Kiwi bird and its wings

Hi,
I am really fascinated with ID and have been educating my self on that topic for about a year now.
One thing which puzzles me is what is the explanation for kiwi bird's wings - they are so tiny and do not seem to have any use, or that could use it in future. How do you explain it best?

Thank you.

Thread copied here from the Kiwi bird and its wings thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

agepeto writes: One thing which puzzles me is what is the explanation for kiwi bird's wings - they are so tiny and do not seem to have any use, or that could use it in future.

You're looking at it the wrong way round. The kiwi's wings are not used for flight because they evolved in a niche where flight was not required. Instead they grew large and heavy.

There are two views, one is that the birds never had flight and the more modern one based on DNA evidence that they lost it after migrating to countries where flight was unnecessary about 60 million years ago.

I should think it would be difficult to explain the kiwi, and all flightless birds, within an ID paradigm. Was the intelligent designer being capricious, mean, hateful? Why take a perfectly good bird and chop off its wings?

In an evolutionary paradigm the kiwi, as with all flightless birds, makes sense. In environments where flight was of minimal to no advantage slowly losing that ability over a few hundred generations would not hamper survival and fitness. Flight is an energy intensive way to get around and is unnecessary when all you need do is amble over a few meters to the next smorgasbord in a land free from predation.

ID is not really that interesting. It’s primarily a coalition of anti-evolutionists hoping to force their views into the educational system.

It had it’s moment in the sun with the publication of Darwin’s Black Box and The Design Inference but neither really contributed much to the debate. That’s one of the reasons that ID has largely faded.

The kiwi’s wings seem to be a fairly clear example of a vestigial structure, which IDists tend not to like.

agapeto writes: One thing which puzzles me is what is the explanation for kiwi bird's wings - they are so tiny and do not seem to have any use, or that could use it in future. How do you explain it best?

This question seems to imply that you expect all aspects of every creature to have a current, or future use.
Why would you expect such a thing?

We have things in our own human bodies that are unrequired - like the human tail-bone.
What's the use for us to have a tail bone? What's the future use?
There is none, currently - and evolution doesn't "plan" for the future, it adapts to the present.

We have a tailbone because we evolved from mammals that used to have tails.
It doesn't need a current or future use.

Same with the kiwi bird's wings.
The kiwi bird has wings because it evolved from birds that used to have wings.
It doesn't need a current or future use.

If you think a current or future use is required - that's simply an incorrect assumption about evolution and reality.

It's a perfect example of evolution: an earlier form (a bird with the capability of flight) evolves into a later form (a flightless animal) but it still retains the telltale wing structures!

Evolution takes many twisty pathways (the recurrent laryngeal nerve, blind cave fish that still have eyes, whale hip bones, etc.)

If living creatures had been designed, rather than evolving, why would they have such vestiges designed into them?

Sarah writes: It's a perfect example of evolution: an earlier form (a bird with the capability of flight) evolves into a later form (a flightless animal) but it still retains the telltale wing structures!

But the evolution of the ancestor's wings is assumed and therefore question-begged.

Sarah writes: Evolution takes many twisty pathways (the recurrent laryngeal nerve, blind cave fish that still have eyes, whale hip bones, etc.) If living creatures had been designed, rather than evolving, why would they have such vestiges designed into them?

That doesn't really make sense though when you think about it. If vision is lost in blind cave fish the eyes may be vestigial but that would still be the case even if they initially were designed to have eyes.

So then the vestiges themselves wouldn't be designed into them, their original purpose would be designed.

Whale hip bones for example, they assumed to have been from previous ancestors but, "the case" for the evolution of whales is a poor and circumstantial case. The fact is there can be reasons for why features exist, a lot of the time the vestiges themselves are later found to have uses.

So the twisty path of evolution seems to only exist between peoples ears as a story.

Sarfati writes: First, it is in principle not possible to prove that an organ is useless, because there is always the possiblity that a use may be discovered in the future. This has happened with over a hundred alleged useless vestigial organs which are now known to be essential. Second, even if the alleged vestigial organ were no longer needed, it would prove devolution not evolution. The creation model allows for deterioration of a perfect creation. However the particles-to-people evolution model needs to find examples of nascent organs, i.e. those which are increasing in complexity.

And;

Sarfati writes: Hip bones in whales These bones are alleged to show that whales evolved from land animals. However, Bergman and Howe point out that they are different in the male and female whales. They are not useless at all, but help penis erection in the males and vaginal contraction in the females

From;
'Vestigial' Organs: What do they prove? - creation.com

So Sarah the problem is you have SWALLOWED the tall tales of evolution-theory.

As you can see LOSING FEATURES or features becoming retrogressive or vestigial DOES NOT preclude them being designed and previous evolution of such features is usually question-begged and assumed.

PaulK writes: ID is not really that interesting. It’s primarily a coalition of anti-evolutionists hoping to force their views into the educational system. It had it’s moment in the sun with the publication of Darwin’s Black Box and The Design Inference but neither really contributed much to the debate. That’s one of the reasons that ID has largely faded.

The fault with this argument is that it is predicated on the assumption that the soundness of an argument is based on it's acceptance. Logically that would be an indirect argument which doesn't address the direct arguments from ID.

Intelligent design might not be interesting to those that don't understand it very well but that won't change that we find the usual features of intelligent design in organisms.

- specified complexity
- Information
- contingency planning.
- function
- correct parts
- correct materials.

Unless you can show me an eyeball made of wood Paul (the wrong material), which has no coding, and it's parts are all designed to not lead to any function and they aren't in the correct place, etc, etc...then I am afraid all these things are indeed factual.

PaulK writes: It’s primarily a coalition of anti-evolutionists hoping to force their views into the educational system

Not really. This is a fallacy of irrelevance because being interested in teaching ID doesn't really pertain to anything to do with evolution. No offence but perhaps evolutionists just need to get over themselves. It's about whether ID is a real thing in life or not.

We would propose that it is a real thing.

Paul writes: The kiwi’s wings seem to be a fairly clear example of a vestigial structure, which IDists tend not to like.

This is just circular reasoning where you conclude your proposal. Your proposal is that such features exist because they are leftovers of evolution then you find evidence P which fits with that notion and conclude the proposal.

But logically a leftover vestigial of evolution would depend on an evolution. So then for all things that fly, have we found their evolution stage by stage? Like with the insect wing for example? Or bats, birds, pterosaurs, etc....so in actual fact all you can really conclude is that we might expect vestigials from evolution but we can clearly expect them from design too because if God creates something with wings to fly and eventually they lose their use then selection may yeild such a result on it's own even if macro evolution is not true because losing genetic information from the selection cull logically doesn't depend on any need for macro evolution to be true. (the creation of new organs and genetic info).

Why if a designed feature loses it's use through selection would that be a problem for ID unless we were arguing that God designed the feature to be that way? That is like arguing that we have to answer for why God made mad-cow disease.

SERIOUSLY?

The other alternative argument which is perfectly rational and proven in real life examples is VARIETY which is actually a good argument for ID. Sometimes in nature there seems to be variety just for the sake of variety. We know from real life things we agree are designed and created that sometimes mosaical features can be in place such as with chimeric examples simply because the designer DESIRES it to be so.

For example I fly drones. One of my drones has a helicopter tail boom. It has no use that you could find since it isn't a helicopter but;

1. It may have an obscure meaning.
2. It may simply be there for aesthetics.

In this case for me I am not a FPV flyer, I am an LOS flyer meaning I fly my planes and drones traditionally by "line of sight", meaning the tail boom helps me with orientation because drones look identical from all angles meaning you can end up flying off in the wrong direction.

In this case it was BOTH. I wanted the look of the boom out of an aesthetic desire as well as the need for orientation-help.

So that is a problem because the mistake of assuming it has no purpose is an easy one to make. Many people likely would have reasoned my tail boom was a pointless vestige simply because they couldn't think of it's reason to be there.

So we know if evolutionists can't find a reason for a feature in life they will conclusion-jump to it meaning something to do with their science fiction story.

So my real life example is a good example of something which may appear to have no use since it doesn't have an operational tail rotor but it does have a purpose despite appearing vestigial.

EASY to explain from the viewpoint of creation/ID despite your smear-campaign.

This is why Sarah should listen to those that know what they are talking about instead of people that only exist to DISS on non-evolutionists. (propaganda is all you could be bothered with this time)

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Just one more point on my helicopter tail-boom I designed for my drone.

It looks like a vestige of a helicopter. It has the usual boom-shape, it has the usual helicopter-style tail section where there is a tail fin like with a helicopter.

So what is my point? My point is THIS ISN'T CONJECTURE, this is a real life example where design is at play even though it looks perfectly like a vestige as though it used to be a helicopter by design.

But the drone was never a helicopter! it wasn't a vestige helicopter-tail!

This doesn't evidence that designers can have reasons for creating things that LOOK like they could be vestiges. it 100% logically proves there are designer reasons for mosaical traits because this is a real life example.

CONCLUSION; So we, KNOW, (not guess or speculate like with evolution) that designers can have obscure reasons to put similar features from one design onto a completely different design of thing.

This perfectly explains the variety in nature. It could be that the designer, the Lord God, simply DESIRED a platypus to have a bill. DESIRED a kiwi to have those little wings that look "useless" to evolutionists.

But are they really useless or does it just take a bit of thinking about? Could they still have some uses that we don't always see?

I think you forget just how complex nature is. For example recently they have found that a fox's "mouse pounce" isn't just based on hearing, it is also found they are more successful in catching mice when they pounce in a northern easterly direction. 70% success. But about 20% success when not facing in that direction.

Scientists believe their brain can somehow detect the electromagnetic field of the earth. They theorise it is something to do with their vision, so that their brain can calculate a precision pounce in combination with their hearing.

Conclusion; the reasons things exist in nature can turn out to take years to discover why. It seems to me the most likely reason you treat features that don't have an obvious use as vestigial, is out of a DESIRE to show it is evidence of evolution rather than thinking it through and trying to find out if there are real life scientific and obscure reasons for why such features exist.

But sure, things like blind fish are well within fitting with creationism and ID, so we accept some vestiges CAN exist.

Unless you can show me an eyeball made of wood Paul (the wrong material), which has no coding, and it's parts are all designed to not lead to any function and they aren't in the correct place, etc, etc...then I am afraid all these things are indeed factual.

An eyeball made of wood, with no coding and no function -- if we were to find such a thing, that might make a more compelling case for intelligent design.

Oh, the irony.

mike the wiz writes: But the evolution of the ancestor's wings is assumed and therefore question-begged.

It isn't assumed. If wings evolved in birds then they would fit into a statistically significant phylogeny, and they do. The evidence demonstrates that wings were present in the common ancestor of birds.

Vestigial features in and of themselves do not evidence evolution. What does evidence evolution is the pattern of vestigial features. We only see vestiges of features that we would expect in an evolutionary tree, such as vestigial wings in kiwi birds. We don't see vestigial features that the tree does not predict, such as vestigial feathers in mammals or vestigial teats in birds.

So then the vestiges themselves wouldn't be designed into them, their original purpose would be designed.

That still doesn't explain why characteristics produce a statistically significant phylogeny.

Whale hip bones for example, they assumed to have been from previous ancestors but, "the case" for the evolution of whales is a poor and circumstantial case. The fact is there can be reasons for why features exist, a lot of the time the vestiges themselves are later found to have uses.

Again, the presence of a vestigial hip is consistent with the phylogeny.

mike the wiz writes: Just one more point on my helicopter tail-boom I designed for my drone. It looks like a vestige of a helicopter. It has the usual boom-shape, it has the usual helicopter-style tail section where there is a tail fin like with a helicopter.

In order for your argument to work you would need to show how helicopters and drones fit into a nested hierarchy.

This perfectly explains the variety in nature. It could be that the designer, the Lord God, simply DESIRED a platypus to have a bill. DESIRED a kiwi to have those little wings that look "useless" to evolutionists.

The razor of parsimony cleaves off your argument.

quote:

---

For, be it observed, the exception in limine to the evidence which we are about to consider, does not question that natural selection may not be able to do all that Mr. Darwin ascribes to it: it merely objects to his interpretation of the facts, because it maintains that these facts might equally well be ascribed to intelligent design. And so undoubtedly they might, if we were all childish enough to rush into a supernatural explanation whenever a natural explanation is found sufficient to account for the facts. Once admit the glaringly illogical principle that we may assume the operation of higher causes where the operation of lower ones is sufficient to explain the observed phenomena, and all our science and all our philosophy are scattered to the winds. For the law of logic which Sir William Hamilton called the law of parsimony—or the law which forbids us to assume the operation of higher causes when lower ones are found sufficient to explain the observed effects—this law constitutes the only logical barrier between science and superstition. For it is manifest that it is always possible to give a hypothetical explanation of any phenomenon whatever, by referring it immediately to the intelligence of some supernatural agent; so that the only difference between the logic of science and the logic of superstition consists in science recognising a validity in the law of parsimony which superstition disregards. Therefore I have no hesitation in saying that this way of looking at the evidence in favour of natural selection is not a scientific or a reasonable way of looking at it, but a purely superstitious way.
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution, by George J. Romanes, M.A., LL.D., F.R.S.

---

quote:

---

The fault with this argument is that it is predicated on the assumption that the soundness of an argument is based on it's acceptance. Logically that would be an indirect argument which doesn't address the direct arguments from ID.

---

No, it’s based on the fact that they didn’t really offer much. Either lead to sound arguments against evolution, or even a real prospect of sound arguments against evolution.

quote:

---

Intelligent design might not be interesting to those that don't understand it very well but that won't change that we find the usual features of intelligent design in organisms.

---

It is also a fact that there are features which are not easily explained by design and many that are better explained by evolution. Significantly there is no design-based theory to replace evolution.

quote:

---

Not really. This is a fallacy of irrelevance because being interested in teaching ID doesn't really pertain to anything to do with evolution. No offence but perhaps evolutionists just need to get over themselves. It's about whether ID is a real thing in life or not.

---

It’s a fact and it is relevant. ID began with the schoolbook Of Pandas and People, itself a lightly rewritten creationist text. This text was central to the Dover trial.

It is why ID is not interesting. ID can never challenge evolution while it remains so vague. It can never be a genuine alternative.

quote:

---

This is just circular reasoning where you conclude your proposal. Your proposal is that such features exist because they are leftovers of evolution then you find evidence P which fits with that notion and conclude the proposal.

---

Of course it is not circular reasoning at all. Unless you wish to claim that your designer created features which appear to be vestigial organs - and provide more than ad hoc reasons why we should expect the designer to do so - vestigial organs are best explained as the result of evolution from fully working versions.

quote:

---

But logically a leftover vestigial of evolution would depend on an evolution. So then for all things that fly, have we found their evolution stage by stage? Like with the insect wing for example? Or bats, birds, pterosaurs, etc....so in actual fact all you can really conclude is that we might expect vestigials from evolution but we can clearly expect them from design too because if God creates something with wings to fly and eventually they lose their use then selection may yeild such a result on it's own even if macro evolution is not true because losing genetic information from the selection cull logically doesn't depend on any need for macro evolution to be true. (the creation of new organs and genetic info).

---

Of course this is a straw-man which doesn’t touch the real argument. The fallacy is yours.

quote:

---

Why if a designed feature loses it's use through selection would that be a problem for ID unless we were arguing that God designed the feature to be that way? That is like arguing that we have to answer for why God made mad-cow disease.

---

And there you concede the point. If vestigial organs were not designed as such, why do they exist ?

And the problem with your argument about your drone is that we know your drone is designed for independent reasons. None of which apply to life. We don’t see a designer, we don ‘t see blueprints, we don’t see manufacture. And there are no plausible ancestors or relatives because drones are manufactured rather than reproducing,

quote:

---

EASY to explain from the viewpoint of creation/ID despite your smear-campaign.

---

And yet you can’t offer similar explanations for actual vestigial structures in life. You admit as much. Your “example” is just a distraction, and the “smear campaign” is neither a smear nor a campaign.

quote:

---

This is why Sarah should listen to those that know what they are talking about instead of people that only exist to DISS on non-evolutionists. (propaganda is all you could be bothered with this time)

---

But Mike you don’t know what you are talking about. You just want to suppress valid criticism with your dishonesty and deceit.

So if I read you correctly, you're saying that "devolution" means descendants of earlier creatures may be substantially different from those earlier forms? So speciation does occur?

Also, doesn't this mean your answer to the original post is no, the kiwi's wings were NOT designed, they evolved from an earlier, flight-capable form?