[_ Old Earth _] Evolution: Belly Up in the Pacific?

[Asyncritus]

There's a marvellous little bird called the Pacific Golden Plover (Pluvialis fulva).

It does this fantastic thing, which evolution cannot even BEGIN to account for, and provides further proof if it were needed, that the theory should be abandoned.

The story begins in Alaska, where the birds breed. They lay their eggs, which hatch out normally, and the parents stay with them till they are reasonably able to take care of themselves.

Then the impossible happens.

The parents fly away, leaving them behind. But that's not the amazing part.

The parents now embark upon a 2,800 MILE JOURNEY to Hawaii,
ACROSS THE TRACKLESS PACIFIC OCEAN, a journey taking about 88 hours of NON-STOP flying time.

In the process, they lose about half their body weight.

Now consider HOW these birds could possibly navigate their way from Alaska to Hawaii. Could you? Without instruments and maps?

There's nothing to guide them - not the stars, because they fly by day and by night.

If they're one degree off course, they'll end belly up in the Pacific Ocean. But even if headwinds/ sidewinds blow them off course, they still make it.

They summer there, and then, head back to Alaska, across another 2,800 mile journey, where they breed again.

There, isn't that wonderful?

But hold on. The young, who were hatched in Alaska, FOLLOW THEIR PARENTS TO HAWAII a couple of weeks LATER, without a guide, without ever having seen Hawaii !!!

Any mistake in navigation, and they too would be belly up in the Pacific Ocean.

This is the work of reputable observers, and a well-known phenomenon. There is no guesswork here, no hypothesising, no theorising. Just fact.

Now I call on the evolutionists to account for

1 How the instinct evolved and

2 How the instinct entered the genome.

The whole idea that it evolved is entirely absurd, and should be belly up in the Pacific.

Source: many articles on Google.
Youtube has a video on this which you might like to visit:
Pacific Golden Plover Defies Evolution - YouTube

 

[lordkalvan]

This Gish gallop of threads is getting rather tiresome, especially when you have abandoned so many others where questions, counter-arguments and points relevant to your litany of misunderstandings, misrepresentations and strawmen remain unanswered. This seems to follow the same pattern of personal incredulity ('Then the impossible happens'), indifference to researching your topic ('Now consider HOW these birds could possibly navigate their way from Alaska to Hawaii. Could you? Without instruments and maps?'), downright absurdities ('There's nothing to guide them - not the stars, because they fly by day and by night.' - No stars at night in the Pacific, then?) and evidence of a mind already made up ('The whole idea that [this behaviour] evolved is entirely absurd...'). Why do you seek an evolutionary explanation for this behaviour when you are already so clearly determined that no such explanation is credible?

 

[Rhea]

Source: many articles on Google.

You claim to be a scientist.
You must know this is not a "source". It has become an important question whether these words are yours, and if not, whose they are. That person deserves to have their name by their work.

If you wrote these words, I apologize for the accusation.
If I google and find some other person wrote these words and you are pasting them here without that person's name then you are plagiarizing and not only is it against the ToS, but it is a crime.

It is certainly unscholarly, cheap and deceitful.
When I google these words, will I find that someone else has written them? Who?

 

[lordkalvan]

You claim to be a scientist.
You must know this is not a "source". It has become an important question whether these words are yours, and if not, whose they are. That person deserves to have their name by their work.

If you wrote these words, I apologize for the accusation.
If I google and find some other person wrote these words and you are pasting them here without that person's name then you are plagiarizing and not only is it against the ToS, but it is a crime.

It is certainly unscholarly, cheap and deceitful.
When I google these words, will I find that someone else has written them? Who?

I think these are most likely Asyncritus's own words, even if a paraphrase of others' (but we all do that). I agree with you on the lack of citations, however, and incline to the view that a strong element of cherry-picking has gone into sourcing the information. For example, there is extensive research into how birds navigate and how techniques vary amongst different birds and according to how and where they migrate. It is clear that birds use a variety of cues, from star patterns, through sensitivity to Earth's magnetic field, direction of the setting Sun, landscape features, prevailing winds and timing (fly in this direction for X days, then this direction for Y days). An important consideration also is the role flocking behaviour plays in determining navigational success. I have been told that How Birds Migrate by Paul Kerlinger & Pat Archer (Stackpole, 1995, 2nd revised edition 2009) has plenty of background information on the subject, including a chapter on 'Finding the Way'.

 

[Barbarian]

I guess someone's already shut this one down. (Barbarian moves on...)

 

[Asyncritus]

You claim to be a scientist.
You must know this is not a "source". It has become an important question whether these words are yours, and if not, whose they are. That person deserves to have their name by their work.

If you wrote these words, I apologize for the accusation.
If I google and find some other person wrote these words and you are pasting them here without that person's name then you are plagiarizing and not only is it against the ToS, but it is a crime.

It is certainly unscholarly, cheap and deceitful.
When I google these words, will I find that someone else has written them? Who?

Feel free. I'll accept your apology.

 

[Asyncritus]

I think these are most likely Asyncritus's own words, even if a paraphrase of others' (but we all do that). I agree with you on the lack of citations, however, and incline to the view that a strong element of cherry-picking has gone into sourcing the information. For example, there is extensive research into how birds navigate and how techniques vary amongst different birds and according to how and where they migrate. It is clear that birds use a variety of cues, from star patterns, through sensitivity to Earth's magnetic field, direction of the setting Sun, landscape features, prevailing winds and timing (fly in this direction for X days, then this direction for Y days). An important consideration also is the role flocking behaviour plays in determining navigational success. I have been told that How Birds Migrate by Paul Kerlinger & Pat Archer (Stackpole, 1995, 2nd revised edition 2009) has plenty of background information on the subject, including a chapter on 'Finding the Way'.

Please LK.

I have asked you on numerous occasions now to distinguish between the words 'why' and 'how'.

I'll say it again. Please tell me if you want it any simpler, but it's taxing my powers of simplification.

1 How did the instinct arise and

2 How did it enter the genome.

Hey Barbarian, give up already?

 

[Asyncritus]

This Gish gallop of threads is getting rather tiresome, especially when you have abandoned so many others where questions, counter-arguments and points relevant to your litany of misunderstandings, misrepresentations and strawmen remain unanswered. This seems to follow the same pattern of personal incredulity ('Then the impossible happens'), indifference to researching your topic ('Now consider HOW these birds could possibly navigate their way from Alaska to Hawaii. Could you? Without instruments and maps?'), downright absurdities ('There's nothing to guide them - not the stars, because they fly by day and by night.' - No stars at night in the Pacific, then?) and evidence of a mind already made up ('The whole idea that [this behaviour] evolved is entirely absurd...'). Why do you seek an evolutionary explanation for this behaviour when you are already so clearly determined that no such explanation is credible?

I am really seeking evolutionists who can answer the 2 questions being asked about the phenomena being presented. ONLY THOSE TWO.

To date, all that has been presented is: "NO EXPLANATION. Please accept my ad homs instead."

You're not doing very well LK and Barbarian. You've 0/100 for relevant answers TO THE QUESTIONS BEING ASKED. In fact, if you were witnesses in court, you would be held in contempt, or dismissed FOR FAILURE TO ANSWER THE 2 SIMPLE QUESTIONS BEING ASKED BY THE PROSECUTOR.

You've 100/100 for the ad hom content of your answers. Unfortunately, that second paper does not count towards your degree. Tough luck chaps.

 

[lordkalvan]

Please LK.

I have asked you on numerous occasions now to distinguish between the words 'why' and 'how'.

And I have pointed out on numerous occasions that asking 'how' without 'why' is, in this context, quite meaningless.

I'll say it again. Please tell me if you want it any simpler, but it's taxing my powers of simplification.

1 How did the instinct arise and

2 How did it enter the genome.

Perhaps you've forgotten all those questions I've asked you? Do you imagine this is a one-way street?

Hey Barbarian, give up already?

Be careful what you wish for.....

 

[lordkalvan]

I am really seeking evolutionists who can answer the 2 questions being asked about the phenomena being presented. ONLY THOSE TWO.

And I am interested in seeing you answer questions that arise from your various claims and assertions, but you don't, do you? So why do you expect others to answer yours?

To date, all that has been presented is: "NO EXPLANATION. Please accept my ad homs instead."

To date, on your various threads, you have had numerous answers, arguments, points and questions arising, none of which you have effectively responded to with very much more than 'Nuh-uh'. And when somebody criticizes your posts and 'debating' style, this is not an ad hominem, you really do need to learn what the term means. I have mentioned this before.

You're not doing very well LK and Barbarian. You've 0/100 for relevant answers TO THE QUESTIONS BEING ASKED. In fact, if you were witnesses in court, you would be held in contempt, or dismissed FOR FAILURE TO ANSWER THE 2 SIMPLE QUESTIONS BEING ASKED BY THE PROSECUTOR.

This isn't a court and you're not a prosecutor. It's an internet forum where some exchange of ideas is supposed to take place. You seem to imagine that the traffic should all be one way and directed by you.

You've 100/100 for the ad hom content of your answers. Unfortunately, that second paper does not count towards your degree. Tough luck chaps.

If you can point to an ad hominem that I have directed against you, I would be happy to reflect on it.

 

[Rhea]

Then I owe an apology for the question on this thread about your OP. You have not answered about the OP of your other threads, where you posted comments that included references numbered at 74, which indicates some pasting from a longer article, and which gave rise to this question.

But I will acknowledge that THIS THREAD seems to be words that aren't from a longer source and apologize for that. Still waiting for your answers on the other threads.

And Async, you HAVE gotten answers. You need to address them.

 

[lordkalvan]

There are lots of different types of animal migration and terms used to describe them cover such things as when it occurs, what direction it follows, why the animals migrate and whether all or just some of the relevant species migrate at all. These are some of the most common types of migration:

Seasonal migration (changes in altitude, latitude and longitude are included; many migrations for reproduction take place seasonally, as do those that have to follow food sources).

Latitudinal migration is when the animal moves north or south, which effectively allows the animal to change climate. Swallows are an example of this type of migration, as are humming birds.

Altitudinal migration means movement from higher to lower heights and vice versa. Mountain pastures have abundant food in summer, but much less in winter. Mule deer follow this type of behaviour.

Reproductive migration requires movement to breed successfully. Either the animals need something they don't have in their usual habitat (sea turtles need land, for example) or they need a place safe from predators (puffins on the Isle of Staffa, for example).

Nomadic migration takes place when animals move to new food sources without any other obvious pattern to the behaviour, such as occurs with many grazing animals.

Removal migration occurs when animals simply move from one place and don't come back. This often happens with loss of habitat in some way or another and appears to be demonstrated by the Capistrano swallows.

Complete migration occurs when virtually all members of a species leave a breeding range during a non-breeding season. It remains the case, however, that not all members of a 'complete migration' species will necessarily migrate.

Partial migration is is the most common type of migration, where some but not all members of a species move from their breeding grounds. Many birds exhibit this type of behaviour.

Irruptive migration occurs sporadically, i.e. perhaps one year but not another, or possibly not again for many years. Distances involved can be short or long. Great Grey Owls engage in this type of migratory behaviour.

Given that migratory behaviour is so varied, it is clear that this behaviour is triggered by different factors. If an animal migrates for reproductive purposes, the impulse for that behaviour lies in the instinct to reproduce and the destination of that migration is determined by the needs of the animal. Equatorial birds head north (or south) in the spring in pursuit of abundant food sources where competition is less fierce than in their winter habitats. An evolutionary explanation would start with the birds simply foraging at the edge of the rainforest and, when the spring/summer rains bring the flowering and fruiting season to the edges of the deserts, birds follow the rains to take advantage of the sudden supply of food. Birds might have developed trans-equatorial migratory behaviour by following the food-supplying rainfall from the northern edge of the tropics in the northern summer to the southern edge in the southern summer, using natural corridors such as river valleys and coastlines to develop ever longer migratory routes. None of this behaviour requires a supernatural intervention to bring it about and, given the obvious lack of a supernatural explanation required to account for observed changes in migratory behaviour in numerous species, if such an origin is proposed it is incumbent upon those providing it to provide the necessary supporting evidence.

ETA Principle source: ww w.nps.gov/akso/parkwise/students/referencelibrary/general/ migrationbasics.htm

 

[Asyncritus]

Again, I repeat, the 2 questions have not been answered, Rhea's noises notwithstanding.

You are being asked 2 questions, and 2 questions only about the facts I have presented.

1 How did the instinct arise? and

2 How did it enter the genome?

Tell you what.

Quote me a single instance where you or Barbarian or your new ally Rhea, have answered or attempted to answer those questions and I will relapse into silence about this point.

I already KNOW why migration may be a good thing, so please don't keep beating that useless drum.

I already KNOW the possible ways that some animals guide themselves. So please stop beating that useless drum.

The two questions above, to my mind, sink evolution without trace because it can offer absolutely no coherent accounting or answers to them.

Instinct is fundamental to the whole of life, so failure to account for it's origin and insertion means that the whole theory fails outright, because it is a theory of ORIGINS.

I 'm waiting to hear.

 

[lordkalvan]

Again, I repeat, the 2 questions have not been answered, Rhea's noises notwithstanding.

When you answer questions, you are entitled to request that your own be answered. Why do you imagine that only you may ask questions and only others must answer them? You have consistently failed to answer this question.

You are being asked 2 questions, and 2 questions only about the facts I have presented.

1 How did the instinct arise?

See the last paragraph of my previous post. Did you read a summary of an hypothesis to explain how this behaviour may have developed naturalistically? Do you have no comments at all on this hypothesis?

...and

2 How did it enter the genome?

Through descent with modification, the same way as any other trait 'enter the genome'. Birds that follow the behaviour described above are more successful than birds that don't; traits that encourage this type of behaviour are therefore passed on to the more successful birds' more successful descendants. Where habitats change, food sources disappear, etc, that behaviour changes (see the Capistrano swallows, the Wyoming pronghorn antelope and European blackcap warblers, for example). Are you suggesting that some supernatural intervention has caused these changes in behaviour? If yes, what evidence supports your suggestion? If no, what naturalistic explanation do you propose and why is this naturalistic explanation inadequate to explain the behaviour in the first place? This is another of the many questions that go to the heart of your arguments and that you have been persistently dodging.

Tell you what.

Quote me a single instance where you or Barbarian or your new ally Rhea, have answered or attempted to answer those questions and I will relapse into silence about this point.

Well, when you can show us where you have answered our questions or responded effectively to points we have raised that address your various claims, assertions, assumptions, misrepresentatons, misunderstandings and downright strawmen ('Nuh-uh' doesn't count as a response), your accusation may have some merit.

I already KNOW why migration may be a good thing, so please don't keep beating that useless drum.

And you don't think this has any impact at all on how they migrate? Why not?

I already KNOW the possible ways that some animals guide themselves. So please stop beating that useless drum.

Which explains these comments, of course (OP of this thread, in case you've forgotten):

Now consider HOW these birds could possibly navigate their way from Alaska to Hawaii. Could you? Without instruments and maps?

There's nothing to guide them - not the stars, because they fly by day and by night.

The two questions above, to my mind, sink evolution without trace because it can offer absolutely no coherent accounting or answers to them.

No, what you clearly mean (and have admitted elsewhere) is that evolutionary theory 'can offer absolutely no coherent accounting or answer' that is satisfactory to you and that you won't simply dismiss out of hand. Let me say this again: your personal incredulity alone is insufficient to invalidate evolutionary theory. You need to explain how the theory fails to account for particular phenomena and then tell us what better theory or hypothesis you can offer that better explains them, citing relevant and supporting evidence as necessary. 'God did it' is not an explanation.

Instinct is fundamental to the whole of life, so failure to account for it's origin and insertion means that the whole theory fails outright, because it is a theory of ORIGINS.

Despite the various references and citations you have been given, you seem to imagine that your assertion that evolutionary theory does not examine and cannot account for the evolution of instinct is sufficient to deny the existence of or invalidate those studies that do exactly what you claim evolutionary theory doesn't do. Here's another:

Evolution of an Instinct Under Long-Term Divergent Selection for Geotaxis in Domesticated Populations of Drosophila melanogaster by Jeffrey P. Ricker and Jerry Hirsch in the Journal of Comparative Psychology, Vol 99, No 4, December 1985, pp 380-390.

I don't know what you mean by 'theory of origins', even when you capitalize it; perhaps you can clarify this? Evolutionary theory per se says nothing about the origin of life; this is more appropriate to the field of abiogenesis.

I 'm waiting to hear.

Maybe you should unplug your ears.

 

[Barbarian]

It remains true; those who think they hate science, don't really know what it is.

 

[Asyncritus]

Apologies for being away for so long.

Much of your answers to my points seem to be: why aren’t you answering our questions. That, let me point out, is not an answer to any of the points being made.

If an animal migrates for reproductive purposes, the impulse for that behaviour lies in the instinct to reproduce and the destination of that migration is determined by the needs of the animal. Equatorial birds head north (or south) in the spring in pursuit of abundant food sources where competition is less fierce than in their winter habitats. An evolutionary explanation would start with the birds simply foraging at the edge of the rainforest and, when the spring/summer rains bring the flowering and fruiting season to the edges of the deserts, birds follow the rains to take advantage of the sudden supply of food. Birds might have developed trans-equatorial migratory behaviour by following the food-supplying rainfall from the northern edge of the tropics in the northern summer to the southern edge in the southern summer, using natural corridors such as river valleys and coastlines to develop ever longer migratory routes.

None of this behaviour requires a supernatural intervention to bring it about and, given the obvious lack of a supernatural explanation required to account for observed changes in migratory behaviour in numerous species, if such an origin is proposed it is incumbent upon those providing it to provide the necessary supporting evidence.

On the contrary, it all does.

With specific reference to the swallows of Capistrano, and even more pointedly, the Golden Plover, not a single one of his ridiculous ‘explanations’ holds a drop of water.

He either doesn’t know about these instances (in which case the whole paper is nonsensical and of no worth), or is unable to apply intelligence to the facts, as I shall now demonstrate.

Note, in the case of the swallows, there are 2 extraordinary facts:

1 The navigation to a specific point

2 The exact dating of their arrival and departure

If an animal migrates for reproductive purposes, the impulse for that behaviour lies in the instinct to reproduce and the destination of that migration is determined by the needs of the animal.

Well! What need is there to migrate 7000 miles to Capistrano? Or 2,800 miles to Alaska?

It is clear that the swallows do not migrate for reproductive purposes: in fact, a journey of 7,000 miles with no navigation system, is a virtual guarantee of species extinction.

It is equally clear, that a flight of 2,800 miles across the open ocean without a built in navigation system is also, or even more so, a guarantee of species extinction.

In both cases, the above ‘explanations’ are useless. When I ask, as I do, how did the instinct originate, and how did it enter the genome, there is no answer. If there is in the quoted passage, feel free to point it out to me.

Those facts are entirely contrary to any evolutionary theory, and in accordance with Hawking's dictum, the theory should be abandoned.

"...you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory'.

Equatorial birds head north (or south) in the spring in pursuit of abundant food sources where competition is less fierce than in their winter habitats. An evolutionary explanation would start with the birds simply foraging at the edge of the rainforest and, when the spring/summer rains bring the flowering and fruiting season to the edges of the deserts, birds follow the rains to take advantage of the sudden supply of food.

Here is the attempted ‘food source’ explanation.

It is hopeless again.

It must be obvious to the meanest intellect, that somewhere else, much nearer in the whole of South America, MUST HAVE HAD FOOD SUITABLE FOR SWALLOWS?

Yet they do not go there. They go to Capistrano, deliberately, it seems. A JOURNEY OF 7000 MILES!!!

How could they possibly know that there was/is food in Capistrano, or in Alaska? And later, in Goya or Hawaii? They couldn’t, so that theory is belly up in the Pacific too.

If birds were rational creatures, these would surely have said ‘this is a most irrational thing to do. I’m not going to do it’.

But they’re NOT rational creatures.

They are obeying a built-in instinct – and again I ask the questions: how did it arise, and how did it enter the genome?

Please note, I am not saying that birds don’t move in order to find alternative food sources, but these examples are something else altogether.

Here is further nonsense:

Birds might have developed trans-equatorial migratory behaviour by following the food-supplying rainfall from the northern edge of the tropics in the northern summer to the southern edge in the southern summer, using natural corridors such as river valleys and coastlines to develop ever longer migratory routes.

Note the word ‘develop’. It is pure nonsense.

Bird A goes 400 miles let’s say, north, finds more and better food, then dies. How does it’s descendant get back to the starting point? And how does the said descendant transmit that information to its offspring?

You may say, it follows the parent somehow. But that theory dies in the Pacific, because the offspring of the golden plovers follow their parents to Hawaii, SOME TWO WEEKS LATER! The parents have already gone.

Again the question: how did the instinct ever manage to arise, and how did it enter the genome?

There seem to be no further points worth discussing in your article. If you wish to point out any I’ve missed, then please do so.

But we’re back to the old brick walls with a vengeance. How did those instincts arise, and how did they ever enter the genome?

 

[Asyncritus]

I omitted mentioning the dating problem.

How do the birds know the exact date? How did that instinct develop and enter the genome?

 

[lordkalvan]

And another Gish Gallop of personal incredulity, unsupported assertion, misrepresentation and misunderstanding from Asyncritus. Why should anybody take the trouble to respond when everybody is aware that it is impossible to persuade you that your personal incredulity, unsupported assertions, misrepresentations and misunderstandings do nothing to undermine evolutionary theory, while any evidence presented to the contrary will simply be denied or dismissed because you have already decided that evolutionary explanations are ipso facto impossible?

 

[Asyncritus]

And another Gish Gallop of personal incredulity, unsupported assertion, misrepresentation and misunderstanding from Asyncritus. Why should anybody take the trouble to respond when everybody is aware that it is impossible to persuade you that your personal incredulity, unsupported assertions, misrepresentations and misunderstandings do nothing to undermine evolutionary theory, while any evidence presented to the contrary will simply be denied or dismissed because you have already decided that evolutionary explanations are ipso facto impossible?

Another Gish Gallop?

I have taken the time and trouble to refute the nonsense written by your author.

I have included NO NEW MATERIAL BESIDES THAT WHICH IS ALREADY AVAILABLE in the articles I have posted. So Gish Gallop? Hardly.

If believing in evolution so atrophies your critical faculties, that you are unable to criticise the content of your author who is clearly writing nonsense and making unsupported and hopelessly wild guesses, then that is too bad.

I thought better of you, but then again, we all make mistakes.

Too bad.

I omitted mentioning the dating problem.

How do the birds know the exact date? How did that instinct develop and enter the genome?

Your author either didn't know this fact, or chose to ignore it completely. Will you do the same, and retreat behind the smokescreen once more?

 

[Asyncritus]

Rhea

Are you paying attention?

You will have noticed that I have replied in detailed fashion to LK's quoted article, and to his responses.

Can you see that the points I have made completely refute the author's wild guesswork?

If not, why not?