the foot of a gecko is "beyond the limits of human technology." However, they hope that the "natural technology of gecko foot-hairs can provide biological inspiration for future design of a remarkable effective adhesive."" The question asks how this remarkable adhesive on the foot of the gecko could have evolved. Other lizards could climb! Sure, but how did this climbing ability originally came to be possessed by them? Can you provide a proper "scientific" explanation?

The Giraffe got it's brain and plumbing system just like it got its neck, in little steps and over a long period of time. And the giraffe is NOT the only such critter. There have been many such long necked critters. Ever see a picture of Brachiosaurus?

Just the claim that the "Giraffe got it's brain and plumbing system just like it got its neck over a long period of time" does not make it true because it is just a claim. So which feature evoleved first? the neck or the plumbing system because both have to exist at the same time in order for the giraffe to live and use its neck so the system does not accept a gradual evolution, unless you chose to be so irrational and make a claim such as "mutations are smart enough to produce both features at the same time and in perfect coordination and harmony". What mutation can improve the heart or give it double pressure to work so perfectly in the giraffe? Are there fossils of species that show a gradual evolution of long necks? The Brachiosaurus is a distinct species by itslef and not a transitional link. The whole system is clearly intellegenty designed and you can only provide unscientific and irrational claims regarding it that are totally based on your imagination.

Remember: the opposite of "this is impossible" is not "this actually occurred"; the opposite of "this is impossible" is "this is possible". Therefore, it is not necessary to know the actual details of the actual history to refute the argument by incredulity; all that is necessary is to explain why it is possible, to give a plausible explanation.

So that is a clear confession that you dont know the evolutionary history of most species but you are only guessing and assuming based on your biased and dogmatic belief in evolution. If you dont know the evolutionary history of a species than you dont have the right to claim that it has evolved in the first place. I can see that at least 95% of ToE is based on assumption and not on a clearly demonstrated and proven facts with evidence. No matter how nice it might look or how many detailed studies carried out to prove evolution, they are all initially based on imagination.

The metabolism is related to the size and the requirements for flight.

So what is your point? a chain of mutations reduced the size, increased the metabolism, provided high manuvearublility, rapid frequency of wing flapping, modified circulatory and respiratory systems to fit the bird's needs. That sound so irrational.

As for the fossils question, why do we need to? It's a bird, in every bone and every feather, and it doesn't have features that we don't see in other birds.

Why do you need a fossil evidence if your claims are based on imagination and not on evidence. YOu said the hummingbird has no fossils to show evolution, so why do you even claim that there is evolution?

So why have crocs remained the same for so long?
The answer is evolution, they have evolved to a state where they are perfectly developed for their environment

Needless to say, this is just another irrational and baseless claim. The fact that the croc shows no change for a long period of time is clearly an evidence that there was no evolution going on. there are thousands of species that show stasis (long periods of no change) and they provide a clear fact that there was no evolution. But evolutionists make such claims as the above to make them feel better and convince themselves that evoltuion is true despite the odds. Why do evolutionists not find evidence against their theory in the fossil record is because they interpret every counter-evidence in terms of evolution and they make their own imaginary and speculative interpretations based on their preconceptions instead of admitting the evidences against their theory.

Presumably the gecko ancestors slowly developed from using suction to using the weak nuclear force with an overlap in which they relied on both.

I dont need to remind you here but this is again "just a claim". Lizards have their own distinct and unique ways of climbing. If evolution was true and there were realy overlaps in between, we should see millions of lizards living demonstrating climbing abilities in between as an overlap. But you cannot bring two distinct species with their unique ways of climbing and a hollow gap in between them and claim that this is evolution.

The chemicals it uses occur in many other beetles, one as a metabolic by-product, the other as a noxious chemical to squirt over others.

Yes there are other beetles with theri own distinct defence mechanism but the bombardier bettle is the most remarkable. The fact that other beetles have defence mechanisms does not negate the argument. Can you provide and explanation of how this beetle aquired this defence or how these defence mechanism came to be in the first place? Or can you only provide tales and claims?

Slowly. Their high metabolism is a product of several factors

How can high metabolism evolve slowly and by a gradual change? Flight is a complex process that requires the perfectly designed and well coordinated sophisticated systems that involve special repiratory system with avian lungs, special circulatory system fit for flight, perfectly designed feathers, hollow bones, fully develped wings, and high metabolism other wise any of these systems missing the bird cannot fly and will be eliminated. If birds had time to try these systems before they are fully formed they will be all eliminated and birds will be extinct. A claim that mutations with their random and unconcious effects resulted in these remarkable systems is the most irrational. And how could a reptile aquire these systems that are not found in its gene pool in oreder to evolve into a bird and we know that mutations do not add brand new genes. Check this link and you will see that bird evolution is impossible:
http://www.darwinism-watch.com/darwinist_prop_6.php

I thought that you would provide proper scientific and proven claims but you did not. As the author said in the article: "These are questions that some can imagine answers to, but such answers remain just that . . . imagination." And your answers are clearly imagination based on your biased and speculative reasoning and your dogmatic belief in evoluion. You have all ignored thses intellegently designed systems and claimed that they are the result of blind, random and unconcious natural effects, and that is ignorance. If you want to make strong replies you should counter a fact by counterfact and not by imagination. You did mention some facts in your posts and thats fine, but your biased reasoning and the way you put the facts together to represent an evolutionary model is all based on imagination. Before you all replied the author have already responded to your replies just by simply saying that all evolutionists' replies are all based on dogmatic belief in thier theory.

Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.

Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by CK, posted 07-04-2006 2:43 PM mr_matrix has not yet responded
 Message 21 by subbie, posted 07-05-2006 10:03 PM mr_matrix has not yet responded
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 07-05-2006 11:52 PM mr_matrix has responded
 Message 79 by nator, posted 08-16-2006 6:44 PM mr_matrix has not yet responded
 Message 86 by Parasomnium, posted 08-17-2006 6:32 PM mr_matrix has not yet responded

  
CK
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 18 of 95 (328789)
07-04-2006 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by mr_matrix
07-04-2006 2:34 PM


Re: More Fantasies!
Many thanks for being honest - many advocates of intelligent design pretend it's not a cover for creationism and therefore not a front for pushing the christian religion. It's refreshing to see someone come right out with it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by mr_matrix, posted 07-04-2006 2:34 PM mr_matrix has not yet responded

  
Mespo
Member (Idle past 1051 days)
Posts: 158
From: Mesopotamia, Ohio, USA
Joined: 09-19-2002


Message 19 of 95 (328913)
07-05-2006 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Jonson-Needs_proof
06-22-2006 7:53 AM


So why have crocs remained the same for so long?
The answer is evolution, they have evolved to a state where they are perfectly developed for their environment and therefore any genetic mutations are either a disadvantage and therefore selected out or neutral (what could you change in a croc that would not be a disadvantage?)

I'm surprised IDists and crerationists haven't used the obvious link to the design principle, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Doesn't it take an intelligent entity to determine that a creature is "just right"?

(:raig


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Jonson-Needs_proof, posted 06-22-2006 7:53 AM Jonson-Needs_proof has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Annafan, posted 07-05-2006 6:43 PM Mespo has not yet responded

    
Annafan
Member (Idle past 2746 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 20 of 95 (329056)
07-05-2006 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Mespo
07-05-2006 10:16 AM


Reminds me of an argument by Perak that the 'irreducible complexity' argument (if you remove one component, it stops working) very much goes against design-principles. A good designer will always implement systems to fall back on in case of a failure. If nature shows design, it is extremely lousy design.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Mespo, posted 07-05-2006 10:16 AM Mespo has not yet responded

    
subbie
Member
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 21 of 95 (329107)
07-05-2006 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by mr_matrix
07-04-2006 2:34 PM


Re: More Fantasies!
In other words, ignore the details and stick to a dogmatic belief in evolution no matter how many opposing evidences you might face. If evolution is stuck on some details then how can you accept the bigger image? Other scientific theories can be demonstrated, experimented and proven. But evolution is more like a belief system rather than a clearly demonstrated and proven fact.

You know, it's easy to pretend you've responded to someone if you ignore the main point and pick one sentence fragment to reply to. Answer this, if you can:

The ToE is a vital, important scientific theory because of the vast number of questions that it can answer. If you choose to reject it because it hasn't yet explained every detail of ever possible question in the field of natural history, you might as well reject every other science as well. That's an impossible standard.

I said that creationism and intelligent design don't explain anything. You replied,

Realy? Creationism is simple: There is intellegent design all over nature and has to be the product of an intellegent creator. But the ToE relies totally on blind and unconcious chances and mechanisms that can only provide and imaginary way of discarding the intellegent design in nature, but it fall far short of replacing intellegent design. And you call it a logical theory!!

That doesn't explain anything. Creationism certainly is simple, but it is devoid of explanatory power. You ask any question about the natural world and the only answer creationism has is, "Goddit." That doesn't explain why marsupials are only found in Australia. That doesn't explain why the panda, which needs an opposible thumb to eat, doesn't have one. That doesn't explain why fossils have been found in the Antarctic, and it certainly doesn't explain why the particular fossils that were found were there.

Before we can rationally discard the ToE, there has to be a better theory to replace it. Please explain to me how a theory that explains nothing is better than a theory that explains a lot.


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by mr_matrix, posted 07-04-2006 2:34 PM mr_matrix has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19871
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 22 of 95 (329147)
07-05-2006 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by mr_matrix
07-04-2006 2:34 PM


Re: More Fantasies by Mr Matrix
You should make some attempt to link your quotes to the posts and people that made them, if you really want an answer.

jazzns, msg 3 writes:

The other features of a platapus are all easily explained by converget evolution.


Convergent evolution? How?

Duckbills have evolved in several species - dinosaurs, ducks, platypus, even fish. The reasons for the development are the same (food), the way they get there is different. That is what convergent evolution is about.

Do you really wonder how web feet can evolve independently in many otherwise unrelated species?

Check this link:
http://www.darwinism-watch.com/darwinist_prop_13.php

Why?

crashfrog, msg 4 writes:

Not many birds? A quick Wikipedia search tells me that there's as many as 340 species of hummingbird, organized into two subfamilies.


You said it yourself, they are all species of hummingbird with their unique way of flight.

What is unique about hummingbird flight?

crash again writes:

In regards to bombadier beetles, there's hundreds of species of beetles with ealier versions of the bombadier mechanism. They don't, as a rule, tend to blow up.


They dont blow up because this is how they are intellegantly designed.

The chemicals mixed together do not "blow up" either.

Can you demonstrate exactly how this "intelligent design" process occurred? How was it effected? What is the evidence? Just claiming a result with no evidence to validate it is not science, it is fantasy.

subbie, msg 5 writes:

those questions are not particularly important in evaluating the weight of the ToE. A scientific theory is not condemned simply because there are questions within the theory that cannot be fully answered.


In other words, ignore the details and stick to a dogmatic belief in evolution no matter how many opposing evidences you might face.

The existence of unanswered questions is not falsification of any theory, they are just unanswered questions. Expecting all answers is a matter for faith in fairytales not science, science is content to say "we don't know this today" and wait for new evidence.

Assuming that "we don't know today" means "GOD-DID-IT" is IDiocy, a leap of faith illogical conclusion.

subbie again writes:

Since creationism, and intelligent design, don't explain anything, they fall far short of replacing the ToE.


Realy? Creationism is simple: There is intellegent design all over nature and has to be the product of an intellegent creator.

It is so simple that it is no answer ... scientist: "here look at this what do you think made this happen?" creationist: "god" ... same answer for any question, provides no additional information.

As for the evidence of "intelligent design all over nature" this sure incorporates a lot of BAD design that has to be the product of a BAD designer (what proportion of designs are SO bad that they are now extinct? 99%? 99.9%? 99.99%?)

jar, msg 6 writes:

Any one that has seen chameleons run up and down walls, trees, bushes, table legs and drainspouts knows that the Gecko is not unique. Lots of lizards climb.


It seems that you didnt realy understand the question. ... The question asks how this remarkable adhesive on the foot of the gecko could have evolved. Other lizards could climb! Sure, but how did this climbing ability originally came to be possessed by them? Can you provide a proper "scientific" explanation?

Seems you didn't understand the answer - similar climbing ability is seen at different levels in different lizards. Thus evolution of climbing ability is entirely possible. What makes the gecko superior? Well for one thing, when you make such a comparison no matter what feature you are using, one species has to come out better at it than the others. Claiming this is something fantastic is known as a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Many species have evolved ways of doing things that humans have not figured out yet, (strength of spider silk, the glue of barnacles, etc) what's so special about that?

More to the point - do you think we will never know enough "for future design of a remarkable effective adhesive"?

jar again writes:

The Giraffe got it's brain and plumbing system just like it got its neck, in little steps and over a long period of time. And the giraffe is NOT the only such critter. There have been many such long necked critters. Ever see a picture of Brachiosaurus?


Just the claim that the "Giraffe got it's brain and plumbing system just like it got its neck over a long period of time" does not make it true because it is just a claim. So which feature evoleved first?

They co-evolved. As each stage of longer neck evolved the plumbing system evolved to match. The evidence is for sexual selection (mating dominance through "necking" battles would make for speedy evolution of longer stronger necks). Is it really such a stretch? Other animals have had longer necks (as pointed out). Snakes have also evolved extra vertibra to become longer. Horses have evolved extra plumbing to provide extra circulation to their legs.

Chiroptera, msg 7 writes:

Remember: the opposite of "this is impossible" is not "this actually occurred"; the opposite of "this is impossible" is "this is possible". Therefore, it is not necessary to know the actual details of the actual history to refute the argument by incredulity; all that is necessary is to explain why it is possible, to give a plausible explanation.


So that is a clear confession that you dont know the evolutionary history of most species but you are only guessing and assuming based on your biased and dogmatic belief in evolution. If you dont know the evolutionary history of a species than you dont have the right to claim that it has evolved in the first place.

Well, what he said before your quote refutes your answer:

I don't think that subbie's comment can be too overemphasized. There are unanswered questions in all fields of science. A theory is not falsified just because there is a phenomenon under its purview that poses unanswered questions.

There is so much evidence in favor of the Theory of Evolution that it is not in serious doubt. ...

Incidentally, I have already seen plausible histories of several of the mentioned species, and for the others it just isn't too hard to think of a plausible history. Try doing it yourself; the only requirement is that you develop the feature in small steps, and that each step results in improved "fitness" over the previous step.

All that is necessary is that each step is possible. As long as evolution cannot be ruled out AND there is no better answer (which as of today is still lacking), THEN it is reasonable to conclude that evolution was possible.

RAZD, msg 9 writes:

The metabolism is related to the size and the requirements for flight.


So what is your point? a chain of mutations reduced the size, increased the metabolism, provided high manuvearublility, rapid frequency of wing flapping, modified circulatory and respiratory systems to fit the bird's needs. That sound so irrational.

Smaller animals have higher metabolism as a general rule, flying animals have a higher metabolism as a general rule (general rule meaning independent of species).

The rate of metabolism is unrelated to the ability to manuever or the speed of wing flapping, it just relates to the supply of nutrients to the muscles. The circulatory and repiratory system of the hummingbird is no different than that of other birds, adjusted for size.

If it sounds "irrational" to you that's your problem, the facts show no special extraordinary evolution from the features found in other birds.

RAZD again writes:

As for the fossils question, why do we need to? It's a bird, in every bone and every feather, and it doesn't have features that we don't see in other birds.


Why do you need a fossil evidence if your claims are based on imagination and not on evidence.

I repeat: it does not have features not found in other birds, it is a bird. Any fossil of a hummingbird ancestor would still look like a bird. It would have the bones of a bird and the arrangement of the bones in a bird.

What do you expect such a fossil to show? How it breathes?

YOu said the hummingbird has no fossils to show evolution, so why do you even claim that there is evolution?

Actually I did NOT say there are no fossils, so don't make erroneous statements.

What I implied was that the fossils would not show much because it is a bird, it does not have features not found in other birds, and any fossils would have the bones of a bird and the arrangement of the bones in a bird.

Fossils do not prove evolution, they are predicted by it and their existence validates the theory. Absence of fossils does not invalidate the theory, especially when there are many reasons why fossils are missing (see Mr. Jack, Message 16)

Jonson-Needs_proof, msg 15 writes:

So why have crocs remained the same for so long?
The answer is evolution, they have evolved to a state where they are perfectly developed for their environment


Needless to say, this is just another irrational and baseless claim. The fact that the croc shows no change for a long period of time is clearly an evidence that there was no evolution going on.

Your continued hand waving and denial changes nothing. No evolution? Sorry they are not the same species as the crocs in the past, there has been continued evolution within the croc family with many new species since the days of the dinosaurs - the form and function remain roughly the same because it is a successful form and function.

Mr. Jack writes:

Presumably the gecko ancestors slowly developed from using suction to using the weak nuclear force with an overlap in which they relied on both.


I dont need to remind you here but this is again "just a claim". Lizards have their own distinct and unique ways of climbing. If evolution was true and there were realy overlaps in between, we should see millions of lizards living demonstrating climbing abilities in between as an overlap.

Of course your "claims" are nothing BUT claims. :rolleyes:

For instance why should we "see millions of lizards living demonstrating climbing abilities in between" -- all that is necessary is the ones we have, they sufficiently demonstrate a trend in ability in small steps -- there is no huge gap in ability here either.

Mr Jack again writes:

Slowly. Their high metabolism is a product of several factors


How can high metabolism evolve slowly and by a gradual change? Flight is a complex process that...

What can stop it from evolving slowly and by gradual change?

Flight was fully evolved before hummingbirds developed from ancestral birds, so the whole argument on the "difficulty" of flight is irrelevant to the evolution of hummingbirds.

Before you all replied the author have already responded to your replies just by simply saying that all evolutionists' replies are all based on dogmatic belief in thier theory.

ROFLOL. Thus any criticism is dealt a summary blow before hand eh? This demonstrates (1) illogical thinking and (2) failure to understand science. Nature rolls on unimpeded by any such claims, totally underwhelmed.

You have made several claims of "dogmatic belief" now, but have yet to provide any evidence of such -- either of the dogmatism or of the belief aspects. Claiming such does not make it so, claiming it without any evidence means that it is just another unsupported assertion that really means nothing.

More telling than what you responded to were the items you did not respond to. More telling than what you picked to answer, is that every one of your arguements is the fallacy of argument from incredulity.

Sorry to say but your lack of ability to understand how it works is no impediment on nature, it's been too busy evolving to pay attention to you.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by mr_matrix, posted 07-04-2006 2:34 PM mr_matrix has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by MangyTiger, posted 07-06-2006 1:16 AM RAZD has responded
 Message 25 by mr_matrix, posted 07-06-2006 5:26 PM RAZD has responded

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 4520 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 23 of 95 (329169)
07-06-2006 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by RAZD
07-05-2006 11:52 PM


Re: More Fantasies by Mr Matrix
What is unique about hummingbird flight?

As I said in Message 10 (and clarified in Message 14 :)) hummingbirds are the only birds that can fly backwards.


Oops! Wrong Planet
This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 07-05-2006 11:52 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 07-06-2006 7:48 AM MangyTiger has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19871
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 24 of 95 (329240)
07-06-2006 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by MangyTiger
07-06-2006 1:16 AM


Re: More Fantasies by Mr Matrix
But what is unique in the flight? The wings still flap, it is still feathers that make the wing aerodynamic, still the same bones that support the feathers and still the same muscles that make them move, etcetera - there is no really unique feature here, just selection for a certain ability.

I have also watched birds of prey hover over potential prey move backwards. I wouldn't call it "flying backwards" but they are maneuvering backwards as part of their hovering. The pattern of wing motion is not that different (allowing for difference in sizes) - it's a matter of degree.

The American Kestrel is one that can do this very well, though I have also seen osprey do it.

I don't know enought about the honeycreepers in Hawaii (especially the extinct ones) to know what their abilities were (using a similar food source) or enough about tropical birds to say that none others have the ability to back up.

Hummers are just best we know that have this ability, due to their chosen food source and the {lengths?\depths?} organisms will go evolving to take advantage of a niche through slight modifications of existing features. The beak of the hummer is probably more evolved than the wing in this regard. Certainly the feature that would identify fossils most clearly as hummingbirds would be the beaks.

Choosing a species that is "best" at some ability or other, and then claiming that "wow, it's better than all the others, so it must not be evolution" is post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy coupled with the argument from incredulity and ignorance and then leaping to a conclusion not supported by evidence.

Again, what is so unique about hummingbird flight? What is\are the feature(s) that would show up in fossils?

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by MangyTiger, posted 07-06-2006 1:16 AM MangyTiger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by MangyTiger, posted 07-07-2006 9:20 PM RAZD has responded

  
mr_matrix
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 95 (329449)
07-06-2006 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by RAZD
07-05-2006 11:52 PM


Re: More Fantasies by RAZD
Do you even consider this a reply? It is long but weak in contents. All you did was just rewriting the same irrational claims and stubbornly insisting that you are right. Im not making claims but just showing that YOU are making claims and assertions that are unproven. You brought up many features about living things and just covered each one with a simple claim: "it has evolved" and thats it! Well, How? It is you who is making claims about evolution.

Duckbills have evolved in several species - dinosaurs, ducks, platypus, even fish. The reasons for the development are the same (food), the way they get there is different. That is what convergent evolution is about.

I have already posted tis link:
http://www.darwinism-watch.com/darwinist_prop_13.php
It shows you why convergent evolution is more like a fantasy rather than a scientific approach. It is just a claim to "sweep counter-evidence under the carpet" rather than trying to explain it. When evolutionists see many examples of analogous structures they just cover them simply by saying "convergent evolution". Do you know that when Australia seperated from the rest of the world there were no wolves or many other marsupials at that time, so how did Australia come to possess wolves and other marsupials just as the rest of the world? Convergent evolution "might" explain analogous structures but there is no such thing as analogous "species". Moreover, the human eye and the squid's eye have striking similarity even though there is no evolutionary relation between the two, just saying convergent evolution does not expalain it. Non of the alleged examples of convergent evolution has a scientific evidence. Do not reply right away without ckecking the link above.

What is unique about hummingbird flight?

Maybe you should do more research about the topic. Hummingbirds can generate vertical lift wich allows them to remain stationary in the air just by very rapid wing flapping. The design of the helicopter is based on the design in the hummingbird's flight. And you say there is no design in nature!!!

Can you demonstrate exactly how this "intelligent design" process occurred? How was it effected? What is the evidence? Just claiming a result with no evidence to validate it is not science, it is fantasy.

Is this supposed to be a joke or some ignorant question? This runs parallel to the logic: "if you find a planet in space written on it -made by God- than I will believe in God". This stems form your lack of seeing the intellegent design or simply from ignoring it. YOu want evidence for intellegent design? simple, its all around you. Are you asking me to demonstrate how the intellegent creation process occured? Then I can only wonder about your ignorance level. Should we make a time-machine and use it to go back in time to see how God did it? We do not have creation power similar to that of God in order for us to demonstrate intellegent design. The most complex machines that humans make are not even close to the vast complexity of living things. In additon, many human-made designs are based on the already-existing design in nature. All you need is to see examples of intellegent design and a little wisdom to conclude that there must be an intellegent creator. You all know that there is intellegence and great designs in nature and in the universe, and even in your bodies and in every single cell. But denying the existence of a creator is no more ignorant than denying the existence of an author after reading his book. Now I ask you, can any evolutionist demonstrate any evolutionary process by turning a species into another completely different species?

The existence of unanswered questions is not falsification of any theory, they are just unanswered questions. Expecting all answers is a matter for faith in fairytales not science, science is content to say "we don't know this today" and wait for new evidence.
Assuming that "we don't know today" means "GOD-DID-IT" is IDiocy, a leap of faith illogical conclusion.

Your objection to creation is the product of your lack of understanding about the nature of creation. Creation in not about substituting science with religion, It is about learning science and aquiring more knowledge in order for us to better appreciate the intellegent creation and the supperior wisdom of our creator, and that does not oppose science. The fantasy of evolution that denies the creator and calims that life originated by random chances and blind natural effects is what truely opposes scinece and logic. If not all questions are answered in a theory than thats fine, but evolution is full of unanswered questions that are just covered by simply saying: "it has evolved" (if you dont believe me then try making an evolutioanry scenario and you will see a great deal of imagination involved with no evidence)in addition to thousands of other unproven claims and assertions. There is not a single postitive evidence for evolution but there are only speculative interpretations based on similarities in living things despite the fact that similarites alone are not evidence for evolution. But they are evidence of a common creator.

As for the evidence of "intelligent design all over nature" this sure incorporates a lot of BAD design that has to be the product of a BAD designer (what proportion of designs are SO bad that they are now extinct? 99%? 99.9%? 99.99%?)

Bad design? There is not a single example of bad design in nature that destroys and not benefits organisms. Many species have gone extinct is because of natural and environmental effects and not because they are poorly designed. It is realy hard for me to understand why can you not see this intellegent design. Im sure you can see it but you have to ignore it because you have unconditionally surrendered to the evolution dogma.

similar climbing ability is seen at different levels in different lizards. Thus evolution of climbing ability is entirely possible. What makes the gecko superior? Well for one thing, when you make such a comparison no matter what feature you are using, one species has to come out better at it than the others. Claiming this is something fantastic is known as a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Many species have evolved ways of doing things that humans have not figured out yet, (strength of spider silk, the glue of barnacles, etc) what's so special about that?

See! you keep saying "it has evolved" without any evidence. Evolution is full of such unproven claims. Just saying "it has evolved" does not make it true. This is just a form of propaganda to make you feel that evolution is true despite the lack of evidence. And you still didnt explain how the gecko's remarkable adhesive might have evolved? If you can only provide more fantasies and unproved claims then dont bother replying.

You have also mentioned other examples of intellegent design by your self (the spider silk and the glue of branches).

Here are very few of the numerous examples of intellegent design:

-The design in helicopters is based on the design in hummingbird's flight.
-The design in airplanes is based on the design in birds aerodynamic bodies.
-The design of submarines is based on the design of fish's buoyancy
-The design of the Effile tower's structure in Paris is based on the disign of the bone.
....etc

Some of the most dignificant man-made designs are based on the already-existing design in nature. After all that you say there is bad design in nature!!!!

What can stop it from evolving slowly and by gradual change?

What can stop it? Simple, reptiles do not have the genes that code for these flight systems in birds, mutations do not provide them with brand new genes, nor are mutations smart enough to create such a complex and perfectly designed flight system. How can you have a gradual change in the bird's flight systems? For example, the design in the avian lung, it is impossible to have a normal lung of a reptile evolve into an avian lung because there cannot be an intermediary system in between. The entire design of the avian lung refutes evolution and there is not a single scenario put forward to try and explain it. Do not reply here right away without checking this link and you will see why:
http://www.darwinism-watch.com/darwinist_prop_6.php
If you cannot prove that birds have evolved in the first place, then it is completely irrational and pointless to make up other fatasies about evolution of other bird features.

As I said above, just repeating the same unproven claims doesnot prove them. Im not making up my own claims but just pointing out your claims. If you think that I am ignorant about evolution then you are very wrong because I know enough about it, but I also know more than enough evidence against it. The only thing I dont understand is the dogmatic reasoning of evolutionists and what makes them reject the fact of creation. I can clearly see the type of logic behind your claims and why they are wrong and thats what I am trying to point out. But if you fail to see the logic about creation than it is your problem. Instead of making ignorant objections to creation try to provide a clear evidence against it if you can. As long as there is intelligent design in the universe then there must be an intelligent and a wise creator, and no one can provide evidence agaist the existence of God. This is not the only evidence I have to prove the existing of God, but I dont want to go more into religious topics, so lets just stay with evolution.

Note: do not just reply to few scentece fragments but reply to the entire idea of each paragraph.

Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.

Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.

Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 07-05-2006 11:52 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by nwr, posted 07-06-2006 6:21 PM mr_matrix has not yet responded
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 07-06-2006 10:30 PM mr_matrix has responded
 Message 28 by Coragyps, posted 07-06-2006 11:06 PM mr_matrix has not yet responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 26 of 95 (329465)
07-06-2006 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by mr_matrix
07-06-2006 5:26 PM


Re: More Fantasies by RAZD
I have already posted tis link:
http://www.darwinism-watch.com/darwinist_prop_13.php
It shows you why convergent evolution is more like a fantasy rather than a scientific approach.

The referenced web page seems to consist mostly of bare assertions and appeals to incredulity.

Do you know that when Australia seperated from the rest of the world there were no wolves or many other marsupials at that time, ...

The closest Australia had to wolves were the dingoes, likely brought by the early human settlers. Tasmanian wolves are not true wolves.

The web page you reference tries to claim similarity between wolves and Tasmanian wolves that could not be due to convergence. It shows two pictures of skulls (one a Tasmanian wolf and one a true wolf), and claims that they are too similar to be explained by convergent evolution. However the pictures are too small and too blurry to be able to tell anything much at all.

Here is a web page with a better comparison. The differences are significant enough to rule out a common origin. That leaves convergent evolution as the best explanation.

... so how did Australia come to possess wolves and other marsupials just as the rest of the world?

Wow! Apparently you think that marsupial wolves and true wolves are pretty much the same animals. You really are confused.

Moreover, the human eye and the squid's eye have striking similarity even though there is no evolutionary relation between the two, ...

There are also striking differences.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by mr_matrix, posted 07-06-2006 5:26 PM mr_matrix has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19871
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 27 of 95 (329498)
07-06-2006 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by mr_matrix
07-06-2006 5:26 PM


Re: More Fallacies by mr_matrix
Note: do not just reply to few scentece fragments but reply to the entire idea of each paragraph.

If there is an idea worth responding to I will answer it, but I won't be dictated to by you. Particularly as you are more guilty of this "offense" than anyone else here.

You want shorter replies? Post less nonsense.

Im not making claims but just showing that YOU are making claims and assertions that are unproven.

ROFLOL -- ALL you are making is claims. You have not SHOWN anything, except a capacity for argument from incredulity and ignorance.

Nor am I claiming "proof" in my answers, (1) because proof is not possible in science, and (2) because it is not necessary to refute your unsubstantiated claims - all that is necessary is to demonstrate that it is possible.

Let's broaden this base a little to see if you can understand it -- evolution happens, it has been observed, it has been documented, it is so well observed and documented that creationists cannot argue the point anymore (other than to apply the strawman of micro\macro).

Evolution is the change in species through time.

One of the predictions of this is that each species will have an ancestor with {features\genes\etc} similar to the species in rough proportion to the time distance from ancestor to current species.

This does not mean that any {specific} ancestor needs to have existed, just ones that match the current species with allowance for change in species over time - evolution - to have occurred since the time of the ancestor.

None of the examples given are impossible to evolve, as we have seen evidence of similar evolution in other species. As long as evolution is possible the {test} of the common ancestor prediction has not been invalidated. As long as new fossils continue to be found that fill in the gaps between previous known fossils the {test} of the common ancestor prediction has not been invalidated.

You need something more than just an absence of (current existing) information to invalidate any theory.

The other thing scientists do is compare results of different theories to see if one explains things better than the others. This is how theories grow and develop.

So far no theory has done as well at explaining the evidence that we have as evolution. Even the untestable concepts of IDists and creationists do not explain the evidence better than the theories of evolution. In fact all the concept of ID amounts to is an argument from incredulity based on a lack of knowledge -- so any additional information is dangerous to the concept of ID.

I have already posted tis link:
http://www.darwinism-watch.com/darwinist_prop_13.php
It shows you why convergent evolution is more like a fantasy rather than a scientific approach.

I know you posted it. I looked at it and wondered how anyone could think it had any valid information.

That is one of the reasons I asked "why" -- the other is that you did nothing except post a bare link (violation of forum guidelines), so I asked "why" to see if you would state what you thought was worth repeating from that site. You still haven't other than to assert a conclusions that is not supported by the facts. What it shows is how gullible some people are to accept this argument as valid without checking the facts from real sources.

When evolutionists see many examples of analogous structures they just cover them simply by saying "convergent evolution".

You obviously have no clue how classical taxonomy works. It doesn't start by putting all web-footed organisms together first, but looks at the structure inside the {foot\hand\paw} and of the rest of the organism to see what other organisms are closest to it in features and similar developments.

They look at the rest of the evidence to make sure that inside the species are very different, and that the only "convergence" is rather superficial, such as the example on the site of birds wing versus bat wing -- both allow flight, but the manner of flight is different, the support of the flying member is different, the aerodynamics of the wings are different, and the internal structures of bats and birds are different.

If one compared a bat, a monkey and a bird, the bat and the monkey would be closer than either to the bird. Do the same with bat, crocodile and bird, and the bird and crocodile are closer than either to the bat.

It is the differences rather than the similarities that show convergent evolution.

Do you know that when Australia seperated from the rest of the world there were no wolves or many other marsupials at that time, so how did Australia come to possess wolves and other marsupials just as the rest of the world?

This is the kind of mis-information you get from sites like the one you linked. The Tasmanian "wolf" had a pouch and was a marsupial and not a wolf at all. The shape of the head is similar but not identical, and there are significant differences that tell a thorough investigator that they are indeed different taxons. Why does your website show only the top of the skull when the whole skeleton is readily available for both animals? Can you see the difference between:

Thylacine ("Tasmanian Wolf")
and
Wolf

When you look at the whole picture you see that the superficial resemblance of the two heads is not matched by the rest of the animal. This makes it a rather good example of convergent evolution of a specific feature, rather than a refutation of it. LOL.

Plus there only needed to be one (1) species of marsupial on Australia for others to evolve from ... when in fact there were several, plus several species in Antarctica and South America (last to split from Australia eh?)

http://www.aad.gov.au/default.asp?casid=1461

Twenty million years before the dinosaurs became extinct, Australia, Antarctica and South America were part of the same land mass called Gondwana. In those days Antarctica was not covered in ice, even though it was at the South Pole. Animals passed freely from South America through Antarctica to Australia, and the plant species of Gondwana were also closely related to each other.

In many ways, the evolution of Antarctica appears to be similar to that of Australia. The fossil record of the two continents is similar, and Antarctica has yielded dinosaurs, amphibians and even marsupials from ages when the continents were joined.

Antarctica cooled and became ice bound after Australia and South America separated 30 million years ago,

Maybe you should do more research about the topic. Hummingbirds can generate vertical lift wich allows them to remain stationary in the air just by very rapid wing flapping. The design of the helicopter is based on the design in the hummingbird's flight. And you say there is no design in nature!!!

LOL. Again, (as in mentioned before) many hawks, eagles and other birds of prey can hover and rise vertically. The American Kestrel is an excellent example. This ability is thus NOT unique to hummers. I've seen it.

As to helicopters being designed based on hummers that is patently false. NO hummingbird has rotating wings on top of their bodies, just for starters. A helicopter is just a plane with a big propeller on top and very little wing.

I just did a search on {helicopeter history} and found this site:
http://www.helis.com/introduction/prin.php

Then I searched the site for "humminbird" and the only result was an ultralight helicopter named a hummingbird. Based on this kind of evidence the helicopter was also designed based on the mosquito and the dragonfly - other ultralight helicopet model names.

I also tried
http://www.flying-bike.demon.co.uk/helistuff/heli.html
and
http://www.thaitechnics.com/helicopter/heli_history.html

... and found no reference to hummingbirds being a basis for design on either.

Then I searched {helicopeter history hummingbird} - and all I got were sites about models of helicopters named hummingbirds.

So far my research has refuted and invalidated your assertions.

You also did not answer my question:

What is unique about hummingbird flight?

If you are going to claim something is unique you need to be able to describe HOW it is unique eh?

Can you demonstrate exactly how this "intelligent design" process occurred? How was it effected? What is the evidence? Just claiming a result with no evidence to validate it is not science, it is fantasy.

Is this supposed to be a joke or some ignorant question? This runs parallel to the logic: "if you find a planet in space written on it -made by God- than I will believe in God".

In other words, no, you cannot demonstrate exactly how this "intelligent design" process occurred OR how was it effected, AND you have absolutely no evidence to support the assertion.

And no, your strawman "parallel" does not apply -- you made an assertion for "intelligent design" based on evidence, and I just asked what you had. Looks like an empty bladder.

This stems form your lack of seeing the intellegent design or simply from ignoring it.

ROFLOL. Nothing like a little arrogant pseudo superiority ("I can see something you cannot"). Of course it is simple to see design in everything around you. It is simple to be struck with awe at it. It is simple to assign such design to some superior force, but simple as that is it does not make it so.

I can also see the evidence of bad design, incomplete design, design failures.

I can also see how the appearance of design develops through mutation and natural selection.

I can also see how some really intelligent improvements could be made to a number of basic elements.

What you don't seem to grasp is that evidence for a concept is insufficient alone to substantiate a concept when there is evidence against the concept -- the evidence against needs to be refuted or the concept adapted to include it or it is falsified by the evidence against.

ID is falsified by the evidence of bad design, incomplete design, and design failures.

ID is the simple answer for those who cannot see how apparent design occurs, how distinctive features can evolve, but it is not the only answer, nor is it even close to the best answer - it gives up finding the answer.

ID is the simple answer for those who do not look at the bad designs, incomplete designs and the design failures. If you only look at part of the picture you don't see the rest.

It's like being enamoured with a kaleidoscope and never looking in the back end to see that it is only an apparent design caused by mirrors and randomly jumbled beads.

Then I can only wonder about your ignorance level.

LOL. Ad hominems are (a) against the forum guidelines, (b) a logical fallacy and (c) usually the resort of a losing argument. Of course the rest of your pile of assertions in that paragraph are nothing more than the argument from incredulity, another logical fallacy, and irrelevant to the question of the explanatory power of evolution to show how the features under discussion could come to be. Simply being amazed by the wonders of the world is not a basis for any knowledge of how things work (which is what science is looking for).

Now I ask you, can any evolutionist demonstrate any evolutionary process by turning a species into another completely different species?

No, because that is not evolution, thus it would not - could not - "demonstrate" evolution.

That is another creationist strawman fallacy. Speciation occurs and new species are observed every year. Of course they are not "completely different" because they are descendent species and always have characteristics of their parent species. A "completely different" species would be a creationist hopeful monster and not evolution.

Your objection to creation is the product of your lack of understanding about the nature of creation. Creation in not about substituting science with religion, It is about learning science and aquiring more knowledge in order for us to better appreciate the intellegent creation and the supperior wisdom of our creator, and that does not oppose science.

ROFLOL. You are talking to a Deist. I just take this further than you do, to it's logical conclusion, with no blinders. I can help you get there but you are going to have to give up some false beliefs.

Your frequent and repeated assertion that "Evolution is full of such unproven claims" is denial of the evidence that abounds and contradicts your claim that your vision of ID "does not oppose science" -- either stop equivocating or stop deluding yourself.

Evolution is no different than any other science, it is about learning and aquiring more knowledge in order for us to better appreciate and understand the world and the universe around us.

What marks a fundamentalist to me is not what evidence they accept, but what evidence they deny.

Bad design? There is not a single example of bad design in nature that destroys and not benefits organisms. Many species have gone extinct is because of natural and environmental effects and not because they are poorly designed. It is realy hard for me to understand why can you not see this intellegent design. Im sure you can see it but you have to ignore it because you have unconditionally surrendered to the evolution dogma.

This is an argument of pure denial. Do you not see the contradiction between extinct and good design? Surrendered to Dogma? :rolleyes: No, I look at the evidence with both (badly) designed eyes open (but not so the blind spot interferes with the vision).

See! you keep saying "it has evolved" without any evidence. Evolution is full of such unproven claims.

Again, if you are going to "quote" me, then do so verbatim and not with your rewording of what I said.

What I said was "Many species have evolved ways of doing things that humans have not figured out yet, " and this comment is based on the evidence of evolution that is abundant. I repeat, evolution has been observed and the evidence is so complete that creationists cannot honestly deny it.

We can see the links between, say, hummingbird and swift and between, say, giraffe and okapi, and understand how the concept of common ancestor and change in species over time can easily account for the small remaining differences between them.

Science does not prove claims. It tests theories through predictions, and those that are not invalidated are considered more robust, but they are never considered proven.

The evidence of evolution is abundant, it has been observed in action, and there is no other theory that can explain the fossil record in such detail.

Here are very few of the numerous examples of intellegent design:

-The design in helicopters is based on the design in hummingbird's flight.
-The design in airplanes is based on the design in birds aerodynamic bodies.
-The design of submarines is based on the design of fish's buoyancy
-The design of the Effile tower's structure in Paris is based on the disign of the bone.

What a croc of ad hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. What website do you get such erroneous information from?

I've already dealt with this fallacy regarding hummers and helicopters.

I don't see how any part of an airplane is analogous to a birds body in any significant way -- especially the early airplanes (think Wright Brothers). As design has progressed (and our understanding of aerodynamics improved) there have been a significant number of convergent aspects of design, but these are superficial -- the wings are stiff, the x-section shape is not the same (airplanes are more aerodynamic than even bird wings) and the support structure is entirely different.

Same with submarines ... the first ones were pretty round and didn't 'dive' at all. Again I look for "fish" on the googled sites like
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/submarines/centennial/subhistory.html
And I come up empty. Turtle, yes, fish no. Again, the increased knowledge of hydrodynamics improved design of the submarine shape, but there is no real analogy to a fish body. The manner of ballasting the ship to rise and sink is nothing more than simple physics.

And I know of no bone or bone structure that looks remotely like the Eiffel Tower, designed as a showcase for steel design based on engineering principles IIRC. A quick google on {Eiffel Tower design} nets:
http://www.tour-eiffel.fr/teiffel/uk/documentation/dossiers/page/invention.html

Again I searched the page for some reference to bone and got nothing,

The plan to build a tower 300 metres high was conceived as part of preparations for the World's Fair of 1889.

Emile Nouguier and Maurice Koechlin, the two chief engineers in Eiffel's company, had the idea for a very tall tower in June 1884. It was to be designed like a large pylon with four columns of lattice work girders, separated at the base and coming together at the top, and joined to each other by more metal girders at regular intervals. The company had by this time mastered perfectly the principle of building bridge supports. The tower project was a bold extension of this principle up to a height of 300 metres - equivalent to the symbolic figure of 1000 feet. On September 18 1884 Eiffel registered a patent "for a new configuration allowing the construction of metal supports and pylons capable of exceeding a height of 300 metres".

(bold in the original.

Once again it looks like your unsupported assertions are refuted and invalidated by a relatively easy bit of research

What can stop it? Simple, reptiles do not have the genes that code for these flight systems in birds, ...

Stop equivocating. The discussion was not about flight but metabolism - the whole chain is:

Mr Jack again writes:

Slowly. Their high metabolism is a product of several factors


How can high metabolism evolve slowly and by a gradual change?

What can stop it from evolving slowly and by gradual change?

We were discussing how high metabolism could evolve not flight.

NOTE AGAIN: flight had already evolved before humminbirds so the evolution of flight is not an impediment to the evolution of hummingbirds from already flying birds (swifts?).

So what can stop high metabolism from evolving slowely and by gradual change?

Can you answer the question this time?

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by mr_matrix, posted 07-06-2006 5:26 PM mr_matrix has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by mr_matrix, posted 07-12-2006 3:30 PM RAZD has responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5393
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 28 of 95 (329503)
07-06-2006 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by mr_matrix
07-06-2006 5:26 PM


Re: More Fantasies by RAZD
Moreover, the human eye and the squid's eye have striking similarity even though there is no evolutionary relation between the two,

And equally striking dissimilarities....round iris vs. rectangular, focus by changing lens shape vs. moving the whole lens, photoreceptors on the backside of the retina vs. the front....and they grow completely differently: Squiidylink.

And please don't start about squid eyes being "designed" for low light deep in the sea. Whales and fish eat squid down there, y'know. With vertebrate eyes.

AbE: Thanks for the helicopter/Eiffel tower/etc. research, RAZD. I knew I smelled a stench, but it's bedtime.

Edited by Coragyps, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by mr_matrix, posted 07-06-2006 5:26 PM mr_matrix has not yet responded

    
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 4520 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 29 of 95 (329703)
07-07-2006 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by RAZD
07-06-2006 7:48 AM


Re: More Fantasies by Mr Matrix
Hi RAZD. Sorry I didn't reply sooner, I was serving my first suspension (yea! I've arrived at EvC :D)

I have also watched birds of prey hover over potential prey move backwards.

Maybe it's different in the US but every bird of prey I've watched over here (and thinking about it on every nature documentary I've ever watched) hovers by riding a thermal, and any backwards movement is just adjusting position within the thermal.

To compare this to the powered hovering and backward movement of a hummingbird seems kind of risible to me.

Wait a minute - let's look at the sentence which follows:

I wouldn't call it "flying backwards"...

Ok so given the topic is flying backwards you pretty much state yourself it's irrelevant to the discussion so we can just forget you brought it up.

I don't know enought about the honeycreepers in Hawaii (especially the extinct ones) to know what their abilities were (using a similar food source) or enough about tropical birds to say that none others have the ability to back up.

Neither do I. I was merely repeating what is frequently stated on nature and science programs (and quiz shows and Trivial Pursuit cards etc.). Maybe it is just an urban myth - but I can find nothing on the web that says so.

Choosing a species that is "best" at some ability or other, and then claiming that "wow, it's better than all the others, so it must not be evolution" is post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy coupled with the argument from incredulity and ignorance and then leaping to a conclusion not supported by evidence.

And you're addressing this paragraph to me why exactly? You asked 'what was unique about hummigbird flight?' and I replied 'they are unique amonst birds in their ability to fly backwards'. In what way does my observation that to the best of my knowledge hummingbirds are the only birds that can fly backwards have any connection with the paragraph above? Keep your condescending irrelevancies to yourself in future please.

Again, what is so unique about hummingbird flight? What is\are the feature(s) that would show up in fossils?

Well according to the Smithsonian Institute it's the elbow and wrist bones:

Unlike those of other birds, hummingbirds' elbows and wrist bones are fused and virtually immobile.

The article also contains some a mention of the difference between the hummingbird wing motion and that of other birds (and helicopters!):

The pattern of the wing-beat is more of a figure-eight than a circle like a helicopter or an up and down motion like other birds. With this motion, hummingbirds can use their unusual wings to hover, fly forward, fly backwards, and even fly upside down.

Go on, admit it - they're unique - Trivial Pursuit is never wrong :)


Oops! Wrong Planet
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 07-06-2006 7:48 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 07-08-2006 10:02 AM MangyTiger has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19871
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 30 of 95 (329826)
07-08-2006 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by MangyTiger
07-07-2006 9:20 PM


Figure 8 flight not unique
I wouldn't call it "flying backwards"...

Ok so given the topic is flying backwards you pretty much state yourself it's irrelevant to the discussion so we can just forget you brought it up.

But I did say it was maneuvering backwards. Not elegant, not pretty, but doing it when necessary to stay over prey.

Maybe it's different in the US but every bird of prey I've watched over here (and thinking about it on every nature documentary I've ever watched) hovers by riding a thermal, and any backwards movement is just adjusting position within the thermal.

The american kestrel and the osprey will flap to hover without aid of thermals. The kestrel can do it longer than the osprey (size\weight to lift ratio), and employs a wing motion very similar to the figure 8 of the hummer (finally someone mentions this aspect).

http://www.fresnochaffeezoo.com/animals/americanKestral.html

BEHAVIOR:

Kestrels hunts from poles, wires or trees. Its flight is sometimes fast, sometimes buoyant, and it will hover over sighted prey, dropping on it when the timing is right. The "dropping" method is called kiting, slipping down feet first on vertically held wings. The descent can be stopped instantly by beginning the figure-eight hover motion, and in this manner corrections in attack can be made.


Also see
http://www.paulnoll.com/Oregon/Birds/flight-hovering.html

The point being that the figue 8 motion is not unique to hummers. They just do it better.

Choosing a species that is "best" at some ability or other, and then claiming that "wow, it's better than all the others,...

And you're addressing this paragraph to me why exactly? You asked 'what was unique about hummigbird flight?' ... Keep your condescending irrelevancies to yourself in future please.

Well it's not a figure 8 motion in the wings - that is just a difference in degree of ability not in category of ability.

But that comment was directed at the original claim and was not intended as a critique of your post.

Again, what is so unique about hummingbird flight? What is\are the feature(s) that would show up in fossils?

Well according to the Smithsonian Institute it's the elbow and wrist bones:

This could also be an adaptation to allow more muscle development for the hovering flight style than other flight modes in a particularly small body - every fraction of an ounce is critical: it appears hummers don't have down feathers to save weight.

The wing is also very high aspect and this would also maximize the hovering ability with less interference for the figure 8 motion -- not surprising in a bird that spends so much time hovering to feed.

The article also contains some a mention of the difference between the hummingbird wing motion and that of other birds (and helicopters!):
The pattern of the wing-beat is more of a figure-eight than a circle like a helicopter or an up and down motion like other birds.

Well that certainly takes care of the helicopter design being based on hummingbirds.

Go on, admit it - they're unique - Trivial Pursuit is never wrong :)

Riiiight. Again, it's not in the figure 8 motion of the wings - that is just a difference in degree of ability not in category of ability.

Hi RAZD. Sorry I didn't reply sooner, I was serving my first suspension (yea! I've arrived at EvC :D)

Welcome to the club.

Edited by RAZD, : changes subtitle


Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by MangyTiger, posted 07-07-2006 9:20 PM MangyTiger has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
34567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019