Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 67 (9057 total)
76 online now:
PaulK, ramoss (2 members, 74 visitors)
Newest Member: drlove
Post Volume: Total: 889,974 Year: 1,086/6,534 Month: 1,086/682 Week: 139/182 Day: 0/18 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Kiwi bird and its wings
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 139 days)
Posts: 4718
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003

Message 8 of 23 (885113)
03-23-2021 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Sarah Bellum
03-21-2021 3:46 PM

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.


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

'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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Sarah Bellum, posted 03-21-2021 3:46 PM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Taq, posted 03-23-2021 6:31 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 15 by Sarah Bellum, posted 03-27-2021 7:11 PM mike the wiz has responded

mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 139 days)
Posts: 4718
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003

Message 9 of 23 (885114)
03-23-2021 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by PaulK
07-17-2020 10:43 AM

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.


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by PaulK, posted 07-17-2020 10:43 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by nwr, posted 03-23-2021 6:11 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 14 by PaulK, posted 03-23-2021 7:02 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 139 days)
Posts: 4718
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003

Message 10 of 23 (885115)
03-23-2021 6:00 PM

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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Taq, posted 03-23-2021 6:34 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 139 days)
Posts: 4718
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003

Message 16 of 23 (885205)
03-28-2021 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Sarah Bellum
03-27-2021 7:11 PM

Sarah writes:

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?

Creationists accept speciation. Both allopatric and sympatric. We also accept natural selection, sexual selection, normalised selection, genetic drift, a change in allele frequencies and more. (population genetics)

what you have BEEN TOLD we don't accept because you are told we are, "science deniers", I am afraid was only propaganda against creationists.

We don't define speciation as macro-evolution because you can get speciation occur without it leading to any macro-scale change.

Sarah writes:

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?

Creationists do accept "change" but we stay away from the equivocal word, "evolution". You see to say a Kiwi bird's wing "evolved from an earlier wing" would give the impression we see this as an example of macro-evolution.

The truth is we don't deny the science facts. So if an animal can change we accept that, we just don't accept it can ever change into another animal kind completely. For example if the Kiwi bird's wing devolved from a flight-wing then we would see that as the kind of change that doesn't represent macro-evolution because with Darwin's macro-claim he is saying that all wings were invented by evolution.

So then to have a wing that already exists as a flight wing CHANGE into a flightless wing doesn't support his claim that wings invent themselves by macro evolution.

Technically I don't know if the Kiwi has lost function or if it was made that way because I don't jump to conclusions.

You see basically vestigials were an example of humans conclusion-jumping and thinking that certain features are vestigial. But like the article I shown says now dozens and dozens of features thought to be vestiges now have been found to have a designer purpose.

To compound that error evolutionists are now making the same mistake with what they call, "pseudo genes". They are now finding functions and reasons why these areas of genetic code exist they call, "pseudo genes".

So evolutionists are repeating the same mistake with "pseudo genes".

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Sarah Bellum, posted 03-27-2021 7:11 PM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by PaulK, posted 03-28-2021 7:58 AM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 23 by Sarah Bellum, posted 03-29-2021 10:40 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 139 days)
Posts: 4718
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003

Message 18 of 23 (885208)
03-28-2021 7:59 AM

Sarah there are a lot of answers creationists have for these issues. I am writing a new topic called, "There are easy creationist answers to problems evolutionists pose." Perhaps you could read it.

I suspect like most people you have heard about creationists but not really ever paid much attention to what we actually say rather than what people say we say.

Don't forget a forum like this is extremely biased and hateful towards creationists, the people here exist to hate on us basically.

mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 139 days)
Posts: 4718
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003

Message 19 of 23 (885210)
03-28-2021 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by PaulK
03-28-2021 7:58 AM

Paul K writes:

Sure you do. The Earth is billions of years old. There are many transitional fossils, The fossil record was not produced by a global flood. Those are all science facts.

We obviously don't accept those are science-facts. I regard facts as things which are indisputably provable. For example the earth is a factual thing. Fossils are factual things. The fossil record is a factual thing.

But this bare-assertion fallacy of yours is a statement that certain things are factual which you are elephant-hurling onto my lap.

Sadly at this forum it is now common place that ASSERTIONS that X is fact is considered some sort of intellectual offering.


So naturally I would dispute these are really facts. A fact for example is the soft dinosaur tissue we find. A fact is for example the C14 we find in diamonds and coal. A fact for example, is that 99.99% of the transitionals of evolution are missing by definition, as you would need that many to exist if there really was an evolution.

So then pertaining to the past historical scenarios, I don't think these things you say are fact, actually are fact in the usual way a "fact" is defined. They are explanations and hypotheses and stories FROM fact as far as I see.

So reasonably I do accept science facts I just don't accept inferences from facts that depend on fantastic claims.

Paul writes:

I will also point out that the fact that creationists accept some evolution - even macro-evolution - does not mean that it is not evolution. Thus the evidence for the evolutionary changes that creationists accept is still evidence for evolution.

I have ALWAYS accepted evolution, in terms of the word, "change". There are compelling changes that can occur for sure.

But if the changes we accept are macro-evolution then that would mean we would be evolutionists and because we are not evolutionists then those changes cannot be examples of macro evolution. (modus tollens).

So then we delineate where you equivocate.

That is to say, we agree that it's a big change if for example something loses it's flight characteristics, however it isn't the sort of change that would be needed to support Darwin's claims which require nascent organs and new genetic code in an uphill capacity.

It doesn't take the invention of a new design of wing like say an insect wing, if there is a change whereby an organism LOSES a wing. That type of change is unimpressive and all it takes is natural selection.

But macro evolution requires mutations and natural selection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by PaulK, posted 03-28-2021 7:58 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by PaulK, posted 03-28-2021 9:19 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 22 by dwise1, posted 03-28-2021 4:07 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022