1 piece of evidence to disprove evolution..

quote:

---

The wing would prove pretty much useless unless it aided as a means of flight or temportal flight.

---

Or added some other advantage-- such as allowing a predator to gain a wee bit more speed or jump just a little bit farther.

quote:

---

Any malformation would result in the bird unable to fly. I just dont see a small mutation increasing the feathered animal's ability to glide/fly.

---

Why not? Take it out of context to get a new perspective. Think about cats. Cats can survive falls from incredible heights-- note... survive, not survive unharmed. Please don't throw cats off skyscrapers. They do this by spreading themselves out like little kites. It slows their fall. If cats were in an environment where the danger of such falls were high-- say, a feral population living on cliffs-- those that manage this gliding/parachuting trick best would have an advantage. Why couldn't a small mutation alter fur texture and slow the falling cat just a bit more? From 60mph down to 58mph? Maybe that isn't much, but when you are living on the edge, any edge is an edge, right?

quote:

---

I dont particularly see a feathered creature without any of these abilities, have any advantage over any other feathered creatures, infact I see any feathered animal with 2 less limbs at a distinct disadvantage.

---

Wings aren't lost limbs. Winged creatures still have four limbs.But on the subject of lost limbs, ever see a T-Rex skeleton? Note those tiny little arms. They are about as functional as your hands would be if they were attatched directly to your nipples. Snakes do quite well with no limbs at all, and have done quite well for about 130 million years. The 'loss of limbs isn't advantageous' approach doesn't work. Other creatures have lost limbs, and it has worked.

quote:

---

I see what you're saying, and I am trying to picture it from a 'flying squirrels' perspective, however any mutation would have to be significant enough for the animal to actually have an advantage right ?

---

For the mutation to be 'set' in the population, yes. But it doesn't have to be a big advantage. Think of it these terms. In an Olympic level competition, the difference between first place and fourth place is usually a matter of 1 or 2 percent.

quote:

---

Also you didn't answer my question about why flying squirrels didn't replace normal squirrels ?

---

Why would they? Flying squirrels don't have to be somehow better than all other squirrels. They just have to be good enough to survive in their particular environment.

quote:

---

I mean literally something that would give this animal instant gliding ?

---

Think about the cats. Really, it is the same situation.

quote:

---

For instance it still leaves me to wonder about the dragon fly, butter fly etc. Surely those creatures had no need to glide ?

---

Ever seen a small bug in the wind? Think about this. If you are a small animal you may need wings to control the flying, not to initiate it.You may be interested in...http://www.enchantedlearning.com/...inos/Archaeopteryx.shtml What Good is Half a Wing [Shortened long link. --Admin]http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/2421/evolve.htm------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by Admin, 08-15-2003]

quote:

---

This would pretty much be an anomoly surely, but again I dont see it even making a dent in the ToE.

---

If you read the article you cited, you'll notice that it isn't an anomaly. It is an archaea-bacteria-- the same domain as the previous high-temp record holder. In other words, it is connected in significant ways to other life.

quote:

---

If you take the fossil record and compare the skeletons of even a human from birth to adulthood, essentially you could say that 'tall men' evolved from 'short- round headed' creatures.

---

No you couldn't. The skeletons themselves would give it away. It is a matter of developmental biology. If you have enough bone and know enough about them, it is possible to determine the age at which a creature died via clues in the skeleton. Aging a human skeleton isn't that hard. A lot of people have tackled the problem. So when all of the short, round-headed' people turn out to be infants and all of the 'tall men' turn out to be adults, you'd have to start to wonder.

quote:

---

Labradors and Jack Russels are all the same species, but should only the labrador continue to survive, then 10 000 years from now their fossils are found and assumptions would be made that Labradors evolved from Jack Russels ?

---

Doubtful. Here is why. Someone seeing fossils of all of our domestic dogs may be tempted to classify them as different species. That would be wrong but it isn't critical. But they would all appear in the record at the same time, more or less, so the assumption is not going to be that one evolved from another, but that they all evolved from a common ancestral species. Further investigation will reveal that there were canines prior to the explosion of domestics, and that/those populations will be assumed to be ancestral to the domestics and to surviving labradors. This is correct. It may not be possible to pinpoint exactly which path the labs took through the AKA, but the general stream is correct-- ancestral canines, explosion of what the future scientists may think are cousin species, surviving labradors. Then again, some feature in the bones may reveal a more precise pathway.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

The T-rex-was-a-scavenger debate concerns more than speed. One issue is its bipedal perch and tiny arms. It can't catch itself it falls, and an animal that heavy would crush its ribs if it came crashing to the ground. The tiny arms were pretty useless, but this would have been less of a disadvatage if t-rex made its living eating corpses rather than creating them.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com