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

All i wanted was to see both sides of the issue, almost every site on the internet is biased, yes creationist sites are almost always biased as well.I understand that you did not call me stupid, but it has been implied by several people.Please forgive me for over reacting. But saying that i am wrong does not help prove you right. Providing evidence i am wrong will help prove you right.

When considering flying and how it originated, the flying fish (actually a glider) might be considered a "missing link" if those species actually develop a form of true flight--in a million or ten years.

Say we have a seed that has never flown before and has no instincts at all. It may have a deformity, a bit of fluff or a flap, which is quite ugly to the other seeds. But that deformity allows it to glide or parachute farther from the tree than its seed-siblings. Maybe it glides closer to the water, where it has a better chance of growing bigger and stronger and having bigger and stronger offspring.(I'll leave it to the smart people to tell us whether plants invented flight before or after animals.)

No one is implying you are stupid, only that Creationism is really, really stupid.It is not a matter of Christianity vs Evolution, it is simply that there is evidence of natural change over time and zero evidence any non-natural caused change over time or supernatural anything.

Correct. Also correct. Evolution isn't true because a scientific consensus formed around it. Rather, a scientific consensus formed around it because the overwhelming supporting evidence convinces almost all scientists that it is likely true. Nonsense.But "Is evolution true?" is not this thread's topic. Bookworm asked if there exist reasonable scenarios for the evolution of flight, the implication being that no such scenarios exist and therefore evolution can't be true. But such scenarios do exist, and of course these scenarios assume evolution is true because Bookworms question boils down to, "If evolution is true, then how could flight have ever evolved?"But the fact that scenarios for the evolution of flight exist is not why evolution is an accepted theory within science. The material evidence for evolution comes from other sources. Flight evolution scenarios are merely consistent with evolution, not evidence for it.--Percy

Individuals don't evolve, entire species do. Evolutionary events don't happen in "one day", they happen over many generations.As for the evidence of the evolution of the winds, for birds we have quite a bit from the fossil record: Notice how it doesn't go right from running to flying? There are many intermediate stages of jumping and gliding before you get from running to flight.We can see some of the key features along the way in the fossilized bones that have been found: Its also interesting to see that a lot of different animals, including those that do and do not fly, share the same bone types and locations. This is because evolution works by gradually modifying what is already present rather than introducing whole new plans like you seem to be suggesting: The following image does a better job of detailing which bones are where and how they have changed over time, within just reptiles in this case (click to enlarge): That came from here if you want to check it out: Pterosaur WingsAny questions so far?Can you see that there is, in fact, evidence for the evolution of flight?

"Likely true"? Well - if it's down to probability, what is the probability of an eye evolving 40 times by convergence? Shall I be generous and say the chances of eye evolution are 1 in 2? That would then be 1 in 3 X 3⁴⁰. Is it likely true that the aggregate eye of the Trilobite solved the problems with optics?QUOTE:‘Trilobites had solved a very elegant physical problem and apparently knew about Fermat’s principle, Abb’s sine law, Snell’s laws of refraction and the optics of birefringent crystals -Dr Levi-SettiBut that's just a particular eye that solves those problems, we also have other amazingly complex eyes that have other problems, also with the perfect solutions in place such as a crustaceans eye.You see it seems "likely true" that immense wisdom beyond measure would be far more probable than an evolution process but that doesn't come under "methodological naturalism", so the mainstream scientists themselves were educated into the rules that were created to not include anything none-materialist. This alone is enough to throw out their consensus, logically.This is why an appeal-to-authority, no matter how informed the authority, can't guarantee us, "truth". Biologists can't tell us about what is probable, if it is down to probability, even the mainstream scientists have acknowledge the beyond-calculable odds for an abiogenesis, and then an evolution that includes the convergent-evolution of many features, hundreds of times over. Beyond calculable as one set of odds, and there is no reason to ever entertain it, rationally, as a whole.Nor does a naturalistic philosophy equate to "truth", the very participance in the removal of a potential conclusion,(designer) has nothing to do with "truth" and everything to do with semantics. There, you said it. Now THAT is a genuinely mined quote.

No, the calculation would start with the likelihood of a protein being light-sensitive.

I noticed yes, but did you notice that it's Artwork? Did you know I can provide for you a drawing of a neanderthal that could pass for a businessman, or I could make him look like an ape? This is why I need you to show me the drawings of how the bellows-type lung evolved as simply as those drawings show, and how feathers evolved from skin. Please see my avatar, which I drawn, also. It's the common ancestor of all life. "This is because" presumes a great deal, and is Begging-The-Question.In fact one of the most astounding abilities of design is to take one thing you have created, one basic prototype-design, (girders,or bones) and using the one design, solve hundreds of dynamic problems.Originally, before evolution-theory, these homological features were referred to as, Ideal Archetypes. I wrote about it a while back in this blog-entry:Creation and evolution views I see a tautological guarantee. that is to say, if you are going to take, out of all of the reptiles that exist, bones that have already been shown to all share the same design plan, that by lining them up next to eachother based on the most similar you can find, that this seems to show an evolution. But this doesn't prove any ancestral link. It proves that with huge numbers of creatures on a planet where many of them need bones, and similar anatomy, you are guaranteed to create an evolution-scenario, by ranking, even if evolution didn't happen.This is notoriously referred to as, "proof by ranking", a poor proof because it is GUARANTEED 100% that you can show an evolution even if there wasn't one. There is no way for me to refute your order, even if there was no evolution whatsoever.I do however, appreciate the power these images hold over people's imaginations, it is true that this evidence would certainly fit with a common descent as it would with a common-designer. Therein lies the problem, the choice is basically personal, which one does one choose? Darwin chose the former, that's all.Nevertheless I have always held in my own mind that the homologous bones of vertebrates are pretty strong in favour of a common ancestor. It is the "best" evidence for evolution I would venture, but the dynamics of the rate of differing uses is almost limitless, in regards to function. Function from the same one design, seems limitless, which is more in line with a limitless imagination, but evolution is not clever and has no intelligence, so we would expect much fewer variants from evolution, reasonably, and even if we didn't how can we know how many variants to expect given we already know the facts posteriori?We would expect other things to be true, in line with homology but sometimes expected evidence, is not in congruence with a common ancestry, for example we would expect amniotes to develop the digits of the finger in the same way. Frogs and humans develop their digits in a very different way. One buds the other is sculpted, allegorically speaking. You can choose to focus on the shared digital-bone-plan or you can choose to focus on the differences between the two, and notice how incredibly different the use of the same bones are, representing an incredible spectrum. There would be no time for evolution to achieve this spectrum, IMHO.

That's Begging-The-Question because you ASSUME that such a light-sensitive patch leads to an eye. If we actually knew an eye could evolve we could come up with a probability, a figure, but I didn't say that, "I agree that the story of eye-evolution is true."It has not been proven that such an absurd notion would lead to a complex eye. I admit that if an eyeless fish re-gained eyes not by gene flow from a split population, but by convergence, that would prove the claim. I won't accept the conjectural and tenuous explanations of eye evolution just because evolutionists express that conjecture.

But I respect that you could argue a case from the homological bones. I am not peeing on your parade, I just don't think it's fair for those images to be regarded as conclusive. I don't think I can know just from those images, for example. I would not go as far as to say, "you are certainly wrong, and have misled yourself", I still acknowledge that you have the right to see it as evolution, and in your mind it is the most likely cause. I understand that, and I know that's just how you see it, and I don't see it that way.I've had more than my fair share of opinions in this thread, so I shall leave it here.All the best.

I see you're trying to start a new thread where everyone argues the other side of the issue. Seems like that might be a good excuse for you to get off your ass and do your own homework on this subject.Edited by Capt Stormfield, : No reason given.

Are you fucking with me?You asked what the probability of the eye evolving is.To answer that, we're going to have to use the path that evolution posits.How could you possibly think that you could calculate the probability of the eye evolving by using some other method of getting there besides evolution?Are you daft? Apparently, you won't even consider the scenario in order to think about the calculation!

When I used the adjective "likely" it was a reference to tentativity, not probability. You said that evolution wasn't true by consensus, and I replied that this was correct, but only because you've got the relationship backwards. We don't think evolution likely true because there's a consensus. We believe a consensus formed because evolution is likely true.About your comments about the eye, when creatures start flying by flapping their eyes then you'll be on topic. --Percy

That is actually part of the reason i started the thread, to "get off my @#% and do my homework, i also want creationists to see that evolutionists are not saying " look a rock! It must be over a million years old because it looks funny!" And i want evolutionists to see that creationists do not say " squid are so awesome that they cannot possibly be the result of evolution! Everyone thinks that they are right, but very few people ever think that maybe, just maybe, someone else has a point. Maybe I am wrong in what i believe, maybe you are wrong in what you believe, but looking at something from a different perspective will help us all understand each other better, and allow us to communicate without calling each others' belief "stupid"Yes that does sound very cheesy, but really, cant we all act mature? Almost everyone here is acting like a child! A WHINY FIVE YEAR OLD CHILD!This is off topic but i had to say it. Get it out of my system.