Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 68 (9078 total)
434 online now:
Phat, Tangle, Tanypteryx, Theodoric, vimesey (5 members, 429 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,012 Year: 6,124/6,534 Month: 317/650 Week: 87/278 Day: 9/26 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What drove bird evolution?
PeriferaliiFocust
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 145 (117293)
06-21-2004 7:35 PM


I am a convert to belief in evolution, because i now see it really is a huge miracle, and i still choose to believe in God. Just to get that out of the way that i'm not attacking evolution, just trying to get a better understanding of it. Someone once explained to me, that evolution takes so long, that it's really so complicated that anyone who claims to understand it doesn't know what they're talking about. Which makes a lot of sense. Consider the time frame, and you'll realize that the factors involved in, and the events that shape evolution must ridiculously outnumber the small amount of nuerons we have in our brain.

To the question. Evolution is about survival of the few that fit the best, so improbabilities become inevitibilities and most evolutionary events become convievable to imagine. But what about the evolution of flight? There must have been many steps before functional wings, but then why would there be any selection toward wings? What good does a partial wing do? What advantage were feathers, or featherlike things? I remember reading somewhere that feathers develop on a different part of the embreyo than scale, which they are supposed to be modified from. Will somebody please tell me how birds came to be?

This message has been edited by PeriferaliiFocust, 06-21-2004 06:14 PM


Natural selection is not the whole of evolution and it's path is often altered by events outside of it's scope - most famously by a bloody great asteroid hitting the earth

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by jar, posted 06-21-2004 8:04 PM PeriferaliiFocust has not replied
 Message 3 by NosyNed, posted 06-21-2004 8:36 PM PeriferaliiFocust has not replied
 Message 4 by Steen, posted 06-21-2004 9:46 PM PeriferaliiFocust has not replied
 Message 5 by Chiroptera, posted 06-21-2004 9:54 PM PeriferaliiFocust has not replied
 Message 21 by redwolf, posted 07-13-2004 4:47 PM PeriferaliiFocust has not replied
 Message 23 by 1.61803, posted 07-13-2004 6:06 PM PeriferaliiFocust has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2 of 145 (117298)
06-21-2004 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by PeriferaliiFocust
06-21-2004 7:35 PM


Is this the old "What good is a half a wing" gambit?

I like it when this or the half an eye story comes up. IMHO it's one of the best points for evolution and the final nail in the Intelligent Design coffin. And one of the few points that could actually be tested.

The problem with the half a wing argument is that it assumes that the only purpose of the wing was flight. But what if it started out serving some other function?

I came across this Stephen J Gould article some time ago and it shows an experiment on just this subject.

The idea is that what later became wings may have originally been something else. And when we look around at life, that's pretty much what we see. We don't see the well designed critter that either the Creationist or Intelligent Design folk would like. What we do see is systems that are cobbled together, stuff made to do odd jobs, patches and duct tape.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by PeriferaliiFocust, posted 06-21-2004 7:35 PM PeriferaliiFocust has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Monsieur_Lynx, posted 06-24-2004 4:13 PM jar has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8971
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 3 of 145 (117299)
06-21-2004 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by PeriferaliiFocust
06-21-2004 7:35 PM


Scientific American
There was a scientific American article on the evolution of feathers (last year sometime I think).

One idea is that they started as heat regulating devices.

Once feathers are there they can act against the air to various degrees. There has been further work on that. Namely allowing an animal to run up a slope better. It seems the kinematics works out well.

Those are a couple of the idea that allow a wing to get there in stages.

I think, but don't know, that feather fossils show a series of developmental steps to the complex, asymetrical feathers needed for real flight.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by PeriferaliiFocust, posted 06-21-2004 7:35 PM PeriferaliiFocust has not replied

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 145 (117322)
06-21-2004 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by PeriferaliiFocust
06-21-2004 7:35 PM


quote:
I am a convert to belief in evolution,
I hope you have more than "belief" in Evolution, that you have some actual understanding of it. Accepting something on "belief" only doesn't leave much room for actual understanding.

quote:
because i now see it really is a huge miracle, and i still choose to believe in God.
That's funny. I am a Christian, and I see Evolution as a natural process, not a "miracle."

quote:
just to get that out of the way that i'm not attacking evolution, just trying to get a better understanding of it.
Good idea.

quote:
Someone once explained to me, that evolution takes so long,
Nope. It can happen rather fast, actually.

quote:
that it's really so complicated that anyone who claims to understand it doesn't know what they're talking about.
Sounds like the ones who told you this are the ones who don't understand Evolution. It really isn't that hard, at least not the basics that most outside of the field of research ever is exposed to.

quote:
Which makes a lot of sense.
Nope, it doesn't. The process really is rather simple. A change in genetic composition is either spread or not throughout a population, depending on how adaptable that mutation is. That's rather simple, don't you think?

quote:
Consider the time frame, and you'll realize that the factors involved in, and the events that shape evolution must ridiculously outnumber the small amount of nuerons we have in our brain.
What gives you that idea? Do you have any factual information that supports this claim?

quote:
To the question. Evolution is about survival of the few that fit the best,
Or the many, if they fit.

quote:
so improbabilities become inevitibilities and most evolutionary events become convievable to imagine.
Eh? Could you elaborate so it becomes clear what you actually mean here?

quote:
But what about the evolution of flight? There must have been many steps before functional wings, but then why would there be any selection toward wings? What good does a partial wing do? What advantage were feathers, or featherlike things?
Actually, wings can provide all sorts of non-flight assistance. It can help you move, it can help you cool off or be sheltered from the cold. It can help you flutter out of reach. There is nothing that indicates that the first bird was able to soar for years.

quote:
I remember reading somewhere that feathers develop on a different part of the embreyo than scale, which they are supposed to be modified from.
I would love to see that reference, as it sounds rather unlikely. Surprise me; find the reference.

quote:
Will somebody please tell me how birds came to be?
Through Evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by PeriferaliiFocust, posted 06-21-2004 7:35 PM PeriferaliiFocust has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by interrobanging, posted 11-10-2004 8:17 PM Steen has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 145 (117324)
06-21-2004 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by PeriferaliiFocust
06-21-2004 7:35 PM


Take a look at a flying squirrel. Now there is an animal that seems to do quite well with only half a wing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by PeriferaliiFocust, posted 06-21-2004 7:35 PM PeriferaliiFocust has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Coragyps, posted 06-21-2004 10:08 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 47 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 6 of 145 (117335)
06-21-2004 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Chiroptera
06-21-2004 9:54 PM


Or one of the "flying" snakes of Southeast Asia, who do nicely with maybe an eighth of a wing. They flatten their bodies and undulate through the air - they can drop from ten meters up in a tree and land ten meters away.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Chiroptera, posted 06-21-2004 9:54 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
PeriferaliiFocust
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 145 (117357)
06-21-2004 11:22 PM


Jar- I was afraid it would look like that, but i swear i wasn't reading any creationist crap, it was something i wondered about on my own

Thanks alot for the info ned. that answers the question sufficently, thanks very much.

Steen, what the crap is your problem? However your contempt to me is understandable, you probably get dumb creationist questions enough to want to kill someone, that's why i explained that my question was not coming from a creationist.

With your miracle comment you are assuming my definition of 'miracle' is something that happens without the laws of physics, that's ridiculous. I know it is natural, but it is still amazing to think of what has come from a single original cell.

Of coarse evolution is built on simple concepts, but in the large mass which life has replicated to, it builds up to huge complexities. That's evolution, simple working together to become complex and comprehensive. I think my point does make sense, you know how long evolution took right? I'm sure you know our existence is a blink in the span of it, so i'm not sure why you so passionately oppose the idea that it's simply to big for us to completely understand. We can study it, and learn a lot, but there is so much we don't know. If you don't think theres more to learn, than you my friend are not applying evolution, because it'll never be over.

What i meant in referring to evolution as a belief is related to my understanding that we must accept everything on faith. The reason behind a belief doesn't have to be blind, however the fact is that you cant proove anything. Proove to me you haven't been dreaming your entire life and that your entire reality is a simulation. Until you can do that you must accept everything you see on what you choose to believe.

And you really screwed that first point, with your final one. As you can see you first told me to understand, not blindly believe (i assure you i must understand something before choosing to believe it). And your last sentence told me to accept something with no explanation whatsoever on why i should. That would be blind belief.

This message has been edited by PeriferaliiFocust, 06-21-2004 10:23 PM

This message has been edited by PeriferaliiFocust, 06-21-2004 10:26 PM


Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Steen, posted 06-21-2004 11:40 PM PeriferaliiFocust has not replied
 Message 9 by coffee_addict, posted 06-21-2004 11:55 PM PeriferaliiFocust has not replied

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 145 (117362)
06-21-2004 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by PeriferaliiFocust
06-21-2004 11:22 PM


HUH?
quote:
However your contempt to me is understandable,
I have no contempt for you.
quote:
With your miracle comment you are assuming i believe miracle happen without the laws of physics, that is not so. I know it is natural, but it is still amazing to think of what has come from a single original cell.
OK, that's a bit different. Sorry to misunderstand you. That's what I got out of your post.
quote:
Of coarse evolution is built on simple concepts, but in the large mass which life has replicated to, it builds up to huge complexities. That's evolution, simple working together to become complex and comprehensive.
Ah, so you are saying that ALL of evolution has summed up to complexity? I can agree with that.
quote:
I think my point does make sense, you know how long evolution took right? I'm sure you know our existence is a blink in the span of it, so i'm not sure why you so passionately oppose the idea that it's simply to big for us to completely understand.
So you are not talking about the process involved in evolution, but about ALL of evolution over the entire 3.5-4 bill years? That really is not how I read your post. And re-reading it, that still was not the message I get from it, but I accept your meaning as you now state it.
quote:
What i meant in referring to evolution as a belief is related to my understanding that we must accept everything on faith.
And I disagree with that. Yes, as I note later, you are now talking about the philosophy of senses. I must insist that what our sense tells us is real. You can call that a "belief" if you want to, but I can not accept that terminology.
quote:
The reason behind a belief doesn't have to be blind, however the fact is that you cant proove anything.
I can prove the data that I directly observe.
quote:
Proove to me you haven't been dreaming your entire life and that your entire reality is a simulation. Until you can do that you must accept everything you see on what you choose to believe.
Now, THAT is a creationist argument. Sorry but when I deal with science, I am not dwelving into Plato's Cave and other what-ifs. What we see, does really exist and happen. I can not accept the premise that leads to the idea that everything around us was "created" 1 minute ago with implanted false memories and everything.
quote:
And you really screwed that first point, with your final one.
And a good day to you too.
quote:
As you can see you first told me to understand, not blindly believe (i assure you i must understand something before choosing to believe it). And your last sentence told me to accept something with no explanation whatsoever on why i should. That would be blind belief.
I am saying that the process that lead to birds is the process of Evolution. I am NOT saying that you should blindly accept Evolution without learning about it and understand the mechanisms and the Scientific Theory of Evolution itself.

This message has been edited by Steen, 06-22-2004 12:27 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by PeriferaliiFocust, posted 06-21-2004 11:22 PM PeriferaliiFocust has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 9 of 145 (117364)
06-21-2004 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by PeriferaliiFocust
06-21-2004 11:22 PM


Just a few things.

PeriferaliiFocust writes:

Steen, what the crap is your problem? However your contempt to me is understandable, you probably get dumb creationist questions enough to want to kill someone, that's why i explained that my question was not coming from a creationist.


No, you just sound like someone that has read a news article on a topic related to evolution and decided that what you just read is as much as anyone will ever know about evolution. In fact, you sound like someone that assumes that your professor knows as little as you.

With your miracle comment you are assuming my definition of 'miracle' is something that happens without the laws of physics, that's ridiculous. I know it is natural, but it is still amazing to think of what has come from a single original cell.

According to www.dictionary.com:

Miracle: An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God.

If you are going to start making up your own definitions for these common English words, make sure you tell people about it to avoid misunderstandings.

Of coarse evolution is built on simple concepts, but in the large mass which life has replicated to, it builds up to huge complexities. That's evolution, simple working together to become complex and comprehensive.

Again, you really sound like someone that knows absolutely nothing about evolutionary theories.

I think my point does make sense, you know how long evolution took right?

Evolution happens in short spurts over long periods of time. In other words, an evolutionary event can happen in a relatively short time.

I'm sure you know our existence is a blink in the span of it, so i'm not sure why you so passionately oppose the idea that it's simply to big for us to completely understand.

You sound like one of the preachers I've encountered in the past. He claimed that we could never understand god's work, therefore we should never use the "brain" to understand anything related to god.

We can study it, and learn a lot, but there is so much we don't know. If you don't think theres more to learn, than you my friend are not applying evolution, because it'll never be over.

Noone has yet to claim that we know everything there is to know.

What i meant in referring to evolution as a belief is related to my understanding that we must accept everything on faith.

Um... no. That is totally against the scientific method. I think you are imposing the creationist method on the scientific method, which have made you very confused.

The reason behind a belief doesn't have to be blind, however the fact is that you cant proove anything. Proove to me you haven't been dreaming your entire life and that your entire reality is a simulation. Until you can do that you must accept everything you see on what you choose to believe.

Hold on a second. What the hell does this have anything to do with what we are talking about? You are talking about a philosophical question, not a scientific one. Science ain't about proving anything.

And you really screwed that first point, with your final one. As you can see you first told me to understand, not blindly believe (i assure you i must understand something before choosing to believe it). And your last sentence told me to accept something with no explanation whatsoever on why i should. That would be blind belief.

This is where I get cranky on some people. They expect other people to be able to explain in a single message on a public forum something that takes people years of college courses and years of scientific research to learn. If it was so simple to explain, there'd be no more creationist left in the world.

The point is, if you want to have your question answered and fully understand the answer given to you, go take a college course or read a book. Just stop by your local library to check out some books on the topic.


The Laminator


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by PeriferaliiFocust, posted 06-21-2004 11:22 PM PeriferaliiFocust has not replied

  
PeriferaliiFocust
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 145 (117366)
06-22-2004 12:03 AM


Steen, I see i made some assumptions about you too, i often get carried away when i think other people are judging me, apologies.

About the subject of reality : It is rather important to me to realize that everything is about choice(however i cant proove this). I also choose to believe that what we see with our senses is real, but maintain that there are other possibilites. I guess it's a kind of pointless point that i often annoy people with my instistance of. Mainly the reason I hold this belief is to support freedom, and that i (or anyone) am not bound by obligation to accept what other people tell me is 'prooven'. We all are free to question everything and find our own reasons.

i did find my source about the location of feathers on the embryo, it is unfortunately a creationist article, and i cannot find his source for that supposed discovery. I however do not think he would stupidly outright lie about it, his source may be shaky, maybe outdated and resolved, but it came from somewhere and i want to reconcile it.
I'll try to find a more reliable source on the subject, meanwhile -

Thats the site : http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/archaeopteryx.shtml

this is what it says:
Feathers develop from a different part of the bird’s embryo than scales do from a reptile’s embryo. Therefore, a person who supports the theory of evolution would have to show how one could have replaced the other in an evolutionary manner—without violating the rules of biology. (Good luck! ) That is, the feathers were not an evolutionary modification of scales, but rather had to appear all on their own. This would be like seeing a human baby born with feathers or scales.

This message has been edited by PeriferaliiFocust, 06-21-2004 11:04 PM


Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Steen, posted 06-22-2004 1:24 AM PeriferaliiFocust has not replied

  
PeriferaliiFocust
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 145 (117387)
06-22-2004 12:50 AM


OK i swear this is the last time i'll nitpick someones reply, there may be no logical defense to why, but i choose to proceed anyway.

[No, you just sound like someone that has read a news article on a topic related to evolution and decided that what you just read is as much as anyone will ever know about evolution. In fact, you sound like someone that assumes that your professor knows as little as you.]

If i accepted it as as much as anyone would ever know, why did i come ask to know more? I promise i didn't come to debate, i wanted a question answered, thats better than making my own assumptions i think.

[If you are going to start making up your own definitions for these common English words, make sure you tell people about it to avoid misunderstandings.]

I don't believe in using language exactly as it is originally meant, becuase language as it is isn't comprehensive enough, and maybe to comprehensive in areas unnecisary to communication, which should be the purpose of language. But you're right, i shouldn't assume everyone knows that about me, i'll be more careful next time.

[Again, you really sound like someone that knows absolutely nothing about evolutionary theories.]

I think you have to admit that here you're just attacking me cause you think i'm stupid. Complex modern organisms, evolved from simpler original organisms that adapted to their enviroment by natural selection. I know that's different wording, but it means exactly the same thing. You can freakin read that in a biology book, i don't know what you're talking about when you say that means i know basically nothing.- which may be true, but how does my comment you dissagreed with go against the theory of evolution?

[Evolution happens in short spurts over long periods of time. In other words, an evolutionary event can happen in a relatively short time.]

I know what punctuated equilibrium is. My point is still true, we don't know EVERYTHING about what happened between now and 3.5 billion years ago when cyanobacteria changed the atmosphere to allow the evolution all the organisms we now know.

[You sound like one of the preachers I've encountered in the past. He claimed that we could never understand god's work, therefore we should never use the "brain" to understand anything related to god.]

Again it seems like you are stretching what i said just to make an attack on me. Do YOU know much about the different eras in evolution?
Prokaryotes have been around 3.5 BILLION, humans have been around .2 MILLION. I don't assume you don't know this, i assume you do, which is why i am so confused why you dispute that i said our existence is like a blink. I heard that in science, not from a preacher, most of which would claim the opposite, that the planet has only been around for 7,000 years, and humans have been around since then (minus 6 days).

[Um... no. That is totally against the scientific method. I think you are imposing the creationist method on the scientific method, which have made you very confused.]

I addressed that, and what i said was completely logical. It doesn't seem like you're thinking about what your saying. Whatever, i'm tired of arguing.

[go take a college course or read a book. Just stop by your local library to check out some books on the topic.]

I have checked out some evolution books from my local library (earlier this month), haven't gotten very far yet cause i've been busy lately, but what i have read is very interesting. I will take some college classes once i finish highschool. I'm taking Biology classes right now, i don't see a point in telling you my credentials which often tell little about actual knoweledge.

[The point is, if you want to have your question answered and fully understand the answer given to you]

Only a few people have even answered my question (not including you).
However i'm not angry at you cause the debate was kinda fun (even though my original intention was simply to find an answer to a question)

This message has been edited by PeriferaliiFocust, 06-21-2004 11:57 PM


Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by coffee_addict, posted 06-22-2004 1:12 AM PeriferaliiFocust has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 12 of 145 (117396)
06-22-2004 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by PeriferaliiFocust
06-22-2004 12:50 AM


I can't really express how much I just laughed before I started posting this message. I wasn't laughing at your post... actually I was laughing at your post but more at the unintended humor behind it.

In any case, I'll accept it for now. At the time that I was posting it, I was pissed off at the world and the fact that I actually had to copy and paste your username. I probably used you more as an anger dumping ground than a debate opponent.

I just realized that I've picked up a bad habit of judging people too soon. More often than not, we get the hit-and-run people that try to sound like they're rocket scientists but then run away when they are confronted with the real thing. Anyway, my life has been busy and I'm feeling like kicking somebody's arse for no good reason. Your comment:

quote:
I think you have to admit that here you're just attacking me cause you think i'm stupid.

isn't far from the truth. With that, I apologize.

By the way, please use the reply button with the red arrow. It makes our lives a heck of a lot better.


The Laminator


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by PeriferaliiFocust, posted 06-22-2004 12:50 AM PeriferaliiFocust has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by PeriferaliiFocust, posted 06-22-2004 11:51 AM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 145 (117398)
06-22-2004 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by PeriferaliiFocust
06-22-2004 12:03 AM


quote:
About the subject of reality : It is rather important to me to realize that everything is about choice(however i cant proove this). I also choose to believe that what we see with our senses is real, but maintain that there are other possibilites.
Yes, we could enter the realm of philosophical speculations, read about Plato's Cave and so on. On the other hand, for science to have any meaning, what we meassure IS real.
quote:
I guess it's a kind of pointless point that i often annoy people with my instistance of.
Likely.
quote:
Mainly the reason I hold this belief is to support freedom, and that i (or anyone) am not bound by obligation to accept what other people tell me is 'prooven'. We all are free to question everything and find our own reasons.
Certainly. However, that also is essentially philosophy, not science. Is what you know as "red" really what others perceive as "red"? That can be argued to pieces, but does it matter? In science, when the gague says 2.345, then that is the number, regardless of your philosophy.
quote:
i did find my source about the location of feathers on the embryo, it is unfortunately a creationist article, and i cannot find his source for that supposed discovery. I however do not think he would stupidly outright lie about it, his source may be shaky, maybe outdated and resolved, but it came from somewhere and i want to reconcile it.
I really hate to burst your bubble, but my experience with creationists is that they often deliberately lie. My experience is that creationists somehow believe that if they are not vociferously discrediting Evolution, then they go straight to hell, so a bit of lying really doesn't matter to them in the big picture. And that is not a fluke, but rather a consistent impression generated over quite a few years experience. So sorry to say so, but to me a creationist site is lying until proven otherwise.

And I did take a look at their site. It is as right-wing fundamentalist intolerant as the worst of them.

As for feathers from scales:
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/scutes.htm
"At various stages of development, fetuses were injected with a virus that blocked development of a specific set of proteins in one of their limbs. In chicken embryos, the webbing of the toes were not absorbed and webbed feet were retained.

The lack of the proteins also caused the scutes on the foot to develop into feathers.

Scutes are the thick scales on the top of a bird's foot (see figure at right). There are smaller scutes on the back of the foot, called scutellae, and scales on the bottom of the digits, called reticulae. Analyses by Alan Brush have shown that bird scutes, scuttelae, claw sheathes, beak sheathes, and scales around the eyes are of the same chemical composition as feathers, *******and are controlled by the same genes.******* The reticulae have been shown to be identical to crocodilian scales both in composition and their location on the DNA strand."

http://www.usc.edu/hsc/info/pr/1volpdf/pdf02/831.pdf
(Evaluation of scientific reference in Nature of specific study)

http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/dinof.htm


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by PeriferaliiFocust, posted 06-22-2004 12:03 AM PeriferaliiFocust has not replied

  
PeriferaliiFocust
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 145 (117502)
06-22-2004 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by coffee_addict
06-22-2004 1:12 AM


I do the same thing Lam, it's actually quite funny now that its through.

Well Steen, that bubble burstage sucks, i guess i was niave to think i could trust someone to tell the truth. Not surprising though.
Thanks for the the links.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by coffee_addict, posted 06-22-2004 1:12 AM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Monsieur_Lynx
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 145 (118361)
06-24-2004 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by jar
06-21-2004 8:04 PM


Bird evolution?
Ah..bird evolution. I'm assuming by this you don't just mean a population of birds "evolving" or changing over time, nor do you mean the diversification of birds from some common bird ancestor (both of these are creationist as well as evolutionist views--think about it, no creationist would say that the first birds that were created are exactly like the ones there today, nor would they say that every single species of bird had to be separately created. They would probably talk about genetic changes, speciation, etc.)
I beg to differ that we don't see the designed critter. Let's take a look at the features a bird has
1)aerodynamic wings
2)feathers designed (okay, others would say evolved) for flight
3)lightweight skeleton
4)streamlined body shape
5)respiratory system--supporting the weight of the whole bird requires a tremendous amount of energy and adequate energy must be supplied.

I suppose one can make an irreducible complexity argument at this point--however I'm not a bird expert, and I wouldn't be able to explain why each of the various parts of a bird are each vital for flight. If we design males and females of certain basic species of birds, then first of all we can avoid the messy "transition" from scaly, cold-blooded reptiles to feathered warm-blooded birds (reptiles evolve into other kinds of reptiles, birds evolved from other kinds of birds, there seems no rationale for linking the two), and second of all, more importantly we can appreciate the intelligent designer behind the creatures we see, rather than resorting to a fairy tale explanation.
I discredit that article on several grounds.
1)He suggests that archaeopteryx has reptilian and avian features. Showing a feathered, winged bird is hardly evidence of a "transitional form". And no, you don't get extra points for finding a bird with teeth and claws. http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/20hist08.htm
2)Evolution of consciousness--this is a riot! So apparently if the connections in the brain are "rich and varied", a concept of self, "awareness" somehow arises. Wow, this is a fascinating discovery--apparently as brains evolve, they get complex enough until the creature is suddenly aware of itself!
No, the author, quite clearly fails to grasp the distinction between mind and matter, matter and consciousness, body and soul, however you may call it. Mere matter is insentient--the brain is simply a mass of nerves, flesh, and blood, there is no need to attribute consciousness to the brain, it can be attributed to the mind/soul instead.

The more I think about it, the more it seems that for an evolutionist, the creationist view of life is absolutely absurd. They prefer some kind of fairy-tale explanation, from single-celled creature, repeatedly dividing, to multicellularity, to some kind of fish (god knows how complex structures like gills just "appeared"), to amphibians (apparently fish evolved lungs and legs that can support their body weight), to reptiles (okay, that transition seems a bit less wacky than the next one...), to birds and mammals!! Doesn't it even seem even slightly farfetched to have bats, whales, and humans, evolve from a common ancestor? Is there any basis for saying that cold-blooded creatures evolved into warm-blooded creatures? Or for that matter, saying that hairy or feathered creatures evolved from scaled ancestors?
I don't know why evolutionists make fun of the creationist view of life--it seems far more rational and consistent with nature. It allows for variation, even speciation. We don't need to look for these "mythical" common ancestors.

I guess a creationist wouldn't understand any of this "all life evolved from a single cell"/"birds and mammals evolved from reptiles, but we don't know how it happened" nonsense

Monsieur Lynx


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by jar, posted 06-21-2004 8:04 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by AdminNosy, posted 06-24-2004 4:24 PM Monsieur_Lynx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022