Evolution: Land dwelling to flight

[Phillystang]

Can an evolutionist help explain to me the the process of wing development from land dwelling animals to animals of flight without a creator?

[ClockwrkOrangeS4]

Only if a christian can explain the process of creating a winged creature from nothing

[Phillystang]

Come on clockwork, how do unintelligent biological process know there is such a thing as 'sky' and how does it determine that a species is better adept at survival in the sky as opposed to on the ground?

How do unintelligent biological processes determine that beings are able to overcome gravitational forces using wings and how does that initiative come about to begin to form these appendages in response to that knowledge?

[Zarathustra]

Animals have their own brains and do what they want. Instinctual processes are undergone in order to obtain flying capabilities. Is it that difficult to understand?

[Phillystang]

Animals have their own brains and do what they want. Instinctual processes are undergone in order to obtain flying capabilities. Is it that difficult to understand?
So if I desire to fly I can grow wings and do so?

[ClockwrkOrangeS4]

So if I desire to fly I can grow wings and do so?

You can build an airplane if you'd like, you have (well some do) the mental capacity to do so.

[jones4stangs]

Can an evolutionist help explain to me the the process of wing development from land dwelling animals to animals of flight without a creator?
Q: The process of wing development
A: Evolution

http://www.pbs.org/lifeofbirds/evolution/index.html

Then, several hundred million years ago, huge and often terrifying new life forms, Pterosaurs, or flying dinosaurs, took the ascendancy. These massive creatures had wings of skin, stretched between one enormously elongated finger and their flanks. Around 150 million years ago they were joined by - or, as many scientists say, they began to turn into - a much more aerodynamic, feathered creature. The bird was born.

Many scientists are convinced that birds evolved from the dinosaurs. Numerous finds in recent years have seemed to support the hypothesis that birds descended from two-legged, running dinosaurs called theropods.

This theory was born with the discovery of a 150-million-year-old fossilised creature in a swamp in Germany in the 1860s. Archaeopteryx was possibly the most controversial prehistoric remain ever dug up. It is the oldest known bird fossil. Most biologists accept it as conclusive proof that dinosaurs sired birds.

However the dinosuar-to-birds theory took another startling turn recently with the discovery of two species of feathered dinosaurs in China, dating from between 145 million and 125 million years ago.

"This is the most important dinosaur discovery of this century," said Philip J. Currie of the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Paleontology in Drumheller, Alberta. "The credibility of the dinosaur-to-birds theory takes a gigantic leap ahead with these specimens."

[jones4stangs]

Come on clockwork, how do unintelligent biological process know there is such a thing as 'sky' and how does it determine that a species is better adept at survival in the sky as opposed to on the ground?

How do unintelligent biological processes determine that beings are able to overcome gravitational forces using wings and how does that initiative come about to begin to form these appendages in response to that knowledge?
Maybe its because they wanted to eat the insects flying around.

[BrianC]

Q: The process of wing development
A: Evolution

http://www.pbs.org/lifeofbirds/evolution/index.html

Then, several hundred million years ago, huge and often terrifying new life forms, Pterosaurs, or flying dinosaurs, took the ascendancy. These massive creatures had wings of skin, stretched between one enormously elongated finger and their flanks. Around 150 million years ago they were joined by - or, as many scientists say, they began to turn into - a much more aerodynamic, feathered creature. The bird was born.

Many scientists are convinced that birds evolved from the dinosaurs. Numerous finds in recent years have seemed to support the hypothesis that birds descended from two-legged, running dinosaurs called theropods.

This theory was born with the discovery of a 150-million-year-old fossilised creature in a swamp in Germany in the 1860s. Archaeopteryx was possibly the most controversial prehistoric remain ever dug up. It is the oldest known bird fossil. Most biologists accept it as conclusive proof that dinosaurs sired birds.

However the dinosuar-to-birds theory took another startling turn recently with the discovery of two species of feathered dinosaurs in China, dating from between 145 million and 125 million years ago.

"This is the most important dinosaur discovery of this century," said Philip J. Currie of the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Paleontology in Drumheller, Alberta. "The credibility of the dinosaur-to-birds theory takes a gigantic leap ahead with these specimens."

Ever notice that a blue herin has the exactly same skeleton as some pterosaur? Compare the two sometime side by side. They're exactly alike. Albatross is the same way. If I'm not mistaken, I've heard that nearly every dinosaur has a skeletal structure the same as a bird that exists today, just smaller. This would fit with the fossile record of everything getting smaller. And, they found one pterosaur that had feather imprints fossilized with it. It was proven to not be a hoax, which proved that at least some of the pterosaurs had feathers.

[FSON]

Ever notice that a blue herin has the exactly same skeleton as some pterosaur? Compare the two sometime side by side. They're exactly alike. Albatross is the same way. If I'm not mistaken, I've heard that nearly every dinosaur has a skeletal structure the same as a bird that exists today, just smaller. This would fit with the fossile record of everything getting smaller. And, they found one pterosaur that had feather imprints fossilized with it. It was proven to not be a hoax, which proved that at least some of the pterosaurs had feathers.
Were Pterosaurs warm blooded?

[Bobba Fett]

You can build an airplane if you'd like, you have (well some do) the mental capacity to do so.

Yes, but where did the idea of flight come from?? I also am interested from an evolutionist stand point for someone to explain in detail where this came from.

If it's the survival of the fittest, then the first winded creature(s) would have needed something to get this idea of flight and then survive above the rest.

You have to admit, it's a slim to no chance for a first winged creature to actually make it long enough to survive...

[BrianC]

Were Pterosaurs warm blooded?

How would I know? All I know is that their skeletons were exactly the same structure as birds we have today, except a larger version. Therefore, I would assume that these were just giant birds, just like everything in the fossil record is giant.

Oh, and by the way...amber air bubbles have twice as much air pressure in them, and more oxygen, which is exactly the conditions needed for dinosaurs to survive and grow as large as they did, and that much air pressure (thicker air) would be needed for the 50 foot wingspan Pterosaurs to be able to fly.

Once the air pressure drops, say, half as much like our current atmosphere today, then suddenly, dinosaurs (animals in general) and plants do not have the environmental conditions to grow really large anymore. So, we get smaller versions of everything. And everything else dies out that cannot survive in smaller form, or mankind kills off the things that are a threat to them. This is why we saw "dragons" (dinosaurs) up until the 1500's and always heard stories about the townspeople going out to "kill the dragon." It was a threat, so they killed it. This would run all of the somewhat larger dinosaurs away from civilization or kill them off completely in some areas. They probably weren't too terribly large like in the fossil record, but they were probably still big and scary, enough to provoke people to go kill them out of fear. Make sense?

[BrianC]

Yes, but where did the idea of flight come from?? I also am interested from an evolutionist stand point for someone to explain in detail where this came from.

If it's the survival of the fittest, then the first winded creature(s) would have needed something to get this idea of flight and then survive above the rest.

You have to admit, it's a slim to no chance for a first winged creature to actually make it long enough to survive...

I agree. And how did they get their bones hollowed out?

A bird would have to have hollowed out bones BEFORE they got their wings, so they were light enough to fly. But with hollowed out bones, they'd be an easy target to kill before they got their wings.

In other words, non-birds had to have suddenly birthed a baby bird that had hollowed bones and wings. OR, the non-bird had to grow wings, and not use them for hundreds of years till their bones hollowed out so that they were light enough to fly. And that's assuming that they didn't get killed off first due to their weak bones which provide no protection for their inner organs when attacked, and would not allow them to fight off any predator.

Like Boba Fett said, "He's no good to me dead." :)

Makes no sense to me...

[jones4stangs]

Ever notice that a blue herin has the exactly same skeleton as some pterosaur? Compare the two sometime side by side. They're exactly alike. Albatross is the same way. If I'm not mistaken, I've heard that nearly every dinosaur has a skeletal structure the same as a bird that exists today, just smaller. This would fit with the fossile record of everything getting smaller. And, they found one pterosaur that had feather imprints fossilized with it. It was proven to not be a hoax, which proved that at least some of the pterosaurs had feathers.
You've heard? Who told you this? I've yet to see you post a good reference to any of your claims. Would you care to try with this "nearly every dinosaur has a skeletal structure the same as a bird that exists today" claim?

[BrianC]

You've heard? Who told you this? I've yet to see you post a good reference to any of your claims. Would you care to try with this "nearly every dinosaur has a skeletal structure the same as a bird that exists today" claim?

You haven't read many of my threads then. I've posted plenty of links that show proof of what I'm talking about.

Just go on some creation websites and look up skeleton structures of birds. You'll find it. I'll see what I can dig up later.

[DarkWolf]

You haven't read many of my threads then. I've posted plenty of links that show proof of what I'm talking about.

You have? Where?

[FSON]

How would I know? All I know is that their skeletons were exactly the same structure as birds we have today, except a larger version. Therefore, I would assume that these were just giant birds, just like everything in the fossil record is giant.

Oh, and by the way...amber air bubbles have twice as much air pressure in them, and more oxygen, which is exactly the conditions needed for dinosaurs to survive and grow as large as they did, and that much air pressure (thicker air) would be needed for the 50 foot wingspan Pterosaurs to be able to fly.

Once the air pressure drops, say, half as much like our current atmosphere today, then suddenly, dinosaurs (animals in general) and plants do not have the environmental conditions to grow really large anymore. So, we get smaller versions of everything. And everything else dies out that cannot survive in smaller form, or mankind kills off the things that are a threat to them. This is why we saw "dragons" (dinosaurs) up until the 1500's and always heard stories about the townspeople going out to "kill the dragon." It was a threat, so they killed it. This would run all of the somewhat larger dinosaurs away from civilization or kill them off completely in some areas. They probably weren't too terribly large like in the fossil record, but they were probably still big and scary, enough to provoke people to go kill them out of fear. Make sense?
It was recently suggested that they were... Something to do with the bone makeup being the same as warm blooded creatures. Which leads to the question of extinction.

[BrianC]

You have? Where?

Oh, not on the bird skeletons. I'm talking about links in other threads about the topic in those threads. Look up my threads and look for links in them.

[DarkWolf]

Oh, not on the bird skeletons. I'm talking about links in other threads about the topic in those threads. Look up my threads and look for links in them.

Yeah, that's what I was refering to. The links you post have yet to substantiate your arguments, and typically refute them.

[jones4stangs]

Yeah, that's what I was refering to. The links you post have yet to substantiate your arguments, and typically refute them.
Yes, a consistent pattern seems to have developed.

[BrianC]

Yeah, that's what I was refering to. The links you post have yet to substantiate your arguments, and typically refute them.

That's only in the one thread that has happened. I typically don't post many links. I have posted a few that are legitimate, except the ones you all saw in the one thread. Again, I don't like posting threads from the internet because you can find just about anything on the internet and a lot of it is crap. I like referencing actual published material, yet even so, there's a lot of crap that has been published as well. But at least it's a little more scrutinized when in published book form.

Either way, are you two completely inept to do research for yourselves and look up this stuff?? Go to creationists sites and you can find information on the bird skeletons. Here are a few sites. Look on them and see what you find:

www.creationevidence.org
www.answersingenesis.org
www.icr.org
www.drdino.com (Kent Hovind is more controversial than others and doesn't conform to not using old arguments, unfortunately)

Kent Hovind, if I'm not mistaken, actually has quite a bit of pictures in his presentations and I want to say that he has the skeleton photos side by side. I suppose, if you wanted, though, you could look up the photos of the skeletons yourselves. Look up a pterosaur skeleton photo and a blue herin or a crane bone photo... shouldn't be hard to fine. Honestly, I hate referencing stuff. Drives me crazy. That's why those links I posted to you had things in them I didn't read, because I scan through the references and post them quickly if they have a piece that substantiates what I'm looking for. I am too lazy to read through them all (and don't have the time, honestly).

I'm no speed reader and I don't have the time to do all that reading just to prove someone right or wrong. It's not about proving right or wrong, it's about showing truth and spreading more information for people to learn so they can make more educated choices on their beliefs. I force nothing on anyone. Just share my experience and the things I've learned. I am constantly reading books or doing research into things or learning something new. I have a drive for learning new things constantly, and I spend hours each day doing it. My business is such that if I were to average it out over a year, I would probably only do three days of work a week. So, I have a sweet business that allows me a lot of time to do other things like research and learn new stuff, which is my passion.

Learn to find some of this stuff on your own and stop asking me for it, because I really hate looking for this stuff. Some of it's easy to find and some of it's not so easy. But that's how the life of a researcher is. Constantly digging through things to find information and truth. Any good researcher will tell you that it's TONS of reading and research. My wife is a research coordinator and Ph.D. student and she has to do TONS of reading and research on just one tiny subject for years. Constantly searching, constantly testing, constantly learning and building on what they already know. She and I are a lot alike in our passion for learning and research.

I'd do well to actually write down references in a journal when I find them during my research, but I don't have a good system for that yet, unfortunately. :( Oh well... Maybe someday...

[Bobba Fett]

Ok, another thought for everyone to consider...

If we did evolve from being sea creatures, to amphibians, to land creatures, wouldn't the next evolutionary step be flight/winged humans?? Why haven't humans developed wings yet? It seems to me that at one point that a human would have to evolve into a winged creature, yet we haven't.

[AdamLX]

Ok, another thought for everyone to consider...

If we did evolve from being sea creatures, to amphibians, to land creatures, wouldn't the next evolutionary step be flight/winged humans?? Why haven't humans developed wings yet? It seems to me that at one point that a human would have to evolve into a winged creature, yet we haven't.

The easy answer I can offer to that one is we developed our own methods. I'd figure evolution occurs out of need. Once we "evolved" enough to have rational thought etc, we were able to overcome many obstacles on our own such as flight via planes etc.

[Bobba Fett]

The easy answer I can offer to that one is we developed our own methods. I'd figure evolution occurs out of need. Once we "evolved" enough to have rational thought etc, we were able to overcome many obstacles on our own such as flight via planes etc.

That seems possible, I didn't think of it like that.

[flashstang04]

That seems possible, I didn't think of it like that.


That kind of negates the reason that a sea creature would need to evolve though. There is plenty of food and life giving substance in the ocean. Not to mention protection, and unlimited space..... there would be no reason why a sea creature would NEED to start to crawl on land.

[Phillystang]

The easy answer I can offer to that one is we developed our own methods. I'd figure evolution occurs out of need. Once we "evolved" enough to have rational thought etc, we were able to overcome many obstacles on our own such as flight via planes etc.
This is new to me, the idea that rational input from the creatures based on need helped to steer future evolutionary developments... and when a creature was content, developments stopped.

[Bobba Fett]

So have we stopped evolving?

[exlude]

Ok, another thought for everyone to consider...

If we did evolve from being sea creatures, to amphibians, to land creatures, wouldn't the next evolutionary step be flight/winged humans?? Why haven't humans developed wings yet? It seems to me that at one point that a human would have to evolve into a winged creature, yet we haven't.

It doesn't work like that. It's not a ranking of flight is "better than" walking is "better than" swimming. There needs to be a niche, you need to have a selective pressure to evolve (a predator), you need the proper pay off of the evolution for the energy expended, there is a random element to it, and it won't just happen in on generation, etc.

It's not just "dude, humans would totally rawk faces if they flew...let's evolve".

[exlude]

So have we stopped evolving?

Do Africans so much as look the same as North Americans? Do they both have the same health susceptibilities?

[Bobba Fett]

Do Africans so much as look the same as North Americans? Do they both have the same health susceptibilities?

True, but is that due to evolution or diet, disease, or another human "induced" reason??? I guess what I'm asking for is un-deniable proof that evolution is taking place.

[Bobba Fett]

Also, let me make it clear that I am NO expert by any means on evolution, hence all the questions. :)

[flashstang04]

True, but is that due to evolution or diet, disease, or another human "induced" reason??? I guess what I'm asking for is un-deniable proof that evolution is taking place.


That is called variations within a kind. There are no "proofs" of evolution because it doest happen. What does happen is variation and adaptation. But a species does not change into another. it is statistically impossible. The people in Africa are the same as you or I, they even have the same skin color ( all skin color is the same), they just happen to have much more melanin that us.

[Bobba Fett]

That is called variations within a kind. There are no "proofs" of evolution because it doest happen. What does happen is variation and adaptation. But a species does not change into another. it is statistically impossible. The people in Africa are the same as you or I, they even have the same skin color ( all skin color is the same), they just happen to have much more melanin that us.

If there are no "proofs", then why do people insist that this is the truth over religion or faith?

[exlude]

If there are no "proofs", then why do people insist that this is the truth over religion or faith?

Because flashstang is lying to you. While calling them "proofs" is scientifically unsound, we have observed examples of both microevolution (adaptation) and macroevolution (speciation) across several phylum. And it's not "statistically impossible" (kind of silly to put it that way), but it's statistically probable.

Religion and science don't have to be separated and they don't have to butt heads. Just that a lot of people are uneducated or don't wish to be educated or simply are in denial that everything written in the Bible may not be actual history.

[exlude]

True, but is that due to evolution or diet, disease, or another human "induced" reason??? I guess what I'm asking for is un-deniable proof that evolution is taking place.

Diet and other human "induced" factors or very important to consider, so it's good that you are thinking like that. However, things such as disease, predators, available food (before the days where we could travel the world in a couple hours), and surrounding habitat all provide selective pressures that humans adapt to. That's evolution in process.

It's the same mechanisms involved in adaptation that lead to speciation. Inevitable, over large periods of time (relative to the human life span), a lineage of creatures changes so much that it is no longer the same as the "ancestor" it came from. Statistically impossible? I'm not sure what he even meant by that.

[flashstang04]

Because flashstang is lying to you. While calling them "proofs" is scientifically unsound, we have observed examples of both microevolution (adaptation) and macroevolution (speciation) across several phylum. And it's not "statistically impossible" (kind of silly to put it that way), but it's statistically probable.



Lying is not a hobby of mine, but thanks for the accusation all the same.

[exlude]

Lying is not a hobby of mine, but thanks for the accusation all the same.

Lying was a harsh way to put it, sure, but it was very blunt, conclusive, inconsiderate misinformation all the same.

[flashstang04]

From the book "In Six Days"

by John Ashton:

If one believes in evolution, then one has to also account for the origin of life—the very first step. Without this, the whole subject of evolution hangs on nothing.

Now this is a subject about which I have read much. And the weight of evidence against the spontaneous origin of life on earth is, in my opinion, overwhelming. One can make some basic calculations about the chemical equilibria of molecules essential to life. These calculations show that the formation of biochemically necessary molecules at even minuscule concentrations is highly unfavorable. Furthermore, the assembly of these molecules into more complex biochemical precursors such as proteins, polysaccharides, nucleic acids or cell walls is beyond vanishingly small and is, in fact, statistically “impossible.” The invocation of influences such as the catalytic effect of minerals, concentration of precursors in evaporating ponds, occurrence below ground, etc. is fiction of the highest order. Theories such as these are usually sought because the hypothesizing scientist starts with the premise that life evolved from nonlife and, therefore, at some time in the past, lifeless simple molecules climbed Mount Impossible and multiplied.

Suppose that you could go back in your time machine to a time when, according to evolutionists, a lifeless world existed. Assume that you have taken with you an ocean full of organic precursors of life. What would happen to them? They would all decompose to simpler and simpler molecules and mostly would end up as lifeless common inorganic substances. Sterilize a frog and put it in a sterile blender—buzzzz. Seal up the mixture in a sterile container and leave it as long as you want. You won’t get life, despite the fact that you started with the best possible mixture of so-called precursors to life. Repeat the experiment a million times in the sun, in the dark; with oxygen, without; with clay, without; with UV, without. It won’t make any difference. Thermodynamics clearly states that the mixture will decompose to simpler, lower energy, less information-containing molecules.

The complexity of the simplest imaginable living organism is mind-boggling. You need to have the cell wall, the energy system, a system of self-repair, a reproduction system, and means for taking in “food” and expelling “waste,” a means for interpreting the complex genetic code and replicating it, etc., etc. The combined telecommunication systems of the world are far less complex, and yet no one believes they arose by chance.

Summary. I am afraid that as a scientist I simply cannot say strongly enough that spontaneous origin of life is chemical nonsense and, therefore, I am left with no alternative but to believe that life was created.

[flashstang04]

Religion and science don't have to be separated and they don't have to butt heads. Just that a lot of people are uneducated or don't wish to be educated or simply are in denial that everything written in the Bible may not be actual history.



but it was very blunt, conclusive, inconsiderate misinformation all the same


..

[exlude]

An article by a scientist in the minority is what you go by? That's what you're going to post up?

FWIW, he makes one huge mistake in his 3rd paragraph that pretty much nulls his argument.

Even more so, that article is INSANELY off topic. We are talking about evolution, not creation. Two very different things. One can believe that God set everything in to motion and still believe in evolution.

[exlude]

..

Swing and a miss.

[flashstang04]

An article by a scientist in the minority is what you go by? That's your definitive proof?

FWIW, he makes one huge mistake in his 3rd paragraph that pretty much nulls his argument.

Even more so, that article is INSANELY off topic. We are talking about evolution, not creation. Two very different things. One can believe that God set everything in to motion and still believe in evolution.


you are correct, one can believe in God and believe in evolution. One cannot, however, be a Christian and believe in evolution....

I mean, I guess one can say anything , but it would not jive with what they claim to be truth.

[flashstang04]

Can an evolutionist help explain to me the the process of wing development from land dwelling animals to animals of flight without a creator?


This is the original question, so bringing creation into the discussion is very valid, unless it makes you uncomfortable.

[flashstang04]

btw, off topic.... I dig you signature

[exlude]

This is the original question, so bringing creation into the discussion is very valid, unless it makes you uncomfortable.

I was correcting the evolution misinformation, not joining the creation discussion. :)

I'm in no way uncomfortable with it, it's just a fairly lame discussion I've had one too many times that cannot be convictively argued one way or another. I'm agnostic on that front, saying it's out of our current ability to know. But the ability for life to spontaneously create is not out of the question.

[exlude]

btw, off topic.... I dig you signature


'Preciate it. From 1SG Ott over the Army Special Forces Assessment and Selection Course to SF candidates.

[AdamLX]

That kind of negates the reason that a sea creature would need to evolve though. There is plenty of food and life giving substance in the ocean. Not to mention protection, and unlimited space..... there would be no reason why a sea creature would NEED to start to crawl on land.


If you were in a tank of great white sharks without any protection, would you want to get out? Survival instinct, not talking about knowing how dangerous it is.

You just made a statement about the ocean eluding that there are no predators and everything is hunky-dory.

[flashstang04]

If you were in a tank of great white sharks without any protection, would you want to get out? Survival instinct, not talking about knowing how dangerous it is.

You just made a statement about the ocean eluding that there are no predators and everything is hunky-dory.

Even you can realize that a tank would be a closed system, and nowhere to escape..an ocean is an open ecosystem....cmon you can do better than that.

[exlude]

Even you can realize that a tank would be a closed system, and nowhere to escape..an ocean is an open ecosystem....cmon you can do better than that.

Success in nature, generally, is measured by the number of viable offspring you produce. The more copies of your genes you pass on, the more fit you are.

Now, you can stay in the water...where everything else is. By doing so you have to work twice as hard to get food. You have to work twice as hard to avoid predators. And 80% of your offspring will be killed before they come of age.

Or, you can go to the land...where you have no natural predators, all the food and space you need, and only 5% of your offspring will die.

See how the ability to leave the water may just provide a slight evolutionary pressure?

[AdamLX]

Even you can realize that a tank would be a closed system, and nowhere to escape..an ocean is an open ecosystem....cmon you can do better than that.

Ok so make the tank much bigger like, oooh say, an ocean. Where exactly are you going to escape your predators to other than water? Can you out swim a shark? Seems perfectly reasonable to me that at some point in time you end up with a species like a mud guppy or somesuch that developes the ability to get it's ass on dry land away from many natural predators.

[flashstang04]

Ok so make the tank much bigger like, oooh say, an ocean. Where exactly are you going to escape your predators to other than water? Can you out swim a shark? Seems perfectly reasonable to me that at some point in time you end up with a species like a mud guppy or somesuch that developes the ability to get it's ass on dry land away from many natural predators.


And what are these mud guppies gonna eat...? Insects that are on the land? Did they get close enough to the water so that something that has been in the water for millions of years can catch it? Were there plants growing THAT closer to salt water that these guppies could nibble on them until they found out they were carnivores? They were new to land, so did they know how to mate on land? I mean they could barely crawl right? How did their offspring survive? Did they come into the world adjusted for land survival?

[AdamLX]

And what are these mud guppies gonna eat...? Insects that are on the land? Did they get close enough to the water so that something that has been in the water for millions of years can catch it? Were there plants growing THAT closer to salt water that these guppies could nibble on them until they found out they were carnivores? They were new to land, so did they know how to mate on land? I mean they could barely crawl right? How did their offspring survive? Did they come into the world adjusted for land survival?

Who said plants had to be close to the water for them to eat on first? Animals tend to eat anything. Whether they like it or not or it actual works for them is a different story. Who said they have to FIND OUT they are carnivores? If you have limited food supply, you eat what you have to for survival. I would guess any animal without the lack of plant life in it's habitat would more than likely be a carnivore. Cows eat grass, wonder why? Probably because it's about the only thing they can eat on their own because of their speed etc.

You're making the biggest assumption that everything happened over night. You can adapt to situations when the need arises. Then again, I'm figuring you thinking the world is only several thousand years old?

[jones4stangs]

Phillystang,

Here's something you might enjoy. Others may see it differently.

http://images.livescience.com/images/060810_evo_rank_02.jpg

[exlude]

Interesting, albeit sad, chart.

[Bobba Fett]

That's a great chart...except it doesn't make any freakin' sense. What are the numbers at the bottom??? 50 people, 50 million people?? What's the source??? What about people whole don't believe it to be completely true???

Might as well have thrown something more random up...like a shit pickle or something, at least then I would have something to look at...

Please, only put up something if it's relevant to the thread for heaven's sake :mad: :mad: :mad:

[flashstang04]

Might as well have thrown something more random up...like a shit pickle or something, at least then I would have something to look at...





:D

[Bobba Fett]

:D

Just for that...here ya go:

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t12/jakester05/060810_evo_rank_021.jpg

[Bobba Fett]

And for those who don't know what shit pickle is, check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sayp5lieKuU

[flashstang04]

Just for that...here ya go:

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t12/jakester05/060810_evo_rank_021.jpg


bwahahahahaha...classic

[jones4stangs]

That's a great chart...except it doesn't make any freakin' sense. What are the numbers at the bottom??? 50 people, 50 million people?? What's the source??? What about people whole don't believe it to be completely true???

Might as well have thrown something more random up...like a shit pickle or something, at least then I would have something to look at...

Please, only put up something if it's relevant to the thread for heaven's sake :mad: :mad: :mad:
Goodness dude, it isn't that bad. Ok, so here's further information:

http://www.livescience.com/health/060810_evo_rank.html

The researchers combined data from public surveys on evolution collected from 32 European countries, the United States and Japan between 1985 and 2005. Adults in each country were asked whether they thought the statement “Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals,” was true, false, or if they were unsure.

The number of respondents per country, n, vs. percentage of responses to the above question.

The original chart was presented in Science Magazine. (subscription required)
http://images.livescience.com/images/060810_evo_rank_02.jpg

[Way Cool Jr]

The standard methodology of creationists is to find some phenomenon in nature which Darwinism cannot readily explain. Darwin said: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Creationists mine ignorance and uncertainty in order to abuse his challenge. “Bet you can’t tell me how the elbow joint of the lesser spotted weasel frog evolved by slow gradual degrees?” If the scientist fails to give an immediate and comprehensive answer, a default conclusion is drawn: “Right, then, the alternative theory; ‘intelligent design’ wins by default.”

Notice the biased logic: if theory A fails in some particular, theory B must be right! Notice, too, how the creationist ploy undermines the scientist’s rejoicing in uncertainty. Today’s scientist in America dare not say: “Hm, interesting point. I wonder how the weasel frog’s ancestors did evolve their elbow joint. I’ll have to go to the university library and take a look.” No, the moment a scientist said something like that the default conclusion would become a headline in a creationist pamphlet: “Weasel frog could only have been designed by God.”

I once introduced a chapter on the so-called Cambrian Explosion with the words: “It is as though the fossils were planted there without any evolutionary history.” Again, this was a rhetorical overture, intended to whet the reader’s appetite for the explanation. Inevitably, my remark was gleefully quoted out of context. Creationists adore “gaps” in the fossil record.

Many evolutionary transitions are elegantly documented by more or less continuous series of changing intermediate fossils. Some are not, and these are the famous “gaps”. Michael Shermer has wittily pointed out that if a new fossil discovery neatly bisects a “gap”, the creationist will declare that there are now two gaps! Note yet again the use of a default. If there are no fossils to document a postulated evolutionary transition, the assumption is that there was no evolutionary transition: God must have intervened.

The creationists’ fondness for “gaps” in the fossil record is a metaphor for their love of gaps in knowledge generally. Gaps, by default, are filled by God. You don’t know how the nerve impulse works? Good! You don’t understand how memories are laid down in the brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesis a bafflingly complex process? Wonderful! Please don’t go to work on the problem, just give up, and appeal to God. Dear scientist, don’t work on your mysteries. Bring us your mysteries for we can use them. Don’t squander precious ignorance by researching it away. Ignorance is God’s gift to Kansas.

Richard Dawkins, FRS, is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science, at Oxford University. His latest book is The Ancestor’s Tale

[exlude]

In a brilliance that only Southpark could produce:

<embed style="width:400px; height:326px;" id="VideoPlayback" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-7713172355487295582&hl=en" flashvars=""> </embed>

[jones4stangs]

In a brilliance that only Southpark could produce:
lol perfect clip

[flashstang04]

The standard methodology of creationists is to find some phenomenon in nature which Darwinism cannot readily explain.



Its just that there are so many..........


And btw, that is the same methodology of atheists.....

"You can't scientifically prove God's existence....so it CANNOT be so!!"

That statement is interchangeable.

[flashstang04]

In a brilliance that only Southpark could produce:

<embed style="width:400px; height:326px;" id="VideoPlayback" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-7713172355487295582&hl=en" flashvars=""> </embed>


LOL!!!

About the same amount of reason invoved for sure.

[exlude]

Its just that there are so many..........


And btw, that is the same methodology of atheists.....

"You can't scientifically prove God's existence....so it CANNOT be so!!"

That statement is interchangeable.

I don't think that's how most of us here see it. You can't prove his existence, but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist (sorry for the double negative). However, when you're arguing against evolution with creationism/ID as it's replacement...you will need significant negative evidence to overrule evolutionary theory due to the lack of positive evidence for creationism/ID.

[flashstang04]

I don't think that's how most of us here see it. You can't prove his existence, but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist (sorry for the double negative). However, when you're arguing against evolution with creationism/ID as it's replacement...you will need significant negative evidence to overrule evolutionary theory due to the lack of positive evidence for creationism/ID.

I understand what you are saying, but also understand, from MY point of view....I have volumes of books (scientific) that talk about the statistical impossibility of evolution to have happened. Believe what you will, whether we were planted by aliens, God, whatever. That side of it is irrelevant, because that discussion comes after the abundance of examples for a young earth is proven. The stats are not in evolutions favor, based on my research with these very specific examples. So while you look for a lack of positive evidence FOR creation..in my opinion, I start from the positive evidence AGAINST evolution....make sense?

[Way Cool Jr]

I understand what you are saying, but also understand, from MY point of view....I have volumes of books (scientific) that talk about the statistical impossibility of evolution to have happened. Believe what you will, whether we were planted by aliens, God, whatever. That side of it is irrelevant, because that discussion comes after the abundance of examples for a young earth is proven. The stats are not in evolutions favor, based on my research with these very specific examples. So while you look for a lack of positive evidence FOR creation..in my opinion, I start from the positive evidence AGAINST evolution....make sense?

When you say "young earth", how old do you think the earth is?

[Bobba Fett]

I don't think that's how most of us here see it. You can't prove his existence, but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist (sorry for the double negative). However, when you're arguing against evolution with creationism/ID as it's replacement...you will need significant negative evidence to overrule evolutionary theory due to the lack of positive evidence for creationism/ID.

Yes, but thats my point...a huge lack of positive evidence for the evolutionary theory. There will always be a "missing link" in the theory, so it's a shit pickle unless you 1.) Realize that something intelligent is behind it all (a combo of ID and evolutionary theory) or 2.) Point out that the missing link just hasn't been found yet. And in all honesty, I don't think it will ever be found.

[Way Cool Jr]

Yes, but thats my point...a huge lack of positive evidence for the evolutionary theory. There will always be a "missing link" in the theory, so it's a shit pickle unless you 1.) Realize that something intelligent is behind it all (a combo of ID and evolutionary theory) or 2.) Point out that the missing link just hasn't been found yet. And in all honesty, I don't think it will ever be found.


again....
The creationists’ fondness for “gaps” in the fossil record is a metaphor for their love of gaps in knowledge generally. Gaps, by default, are filled by God. You don’t know how the nerve impulse works? Good! You don’t understand how memories are laid down in the brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesis a bafflingly complex process? Wonderful! Please don’t go to work on the problem, just give up, and appeal to God. Dear scientist, don’t work on your mysteries. Bring us your mysteries for we can use them. Don’t squander precious ignorance by researching it away. Ignorance is God’s gift to Kansas.


Science may not have all the answers yet, but is always looking for the answer. Look back to the days of Columbus, people thought the world was flat. Science will eventually provide sufficient evidence to support the evolution theory.

[Phillystang]

Let's get back on topic,

no one has adequately explained how evolutionary processes know there is such thing as being able to dwell in the air

and second...

how do the processes begin to create appendages that are equipped for movement in the air in the absence of intellect or knowledge about the dynamics of air and the properties of flight?

[exlude]

Yes, but thats my point...a huge lack of positive evidence for the evolutionary theory. There will always be a "missing link" in the theory, so it's a shit pickle unless you 1.) Realize that something intelligent is behind it all (a combo of ID and evolutionary theory) or 2.) Point out that the missing link just hasn't been found yet. And in all honesty, I don't think it will ever be found.

For the millionth time, we have seen evolution happen. That's pretty good evidence, imo.

I don't believe there is a god. But I accept that possibility of there being something that guides evolution or set the events in place for evolution. But I strongly believe and have strong support for micro and macroevolution occuring.

[exlude]

Let's get back on topic,

no one has adequately explained how evolutionary processes know there is such thing as being able to dwell in the air

The concept of evolution is not intelligently driven. So this will partially address the second half of your quote. To superbly simplify it, it's all about niches in the habitat. It could be several rapid beneficial mutations or it could be a series of beneficial and irrelevant mutations that lead to flight, but if being able to fly lends the creature an advantage in terms of reproductive success (which it obviously does) then any mutations toward it are likely to be preserved over generations.

how do the processes begin to create appendages that are equipped for movement in the air in the absence of intellect or knowledge about the dynamics of air and the properties of flight?

Aerodynamics have much in common with hydrodynamics. In fact, most early wings were more of a modified fin. With slight changes and modifications in body density, it's very easy to see a theoretical switch from water to air, or water to land to air with relatively little genetic variation.

[exlude]

I understand what you are saying, but also understand, from MY point of view....I have volumes of books (scientific) that talk about the statistical impossibility of evolution to have happened. Believe what you will, whether we were planted by aliens, God, whatever. That side of it is irrelevant, because that discussion comes after the abundance of examples for a young earth is proven. The stats are not in evolutions favor, based on my research with these very specific examples. So while you look for a lack of positive evidence FOR creation..in my opinion, I start from the positive evidence AGAINST evolution....make sense?

Any book that talks about statistical impossibility is just plain silly. It's a fools argument. They may argue for improbability, that's feasible, but anyone telling you it's just plain impossible I would take a second glance out. There aren't many/any valid proofs of a young Earth, which all of these statistics are based on.

[Bobba Fett]

For the millionth time, we have seen evolution happen. That's pretty good evidence, imo.

I don't believe there is a god. But I accept that possibility of there being something that guides evolution or set the events in place for evolution. But I strongly believe and have strong support for micro and macroevolution occuring.

How can you say there is no God, yet say that you believe that something is guiding it???? Sounds to me like you want to try so hard to believe that there is no God or that God plays no part in your theory.

Seems to me that you have all the evidence on a scientific scale to believe that there is a possibility that something higher does exists, but there absolutely NO way that it is God??????


Science may not have all the answers yet, but is always looking for the answer. Look back to the days of Columbus, people thought the world was flat. Science will eventually provide sufficient evidence to support the evolution theory.

How can you say that??? They will continue to disprove/update/reverse upon the "theories"...nothing will ever be in stone. Show me one scientific theory that is in stone and will never change....just one...

[Way Cool Jr]

How can you say there is no God, yet say that you believe that something is guiding it???? Sounds to me like you want to try so hard to believe that there is no God or that God plays no part in your theory.

Seems to me that you have all the evidence on a scientific scale to believe that there is a possibility that something higher does exists, but there absolutely NO way that it is God??????



How can you say that??? They will continue to disprove/update/reverse upon the "theories"...nothing will ever be in stone. Show me one scientific theory that is in stone and will never change....just one...

Ok, first some definitions:
Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.


Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

For example, look back in time....it was a theory that the earth revolved around the sun. Until science was able to prove it with more evidence, it then became scientific law.

Example number two, the world was thought to be flat, Eratosthenes, calculated the Earth's radius around 1700 BC.He used the distance between two cities and the angle of the sun's rays made at midsummer at noon. His measurement turned out to be 15 percent too large, but still impressive, considering it was done over 2600 years ago. People simply refused to accept this conclusive evidence until almost 2000 years later when Magellan sailed around the world (Magellan was actually killed en route, but his crew completed the voyage.)

[jones4stangs]

The concept of evolution is not intelligently driven. So this will partially address the second half of your quote. To superbly simplify it, it's all about niches in the habitat. It could be several rapid beneficial mutations or it could be a series of beneficial and irrelevant mutations that lead to flight, but if being able to fly lends the creature an advantage in terms of reproductive success (which it obviously does) then any mutations toward it are likely to be preserved over generations.



Aerodynamics have much in common with hydrodynamics. In fact, most early wings were more of a modified fin. With slight changes and modifications in body density, it's very easy to see a theoretical switch from water to air, or water to land to air with relatively little genetic variation.
Good answers.

[exlude]

How can you say there is no God, yet say that you believe that something is guiding it???? Sounds to me like you want to try so hard to believe that there is no God or that God plays no part in your theory.

Seems to me that you have all the evidence on a scientific scale to believe that there is a possibility that something higher does exists, but there absolutely NO way that it is God??????

Double check what I said, I did NOT say I believe that there is something supernatural guiding evolution. However, I accept it as a possibility. That is outside the realm of science, though, as science deals with the natural (not supernatural). I try not to muddle discussions about evolution with discussions about God as I believe they are independent inquiries.

[Strychnine]

That's a great chart...except it doesn't make any freakin' sense. What are the numbers at the bottom??? 50 people, 50 million people?? :


The X axis is percent. Next to the country, you will see the number of people surveyed in that location.

For instance, in the US 1484 people were surveyed, ~40% believe in evolution, ~20% are unsure and ~40% do not believe it is true.

[JP135]

I come from the water
I crawled upon the shore
I left my brothers there
I got what I came for

I sucked that hot air in
And rolled upon the sand
Emerged beneath the sun
To be a man.

I come from the water
I come from the water
That weren't no easy thing
It's more than nature
It's like my destiny

I stood upon these legs
And held my head up high
Emerged beneath the sun
To start a new life

I Come From the water

Life in the desert
Just to be together
The sand forever
The same forever
It moves beneath me
It pulls my body
My pulse beats hotter
So far from the water

I love to see the sun
In spite of all it's done
I pray for shade and rain
I pray to live again
I come from the water

[Bobba Fett]

Double check what I said, I did NOT say I believe that there is something supernatural guiding evolution. However, I accept it as a possibility. That is outside the realm of science, though, as science deals with the natural (not supernatural). I try not to muddle discussions about evolution with discussions about God as I believe they are independent inquiries.

I'm not trying to start an argument with you, in fact your thoughts are pretty well layed out, and I have always enjoyed reading your input. I was just shinning some light on what you were saying.

[exlude]

I'm not trying to start an argument with you, in fact your thoughts are pretty well layed out, and I have always enjoyed reading your input. I was just shinning some light on what you were saying.

Oh, it's cool, I didn't take it that way. Just saying that I understand the possibility of God, but do not personally believe there to be one. I accept that I could change this belief or reinforce it. But there's no way to currently prove if there is or isn't one.

[jones4stangs]

Let's get back on topic,

no one has adequately explained how evolutionary processes know there is such thing as being able to dwell in the air

and second...

how do the processes begin to create appendages that are equipped for movement in the air in the absence of intellect or knowledge about the dynamics of air and the properties of flight?
News relavent to your question.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080123/sc_afp/scienceanimalsbirds&printer=1;_ylt=ArKLEQGlPdw3OiLd8X5e3jbQOrgF

Existing Ideas

In one corner are those who believe that birds, believed to be descendants of two-legged theropod dinosaurs, first scuttled along the ground and learnt that by flapping their proto-feathered wings, they could shelter in trees.

In the other are those who believe that birds first learnt how to glide, leaping from trees or cliffs, and thereafter extended this trick to powered flight by flapping their wings.

New Idea

Dial says that the relatively fixed angle of wing stroke .......

He argues that it is a basic feature shared by all flying birds, and there are critical changes in fossilised shoulder bones, among late theropod dinosaurs and early avians, to suggest how this change came about......

The investigators were surprised to find that the angles that the birds' wings made, relative to the ground, all lay within a very narrow range.

The range remained constant, regardless of the activity and age of the bird -- whether the bird was a fledgling that was running and flapping its wings, whether it was a juvenile, learning how to take off at near-vertical inclines, or whether it was an adult, able to glide and dive with ease.

The bird's body shifted position to accomplish its aerobatics but its wings were always pitched at roughly the same angle in relation to the ground. The angle of wing stroke fell within a narrow arc of only 19 degrees.

Way does this matter?

Dial says that in the flappers-vs-gliders debate, both theories rest on the assumption that birds with proto-feathers could at first glide, at least a little way, until they eventually gained the ability to beat their wings for locomotion.

But all the evidence among today's birds and on non-avian gliders suggests this: the gliding came later.

And it came only after birds were able to flap their wings the right way, a process that was probably much simpler than thought.

[Nestromo]

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/origins.html

[Casper]

Winged creatures exist in the fossil record before land-dwelling creatures.

Spin on that one for a little while.