• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • CFN welcomes new contributing members!

    Please welcome Roberto and Julia to our family

    Blessings in Christ, and hope you stay awhile!

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

[_ Old Earth _] A Robotic Hummingbird?

Pizzaguy

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
2,907
Reaction score
6
Oh, why not!

View attachment 1806

(PhysOrg.com) -- A prototype robot spy "ornithopter," the Nano-Hummingbird, has successfully completed flight trials in California. Developed by the company AeroVironment Inc., the miniature spybot looks like a hummingbird complete with flapping wings, and is only slightly larger and heavier than most hummingbirds, but smaller than the largest species.

Manager of the project, Matt Keennon, said it had been a challenge to design and build the spybot because it “pushes the limitations of aerodynamics.†The specifications given to the firm by the Pentagon included being able to hover in an 8 km/h wind gust and being able to fly in and out of buildings via a normal door.

The spybot was developed for the US military's research arm, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). The hummingbird appearance is intended to disguise the bot, although it would look decidedly out of place and would attract attention in most places in the world since hummingbirds are not found outside of the Americas.


DARPA's head of the Nano Air Vehicles (NAV) program. Dr Todd Hylton, said the successful flight tests pave the way for new vehicles that resemble small birds and match their agility. The new drone is a departure from existing NAVs, which in the past have always resembled helicopters or planes.



http: //www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-robot-hummingbird-flight-video.html
(Again, remove the spaces when you copy and paste into your browser)
 
A Real Humming Bird:

THE HUMMING BIRD

To anybody with a soul, humming birds – little as most are - must surely rank with the butterflies as being among the most beautiful creatures on the planet. Just look at those beautiful, iridescent colours, on this picture below which is but a poor reflection of the real thing.

I’ve watched them hovering at the throats of Ixora flowers, at Hibiscus flowers and at various trumpet-shaped flowers, seeking and sipping the nectar the flowers may contain.

It is a most astonishing sight to the non-hardened observer – because these little birds are nothing if not unique.

They fly forward like almost all other birds. They hover like seagulls, some terns, kestrels and others of that family.

So far, so good.

Then they add the miraculous to their already spectacular accomplishments.

They fly backwards. Some even fly upside down!

No other bird can do this. Some insects do, but birds? No. Here is a diagram showing the different wing movements in the various flight patterns:

Source: http://www.mschloe.com/hummer/huminfo.htm#anatomy

What is even more remarkable (from an evolutionary POV), is the fact that the earliest humming bird fossil is easily distinguishable as such. It can be classified right down to the genus Eurotrochilus which is a genus of modern humming birds. It therefore follows that this earliest specimen (details here: SpringerLink - Naturwissenschaften, Volume 95, Number 2) was able to fly backwards! So there is no question of evolution having occurred. It quite simply didn’t.

In the human world, VTOL aircraft, like the Harrier Jumpjet, and helicopters can hover and fly backwards – but they are extraordinary examples of intelligent design by intelligent designers.

I very much doubt if any hardened evolutionist would dare to put his shirt on the line by claiming that a Harrier or a Sikorsky was the product of an explosion in a junkyard, or some other ridiculous scenario. The aircraft manufacturers would have the shirt off their backs in no time flat for malicious and libellous statements.

Now here we have the little humming bird.

It spots a likely flower, and goes visiting. It flies to the mouth of the flower, performs what seems to be an inspection while hovering there, little wings doing a hundred to the dozen. It’s an amazing sight.

Then, it flies forward by a distance limited by the length of its beak and the depth of the flower, inserting it to the base of the flower where the nectar usually pools, sucks up the nectar, THEN FLIES BACKWARD OUT OF THE FLOWER, and goes to another flower or goes home.

If you see this frequently, then it becomes commonplace – which is a great pity, because miraculous a feat as it is, it represents the most stupendous piece of evolutionary problem-creation it is possible to imagine.

The very fact that there are so few human examples of backward-flight capable aircraft shows how difficult a problem it was to invent such machines. So many aerodynamic and propulsion problems had to be solved before such craft could fly! Yet, brainless evolution is alleged to have solved all the problems involved here: and we won’t mention the fact that the bird can reproduce itself with ease.

Anatomical Problems

In the case of the humming bird, the articulation of the shoulder joint is completely different to that of other birds.

From this description of them (wiki) you will immediately see the vast differences which exist:

Hummingbirds have many skeletal and flight muscle adaptations which allow the bird great agility in flight. Muscles make up 25-30% of their body weight, and they have long, blade-like wings that, unlike the wings of other birds, connect to the body only from the shoulder joint. This adaptation allows the wing to rotate almost 180°, enabling the bird to fly not only forward but fly backwards, and to hover in front of flowers as it feeds on nectar and insects.

The shoulder joint allows 180 degree movement of the wings. The elbow and wrist joints are fused and cannot bend – so the blade-like shape of the wing is retained permanently. The wings, like those of the bats, are formed from what we would call the hands:

Hummingbirds fly with their hands. The upper arm and forearm bones are very short, and the elbow and wrist joints can't move. The shoulder joint to which the wing attaches can move in all directions plus rotate about 180 degrees. Hummingbirds don't flap their wings, they fly with their hands. Hummingbirds fly with their bodies held upright, not flat like most birds.
http://www.mschloe.com/hummer/huminfo.htm#flight

If you look at the following diagram, you will see that the normal bird wing is powered by two muscles which are attached to the humerus (the bone that in our arms, runs from the elbow to the shoulder). One pulls the wing up, the other pulls it down.

Look back at the diagram of the humming bird wing. You will see that the humerus is arranged entirely differently to that of the normal bird. The elbow joint is fused, so it can’t really move, while in the normal bird it is flexible - necessarily so - and so is the wrist joint. Only the hand moves.

The logical question to ask, is: how did the humming bird wing evolve from the normal wing? No intermediate steps are possible. The humming bird clearly has a very highly specialised wing, and if evolution did take place, it came about as a modification of the less specialised, normal bird’s wing, if there is indeed such a thing.

But as you can clearly see, it could not happen. All the intermediates would have been unable to fly while the process was taking place. While the elbow and wrist joints were becoming fused, no flight at all was possible. Imagine a cricketer whose elbow and wrist joints became fused, by some disease, arthritis, maybe. How much cricket could he play while that was going on? None, I submit.

In the case of the proto-humming bird, death and extinction would have supervened while that was going on, because it couldn’t fly and therefore couldn’t feed – so another evolutionary brick wall stares us in the face.

The beat of the wings is in most humming birds, extremely rapid.

Small hummingbirds beat their wings 38-78 times a second, larger hummingbirds 18-28 times a second.

Changing that to per minute figures show that those range from 1080 to 4680 times per minute! The fastest helicopter blade rotation I’ve seen mentioned is 500 rpm, but there are doubtless faster ones.

Quite incredible, really.

The Instincts Required

All this wonderful piece of wizardry is entirely useless without the powering instincts which are an absolute requirement – not optional extras.

Suppose we put a pilot who had no training in the operation of a Harrier jump jet, and told him to fly the plane backwards, or he’d be shot out of hand. Death and disaster would surely be the consequence. Even worse is the scenario where he had no flight training whatsoever. He probably wouldn’t even get off the ground.

Now imagine the scene one sunny morning when the first bird hatched out from the reptile egg or whatever.

It’s got wings on its back, feathers, and the one-way respiration system unique to all birds. Everything, in fact, needed to fly.

But in its head, it is still a reptile. It has no clue as to what it should do with these wings.

So it jumps off a tree or a cliff – and promptly breaks its arm, leg or neck in that order, and gets eaten by its forebears.

I’m sure you can see that the flight instincts are an absolute requirement – AND THEY HAD TO BE THERE RIGHT FROM THE WORD ‘GO’! Complete, entire, perfect and faultless. Extinction is the price of their absence. Ask all those pre-Kitty Hawk flyers! If you can dig ‘em up!

But there’s an evolutionary problem.

How does this intangible instinct get into any genome? All birds have forward-flying flight instincts in there somewhere, but where? And how did they get there?

And to add insult to injury, here are these humming birds flying BACKWARDS.

Explanations please?

PS Apologies for not being able to upload the images required. Anybody know how?​
 
Good afternoon[smile].
Asyncritus, um,...why did you choose an animal that has evolved into a multitude of different species[17 different species in North America alone.]over 30 million+ years as the inspiration of your anti-evolution post? I am assuming that you actually took the time to study up on your subject animal before you declared that humming Bird evolution was an impossibility[ About these avians..."So there is no question of evolution having occurred. I quite simply didn't"-You].

Also, as you undoubtedly took the time to become familiar with the subject that you are trying to criticize[....sympathetic smile....],you must then understand that comments about evolutionists like "I very much doubt if any hardened evolutionist would dare put his shirt on the line by claiming that a Harrier or a Sikorsky was the product of an explosion in a junkyard." seem rather odd.
After all, any evolutionists that has actually studied evolution knows for a fact that this is a horribly unrealistic analogy of how evolution works, so of course they wouldn't make such a ridiculous claim[grin]. Especially one involving inanimate, unnatural, objects that are not alive and able to reproduce. Any Middle School-level biology class student should know that.Your thoughts?
 
man i wish that there was a synthetic life form from ai. ie replicators that were on this forum.

given what i posted in another thread, green man , can you honeslty say that this bird was by that same process? if evolution is so slow then where are all the failed adaptations that didnt make it? surely mutations have to be eliminated.

what are the odds of one gene being different and somehow a limb or what not is produced and the creature also using that, and not just them, but the mates as well.
 
Evolution: Library: Hummingbird Species in the Transitional Zones

Hummingbird Species in the Transitional Zones

spacer.gif
spacer.gif
The hummingbirds that live on the east slope of the Andes Mountains in Ecuador have adapted to a range of habitats, from steamy lowland rainforest to windswept alpine meadows. Biologists Smith and Schneider, studying the differences between these adjacent populations, are finding that natural selection in different ecological niches has pushed the birds down different evolutionary paths and created new species, even though the populations have not been isolated from each other geographically.
Credits: © 2001 WGBH Educational Foundation and Clear Blue Sky Productions, Inc. All rights reserved.
spacer.gif
l_052_04_m.jpg
spacer.gif
View in:
QuickTime | RealPlayer
spacer.gif
Resource Type:
Video
spacer.gif
Format:
QuickTime or RealPlayer

spacer.gif
Length:
3 min, 49 sec

spacer.gif
Topics Covered:
Evolution of Diversity
Backgrounder
spacer.gif
spacer.gif
Hummingbird Species in the Transitional Zones:
spacer.gif
spacer.gif
The hummingbird study that Tom Smith and Chris Schneider are conducting in Ecuador is part of a much larger research program spanning three continents. Evolutionary biologists are fanning out and tramping through varying ecosystems in Africa, Australia, and South America, catching and meticulously describing the animals that live there. It's a new venture aimed at answering an old question, one that underlies all of evolutionary science: What drives the formation of new species?

The prevailing theory goes back almost 60 years, to when biologist Ernst Mayr of Harvard University proposed the "reproductive isolation" theory. When a population of, say, lizards or birds becomes divided by geographical barriers, small changes over time will alter the genetic makeup of the separated groups. Eventually, they differ enough that, should they encounter each other again, they can no longer interbreed. The offshoot group has become a new species.

But in recent years an even older, contrasting view dating back to Darwin has been gaining ground. The globe-trotting biologists are discovering an intriguing pattern: In many places, species appear to have emerged at the transition zones between different ecosystems, without ever being geographically cut off from the parent stock. They are examples of how natural selection can act through ecological differences to spawn new species.

The Andean hummingbirds are not an isolated case. The force of ecology has also been studied in the leaf-litter skink, a small lizard found in Australia. Two populations living close to each other but in different ecosystems show in their DNA that they're genetically distinct. Chris Schneider figured out that the two populations had adapted to different ecosystems -- one an open forest and the adjacent one a closed rainforest.

The open forest lizards are smaller, have shorter limbs and bigger heads, and become sexually mature earlier. The reason: Predator birds more easily pick off lizards in the open forest, so the skinks there have evolved to reproduce earlier, generating offspring before they become a bird's dinner. The genetic differences, shaped by selection, have produced two distinct species living next to each other.

And the converse can be true: Populations separated by geography but living in similar environments may be almost indistinguishable. Says Schneider: "Time and isolation alone don't necessarily result in new morphologies -- whereas a new environment does."
 
Good afternoon[smile].
Asyncritus, um,...why did you choose an animal that has evolved into a multitude of different species[17 different species in North America alone.]over 30 million+ years as the inspiration of your anti-evolution post? I am assuming that you actually took the time to study up on your subject animal before you declared that humming Bird evolution was an impossibility[ About these avians..."So there is no question of evolution having occurred. I quite simply didn't"-You].

Green Man, you misunderstood me. I'm not saying that humming bird evolution was impossible. I am saying that ALL avian evolution is impossible. The humming bird is merely one tip of the iceberg.

Birds simply could not have evolved from anything else, and flying backwards is divinely designed to add insult to evolutionary injury.

Let me illustrate what I mean.

I will grant you that a reptile laid an egg one day which hatched out as a perfectly formed bird. (That was Goldschmidt's idea of the Hopeful Monster, not mine - and things haven't changed much since then as far as accounting for the origin of birds is concerned.

We will ignore the unpleasant facts like a scale becoming about 10 different types of feathers on birds today.

We will completely ignore the fact that the reptile lung, which is a bellows type lung like ours, somehow, miraculously, in the birds, became a one-way lung and associated air sacs, with air going INTO the lungs on EXHALATION. Did you know that? No, perhaps not.

We will ignore the origin of the lightweight bone structure of the bird as compared with the blocks-of-concrete-type of bones in the reptiles.

We will ignore the fact that the bird has the highest rate of metabolism in the animal kingdom, and is warm-blooded, while the reptiles are the exact oposite of all that.

Let's grant you all that, as with a wave of the EMW (Evolutionary Magic Wand), you produce, from reptilian parents, a BIRD.

It has hatched out, fully-fledged from the reptile egg and is there blinking in the sunshine.

What happens?

Well, in it's little head, it is still a reptile. It looks in astonishment at it's beautiful feathers, and this new thing called a wing. And it says to itself: 'D--uHHHH. What the hell do I do with these things?'

'Ah there's a nice cliff. I'll leap off.'

So it does.

But it doesn't KNOW HOW TO FLY. It has not got the FLIGHT INSTINCTS required to power its new equipment. It hasn't got the parents to fly under it and hold it up.

So just what does it do? I'll tell you. It flaps its legs, waves the wings about helplessly and breaks its neck, legs and back as it hits the ground, at a terminal velocity of about 70 mph.

End of story.

We have a serious problem, Houston. That ground is approaching rather fast!!! Can you help?

Also, as you undoubtedly took the time to become familiar with the subject that you are trying to criticize[....sympathetic smile....],you must then understand that comments about evolutionists like "I very much doubt if any hardened evolutionist would dare put his shirt on the line by claiming that a Harrier or a Sikorsky was the product of an explosion in a junkyard." seem rather odd.
After all, any evolutionists that has actually studied evolution knows for a fact that this is a horribly unrealistic analogy of how evolution works, so of course they wouldn't make such a ridiculous claim[grin]. Especially one involving inanimate, unnatural, objects that are not alive and able to reproduce. Any Middle School-level biology class student should know that.Your thoughts?
Heh heh heh. :lol

What I do know, GM, is that anything unfavourable to the Great Theory is marked as ridiculous.

I note that you have not even attempted to account for the origin of anything. You assumed that an h-b existed, and 'diverged' into n
different species.

We are not discussing that point.

We are discussing the question of where the first (note that word!) flight-capable, hover-capable, reverse-flight-capable Eurotrochilus came from, fully equipped with all of the necessary flight instincts.

Remember, Eurotrochilus inexpectatus is the first fossil humming bird, identifiable right down to the genus level, a modern genus, extant today, please note.

How do you account for the fact that a modern h-b appeared, fully formed, in the fossil record, 30 - 40 million years ago? With no visible ancestors. And don't even mention the poverty of the fossil record.

Not allowed, or even correct.

I know. It woz evolution wot did it. Right? Right! :toofunny

Reference:

And it's a warm, tropical environment that just may have supported ancient hummingbirds. Today, all 350 modern species of hummingbirds are found only in the Americas. But bird enthusiasts and scientists alike were amazed when a 30- to 34-million-year-old fossil hummingbird was discovered in Germany several years ago and reported by Steadman's colleague, Gerald Mayr, of the Senckenberg Museum in Frankfurt.

"It was a shock out of the blue that this earliest hummingbird was from Europe," Steadman said. "There had been virtually no fossil record for hummingbirds beyond 15,000 years ago, and the fossil from Europe was at least 30 million years old. While a primitive species, it was definitely a hummingbird."

This ancient bird, named Eurotrochilus inexpectatus, which means "unexpected European hummingbird," was not as efficient as modern hummers at flying or feeding because it had relatively larger legs but a shorter bill and wings...

Hunting Fossil Hummingbirds in Florida - FLMNH Science Stories

Heh heh heh...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Good evening everyone[smile].
Asyncritus, it is good to hear from you,...I have been waiting.
You seem to have some very strange ideas[which sadly, are not uncommon among the majority of the common public. Then again, most common people know next to nothing about anything that they don't personally work with/hear about within their day to day lives.]about what evolution is and how it works. Your statements sound much like those made by the ex-actor Kirk Cameron[I am not saying that you sound as willfully ignorant and uneducated as Kirk Cameron does, what with his talk about the "Croco-Duck" and other such nonsense, just that there seems to be a remarkable similarity. You can look him up on Youtube videos to see what I mean, if you don't know what I'm talking about.].
So you actually think that all Avian evolution is impossible now?
Why? According to whom/what falsifiable scientific data that has been subjected to peer-review? That is a very bold assertion to make, do you not think? Perhaps this is simply the result of your misunderstandings on how evolution works and the evidences that confirm it. I can help you with this if you wish[or...you could just...go to a public library and read books on the subject. This knowledge is free and easily accessible to the public, you know. Just be sure that those books are from a modern, peer-reviewed, scientific source.]. I must go for now, to goof off and have fun, but I shall gladly return to finish addressing your post sometime tomorrow.

As a final thought for me to leave you with this evening before I go, you still didn't tell me/us the good logic behind how using a type of bird that has evolved into roughly 340 different species within 30+ million years of time is supposed to support your idea that Avians as a whole have never evolved, especially since you made a point of drawing attention to a prehistoric ancestor like Eurotrochilus inexpectatus[which is a lot like trying to present Sarcosuchus or Deinosuchus(Phobosuchus), and then use this reality to claim that modern Crocodilians didn't evolve. Of COURSE a modern species of Humming Bird is related to Eurotrochilus inexpectatus, EVERY species of modern-day Humming Bird is, because that's how evolution works. And with over 340+ different species["It looks just like a *modern* Humming Bird!" Oh? Well which one?:-)]of Humming Birds in existence today, is it really any wonder that you might be able to find one that this prehistoric Humming Bird somewhat resembles;).].
Sometime tomorrow, then. Please be patient. It will be fun!
 
OK!

But whatever you do, don't miss out on 'how Eurotrochilus#1 evolved, and from what'!
 
Just to clarify your difficulties.

Species X-- aaa-->Y----->Z -----> Eurotrochilus inexpectatis

Let's say that X could not fly backwards, but that strange habit arose in species Y.

With me so far?

OK.

So what happened at aaa?

Let's ignore, for the present, the fact that the humming bird flies with its HANDS, not its arms as every other bird. (Just BTW, do you think that the h-b's evolved from the bats, or vice versa since BOTH FLY WITH THEIR HANDS?)

Note well, and remember it well, that the REAL question is: where did Y get it's flight INSTINCTS which allow it to fly backwards?

Houston, don't desert us now....
 
Good morning[smile].
[In the voice of Anthony Hopkins character "Hannibal Lector"]
I typed a huge post to you yesterday covering allllll of your mistakes and straw-man arguments against your fantasy of what you THINK science and evolution is[instead of what science and evolution actually is, how it works, and what it predicts], but unfortunately, the website's program apparently decided that I took too long typing it all out and wouldn't let me present it[rolls eyes and throws hands up into the sky].
SO, this time I'll just keep things as simple as I can and remind you that, since you are the one making the wild unconventional claims about how Avians never evolved, that The Burden of Proof is upon you, not I.
It would also be great if you would actually answer my questions...preferably with some actual scientific evidences to support yourself[As you seem to be in the habit of ignoring any and all questions and scientific evidences that poke holes in your theological-based fantasies/irrelevant rhetoric involving science, I expect you to just continue ignoring them and "Gish-gallop" all over the board, but there's always hope, right?].
As I understand that complying with this will force you to do some actual work that you may be unaccustomed to, I'll wait a few days.
Good luck Asyncritus[smile].
 
Good morning[smile].
[In the voice of Anthony Hopkins character "Hannibal Lector"]
I typed a huge post to you yesterday covering allllll of your mistakes and straw-man arguments against your fantasy of what you THINK science and evolution is[instead of what science and evolution actually is, how it works, and what it predicts], but unfortunately, the website's program apparently decided that I took too long typing it all out and wouldn't let me present it[rolls eyes and throws hands up into the sky].

I think you got this wrong GM. It's me that eats evolutionary lambs!

SO, this time I'll just keep things as simple as I can and remind you that, since you are the one making the wild unconventional claims about how Avians never evolved, that The Burden of Proof is upon you, not I.
Excuse me, it was Darwin who said that the birds evolved from the reptiles. That's where the burden of proof lies. With the evolutionists, who insist on supporting the insupportable.

It would also be great if you would actually answer my questions...preferably with some actual scientific evidences to support yourself[As you seem to be in the habit of ignoring any and all questions and scientific evidences that poke holes in your theological-based fantasies/irrelevant rhetoric involving science, I expect you to just continue ignoring them and "Gish-gallop" all over the board, but there's always hope, right?].
Hang on a minute. I posted the humming bird article - it contains facts that you or anyone else can easily check if you feel like doing some work. I wouldn't bother, because it's all accurate, but go ahead and check if you like.

There is not a fantasy in that article. If there is, I'd be obliged if you would point it out, so that I can correct it.

I think if I were an evolutionist, I'd be having nightmares thinking of that little bird flying with its HANDS, and going backwards. Don't you see the problem?

You say you like Natural History. Go out there and see some h-b's in action: forward, hover, backwards, AND upside down.

Now ask yourself, how did that ever come about by chance?

As I understand that complying with this will force you to do some actual work that you may be unaccustomed to, I'll wait a few days.
I'll pretend I didn't hear that.
 
Good evening[smile].
I just thought that I'd pop in here for a moment on the off chance that you had actually contributed something scientific to support your assertions, but...no.
So, you won't or can't address my questions with real scientific evidences to support your claim, Mr. "I'm still going to keep using a type of bird that's evolved into 340+ different species to prove my fantasy that all Avians never evolve.....somehow...just because they can fly really well and fly with their "hands" the way a Chimney Swift does".
I was at your blog last night. It's..amusing[smile].
You have no actual understanding of what modern evolution teaches, and seem to not understand how evolution even works[ or apparently what The Burden of Proof is, assuming that you aren't just lying, that is]. Examples? Your continued mention of your belief that modern evolutionary scientists teach of birds evolving from lizards/cold-blooded reptiles[they came from Dinosaurs, of which twenty different Genera had feathers long before the first "true bird" even came into existence. We've learned an awful lot on this subject since the 1990's;)], and that foolish remark you just made about Charles Darwin, as if modern science hasn't progressed in 200 years[Using a criticism of Darwin's beliefs/work to debunk modern science is akin to trying to criticize modern Physicists using mistakes that Sir Issac Newton made. Not very intellectually honest OR smart of you, Asyncritus, and everyone who understands science can recognize it.:shame].
What you are trying to criticize about evolution is naught but your own fantasy of what evolution is and how evolutionists think/teach. I think this stems from your ignorance and illogical bias of the subject. Bird feathers and reptile scales,...hollow and solid bird bones,....all of your criticisms, real of imaginary, have already been addressed and explained or debunked by real science, some of them decades ago, which you should have already taken the time to discover before you're second post here.

"Now ask yourself, how did that ever come about by chance?"
An appeal to complexity based upon your ignorance of how the processes of Natural Selection works? You should well already know that scientists never claim to know everything about everything, and that aside, there is more that sufficient evidences to confirm Avian evolution without having to know all the minute details of how Humming Birds or some insects became such skilled fliers[I'd like to see you try the same argument using some animal that wasn't ascetically pleasing to behold or delicately formed in some way.].
Can you scientifically explain why all mammals in Australia are Marsupials, but those upon the mainland aren't? Evolution can.
What do you have this crazy bias against evolution? Just for shallow theological reasons? Do you find it offensive knowing that you're just another member of the animal kingdom?I'll give you some more time to think about things and try and explain yourself.
Have a good evening, and good luck.:)
 
Hi GM

Did you read my previous post?

Can I have some answers please?

Thanks

Asyncritus
 
Your mind must be continuously soothed by the balm of denial, Asyncritus.:lol You may as well stop trying to dodge the questions and projecting your problems onto other people, as if we can't all see and understand what's going on here.
I'll be back here much later to see if you're ready to provide anything scientifically verifiable to support your claims...this time.
Just so you know, if you CAN'T, then it's o.k. you know. Just stop acting as if you can. You know, it's not as if I see this as some sort of a 'contest' between Christian Creationism and science, or something. I just noticed that you were making a lot of mistakes and was trying to help you. If you'd rather remain willfully ignorant about modern evolutionary science and what modern scientists/well informed evolutionists think, then that's fine with me. Your personal beliefs don't effect me or scientific discovery in the slightest.
Have a good day[smile].
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi GM

Did you read my previous post?

Can I have some answers please?

Thanks

Asyncritus

Hi GM

Please, I have asked 2 main questions, and they still remain unanswered, both here, and on my blog.

1 How did the flight instincts arise?

2 How did they enter the genome?

The anatomical questions about the wing of the h-b can wait.

Now can you please provide some kind of answer? There's a good chap.
 
why is it that evo defenders bite us and others that dont buy evolution? and yet understand it fully?

case in point what has transpired above? and also to these athiests who say we aint a seeing it and they arent creationists and deny God.

jerry fodor and the afformention book what darwin got wrong. yes i'm sure he made mistakes. but he has quotes and references in that book.

Jerry Fodor: Still getting it wrong about evolution : Laelaps

but alas its science only if it agrees with the evoluionists.i wonder how these dogmatic defenders of the "faith" feel if they knew that creationist are working on cures for diseases and also like asynchritus and where gm and i live. we both live near a nuke plant that is inspected by a young earth creationist nuclear engineer (he isnt alone in that duty).

they dept of energy seems to think he is qualified,odd?
 
Back
Top