Evolution: Land dwelling to flight - DFWstangs Forums
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 85 (permalink) Old 12-11-2007, 02:56 PM Thread Starter
Pilgrim
 
Phillystang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,086
Evolution: Land dwelling to flight

Can an evolutionist help explain to me the the process of wing development from land dwelling animals to animals of flight without a creator?
Phillystang is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 85 (permalink) Old 12-11-2007, 03:24 PM
lol, this place sucks now
 
ClockwrkOrangeS4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: DFWMustangs.net
Posts: 13,422
Only if a christian can explain the process of creating a winged creature from nothing
ClockwrkOrangeS4 is offline  
post #3 of 85 (permalink) Old 12-11-2007, 04:32 PM Thread Starter
Pilgrim
 
Phillystang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,086
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?
Phillystang is offline  
 
post #4 of 85 (permalink) Old 12-11-2007, 04:55 PM
Secular Dogooderist
 
Zarathustra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Hive
Posts: 3,031
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?

Thus Spoke Zarathustra
---
This will help everyone out, check it.
It is time we acknowledged a basic feature of human discourse: when considering the truth of a proposition, one is either engaged in an honest appraisal of the evidence and logical arguments, or one is not. Religion is the one area of our lives where people imagine that some other standard of intellectual integrity applies.
-Sam Harris
Zarathustra is offline  
post #5 of 85 (permalink) Old 12-11-2007, 04:59 PM Thread Starter
Pilgrim
 
Phillystang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadLXHB302
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?
Phillystang is offline  
post #6 of 85 (permalink) Old 12-11-2007, 05:07 PM
lol, this place sucks now
 
ClockwrkOrangeS4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: DFWMustangs.net
Posts: 13,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillystang
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.
ClockwrkOrangeS4 is offline  
post #7 of 85 (permalink) Old 12-11-2007, 08:10 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
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."

05 GT Torch Red C&L CAI, Diablo 93 tune, BMR LCR's & UCR, Pro 5.0, S UDP, Mac
<a href="http://giftube.com/"><img src="http://giftube.com/gifs/1016.gif" alt=""></a><br/><a style="padding:3px;background: transparent;color:#00ADEF;font-family:tahoma;font-size:10px;font-weight:bold;text-decoration:none;" href="http://giftube.com/" target="_blank">Gifs at Giftube.com </a>
jones4stangs is offline  
post #8 of 85 (permalink) Old 12-11-2007, 08:14 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
Maybe its because they wanted to eat the insects flying around.

05 GT Torch Red C&L CAI, Diablo 93 tune, BMR LCR's & UCR, Pro 5.0, S UDP, Mac
<a href="http://giftube.com/"><img src="http://giftube.com/gifs/1016.gif" alt=""></a><br/><a style="padding:3px;background: transparent;color:#00ADEF;font-family:tahoma;font-size:10px;font-weight:bold;text-decoration:none;" href="http://giftube.com/" target="_blank">Gifs at Giftube.com </a>
jones4stangs is offline  
post #9 of 85 (permalink) Old 12-12-2007, 03:01 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by jones4stangs
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.

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #10 of 85 (permalink) Old 12-12-2007, 03:07 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianC
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?
FSON is offline  
post #11 of 85 (permalink) Old 12-12-2007, 03:11 PM
He's no good to me dead.
 
Bobba Fett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fett's vette
Posts: 716
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClockwrkOrangeS4
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...
Bobba Fett is offline  
post #12 of 85 (permalink) Old 12-12-2007, 03:35 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by FSON
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?

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #13 of 85 (permalink) Old 12-12-2007, 03:38 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobba Fett
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...

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #14 of 85 (permalink) Old 12-13-2007, 10:17 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianC
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?

05 GT Torch Red C&L CAI, Diablo 93 tune, BMR LCR's & UCR, Pro 5.0, S UDP, Mac
<a href="http://giftube.com/"><img src="http://giftube.com/gifs/1016.gif" alt=""></a><br/><a style="padding:3px;background: transparent;color:#00ADEF;font-family:tahoma;font-size:10px;font-weight:bold;text-decoration:none;" href="http://giftube.com/" target="_blank">Gifs at Giftube.com </a>
jones4stangs is offline  
post #15 of 85 (permalink) Old 12-13-2007, 12:32 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by jones4stangs
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.

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #16 of 85 (permalink) Old 12-13-2007, 12:45 PM
You lookin' at mah EYE?!
 
DarkWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 8,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianC
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?

DarkWolf
Graphic Design / Photography / Web Design
DarkWolf is offline  
post #17 of 85 (permalink) Old 12-13-2007, 01:28 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianC
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.
FSON is offline  
post #18 of 85 (permalink) Old 12-13-2007, 02:51 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkWolf
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.

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #19 of 85 (permalink) Old 12-13-2007, 03:00 PM
You lookin' at mah EYE?!
 
DarkWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 8,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianC
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.

DarkWolf
Graphic Design / Photography / Web Design
DarkWolf is offline  
post #20 of 85 (permalink) Old 12-13-2007, 04:12 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkWolf
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.

05 GT Torch Red C&L CAI, Diablo 93 tune, BMR LCR's & UCR, Pro 5.0, S UDP, Mac
<a href="http://giftube.com/"><img src="http://giftube.com/gifs/1016.gif" alt=""></a><br/><a style="padding:3px;background: transparent;color:#00ADEF;font-family:tahoma;font-size:10px;font-weight:bold;text-decoration:none;" href="http://giftube.com/" target="_blank">Gifs at Giftube.com </a>
jones4stangs is offline  
post #21 of 85 (permalink) Old 12-16-2007, 06:50 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkWolf
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...

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #22 of 85 (permalink) Old 12-17-2007, 12:14 PM
He's no good to me dead.
 
Bobba Fett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fett's vette
Posts: 716
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.
Bobba Fett is offline  
post #23 of 85 (permalink) Old 12-17-2007, 12:22 PM
Frequent Flyer
 
AdamLX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Frisco, TX
Posts: 9,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
AdamLX is offline  
post #24 of 85 (permalink) Old 12-17-2007, 12:29 PM
He's no good to me dead.
 
Bobba Fett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fett's vette
Posts: 716
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamLX
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.
Bobba Fett is offline  
post #25 of 85 (permalink) Old 12-17-2007, 02:16 PM
Rhabdomyolysis anyone?
 
flashstang04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobba Fett
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.

Crossfit.com <--- no wimps allowed
flashstang04 is offline  
post #26 of 85 (permalink) Old 12-17-2007, 03:12 PM Thread Starter
Pilgrim
 
Phillystang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamLX
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.
Phillystang is offline  
post #27 of 85 (permalink) Old 12-17-2007, 03:15 PM
He's no good to me dead.
 
Bobba Fett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fett's vette
Posts: 716
So have we stopped evolving?
Bobba Fett is offline  
post #28 of 85 (permalink) Old 12-17-2007, 03:17 PM
not exclude
 
exlude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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 is offline  
post #29 of 85 (permalink) Old 12-17-2007, 03:18 PM
not exclude
 
exlude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobba Fett
So have we stopped evolving?
Do Africans so much as look the same as North Americans? Do they both have the same health susceptibilities?
exlude is offline  
post #30 of 85 (permalink) Old 12-17-2007, 03:26 PM
He's no good to me dead.
 
Bobba Fett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fett's vette
Posts: 716
Quote:
Originally Posted by exlude
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 is offline  
post #31 of 85 (permalink) Old 12-17-2007, 03:32 PM
He's no good to me dead.
 
Bobba Fett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fett's vette
Posts: 716
Also, let me make it clear that I am NO expert by any means on evolution, hence all the questions.
Bobba Fett is offline  
post #32 of 85 (permalink) Old 12-17-2007, 03:47 PM
Rhabdomyolysis anyone?
 
flashstang04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobba Fett
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.

Crossfit.com <--- no wimps allowed
flashstang04 is offline  
post #33 of 85 (permalink) Old 12-17-2007, 03:50 PM
He's no good to me dead.
 
Bobba Fett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fett's vette
Posts: 716
Quote:
Originally Posted by flashstang04
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?
Bobba Fett is offline  
post #34 of 85 (permalink) Old 12-17-2007, 04:16 PM
not exclude
 
exlude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobba Fett
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.

Last edited by exlude; 12-17-2007 at 04:23 PM.
exlude is offline  
post #35 of 85 (permalink) Old 12-17-2007, 04:21 PM
not exclude
 
exlude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobba Fett
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.
exlude is offline  
post #36 of 85 (permalink) Old 12-17-2007, 04:22 PM
Rhabdomyolysis anyone?
 
flashstang04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by exlude
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.

Crossfit.com <--- no wimps allowed
flashstang04 is offline  
post #37 of 85 (permalink) Old 12-17-2007, 04:24 PM
not exclude
 
exlude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by flashstang04
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.
exlude is offline  
post #38 of 85 (permalink) Old 12-17-2007, 04:32 PM
Rhabdomyolysis anyone?
 
flashstang04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,224
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.

Crossfit.com <--- no wimps allowed
flashstang04 is offline  
post #39 of 85 (permalink) Old 12-17-2007, 04:39 PM
Rhabdomyolysis anyone?
 
flashstang04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by exlude

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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by exlude
but it was very blunt, conclusive, inconsiderate misinformation all the same

..

Crossfit.com <--- no wimps allowed
flashstang04 is offline  
post #40 of 85 (permalink) Old 12-17-2007, 04:41 PM
not exclude
 
exlude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,838
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 is offline  
post #41 of 85 (permalink) Old 12-17-2007, 04:43 PM
not exclude
 
exlude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by flashstang04
..
Swing and a miss.
exlude is offline  
post #42 of 85 (permalink) Old 12-17-2007, 04:44 PM
Rhabdomyolysis anyone?
 
flashstang04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by exlude
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.

Crossfit.com <--- no wimps allowed
flashstang04 is offline  
post #43 of 85 (permalink) Old 12-17-2007, 04:45 PM
Rhabdomyolysis anyone?
 
flashstang04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?

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

Crossfit.com <--- no wimps allowed
flashstang04 is offline  
post #44 of 85 (permalink) Old 12-17-2007, 04:47 PM
Rhabdomyolysis anyone?
 
flashstang04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,224
btw, off topic.... I dig you signature

Crossfit.com <--- no wimps allowed
flashstang04 is offline  
post #45 of 85 (permalink) Old 12-17-2007, 04:49 PM
not exclude
 
exlude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by flashstang04
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 is offline  
post #46 of 85 (permalink) Old 12-17-2007, 04:52 PM
not exclude
 
exlude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by flashstang04
btw, off topic.... I dig you signature

'Preciate it. From 1SG Ott over the Army Special Forces Assessment and Selection Course to SF candidates.
exlude is offline  
post #47 of 85 (permalink) Old 12-17-2007, 05:45 PM
Frequent Flyer
 
AdamLX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Frisco, TX
Posts: 9,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by flashstang04
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.
AdamLX is offline  
post #48 of 85 (permalink) Old 12-17-2007, 08:30 PM
Rhabdomyolysis anyone?
 
flashstang04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamLX
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.

Crossfit.com <--- no wimps allowed
flashstang04 is offline  
post #49 of 85 (permalink) Old 12-17-2007, 08:57 PM
not exclude
 
exlude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by flashstang04
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?
exlude is offline  
post #50 of 85 (permalink) Old 12-17-2007, 09:31 PM
Frequent Flyer
 
AdamLX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Frisco, TX
Posts: 9,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by flashstang04
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.
AdamLX is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the DFWstangs Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome