[_ Old Earth _] Evolution is for the 'Birds'!

[Asyncritus]

Rev 4.11 You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for you have created all things, and for your pleasure they are and were created.

The existence of the migratory instincts in Birds is the most powerful testimony possible to the uselessness of the theory of evolution.

Hardened ornithologists take their hats off in respect for, and amazement at the feats performed by these fragile creatures of the air.

There is no way such marvellous behaviour could have 'evolved'. At every step of the way, the unbiassed observer shakes his head at how unbelievably magnificent their achievements really are.

I invite everyone on the forum to read, and bow the knee l with me, at the wonderful things the Creator of the heavens and earth and all that is on it, can do and has done.

The Migration of Birds

"There is good evidence that young birds are equipped with endogenous migratory programs, which tell them roughly how many days and/or nights that they must fly, and in what direction."

In his book La Puissance et la Fragilité, Prof. Pierre Jean Hamburger from René Descartes University describes the extraordinary 24,000-kilometer journey made by the shearwater that lives in the Pacific Ocean:

It sets out from the coast of Australia. From there it flies straight southward to the Pacific. Then it turns north and flies along the coast of Japan until reaching the Bering Sea where it can rest for a while.

Following that break it sets off again, and this time heads south. Crossing the western coast of America, it arrives in California.

It then crosses the Pacific to return to its starting point. The route and timing of this 15,000-mile (24,000-kilometer) figure ‘8’ journey it makes every year never change.

The journey in question lasts a whole six months, always coming to an end in the third week of September on the island it left six months before, at the nest it left six months before.

What comes next is even more astonishing; after their return, the birds clean their nests, mate, and lay a single egg over the last 10 days of October.

The chicks hatch out two months later, grow very fast and are cared for over three months until their parents set out on that stupendous journey. Two weeks later; around the middle of April, it is time for the young birds to take wing on their own journey. They follow exactly the same route as that described above,with no guide.

 

[Asyncritus]

The explanation is so obvious: These birds must have all the directions for such a journey within the inherited characteristics passed on within the egg. Some people may claim that birds navigate by the Sun and stars or follow the winds prevailing along their route on this journey out and back. But it is clear that these factors cannot determine the journey’s geographical and chronological accuracy."
Pierre Jean Hamburger, La Puissance et la Fragilité, Flammarion Pub., Paris, 1972.

"migratory birds have comprehensive, detailed, innate spatio-temporal programs for successful migration.

Such programs evidently enable even young, inexperienced birds to migrate alone, with no adult guide, to the species- or population-specific winter quarters that they have never seen before.

As will be explained further below, they do this by "vector" navigation: referring to a vector composed of a genetically predetermined migratory direction and to a time-plan, also genetically predetermined, for the course of migration...

It follows that the departure time is programmed by genetic factors... "
Peter Berthold, "Bird Migration: Introductory Remarks and Overall Perspective", Torgos, 1998, Vol. 28, pp. 25-30

 

[Asyncritus]

Not only is it preprogrammed, but it is preprogrammed to do impossible things!

"Some birds migrate at seemingly impossible altitudes. For instance, dunlin, knot and certain other small migrating birds fly at a level of 7,000 m (23,000 feet), the same altitude used by aircraft. Whooper swans have been seen flying at 8,200 m (27,000 feet). Some birds even reach the stratosphere, the layer of thin atmosphere, at an altitude of between 8 and 40 kilometers (5 and 25 miles).11 Bar-headed geese cross the Himalayas at an altitude of 9,000 meters (29,529 feet), close to where the stratosphere begins."

What more do we need before we reject this hopeless theory?

The evidence I have been presenting, and which has received no refutation worthy of the name, supports the exceedingly realistic hypothesis that these things were all super-intelligently designed.

Any aeroplane, flying a journey of 1000 miles or so, with fully functioning GPS, at an altitude of 25,000 feet or more at the very edge of the stratosphere, has got to be intelligently designed, or it either wouldn't get there, or would simply perish.

Consider the requirements of survival alone.

The temperature is killing.

The troposphere begins at the Earth's surface and extends up to 4-12 miles (6-20 km) high. This is where we live. As the density of the gases in this layer decrease with height, the air becomes thinner. Therefore, the temperature in the troposphere also decreases with height. As you climb higher, the temperature drops from about 62°F (17°C) to -60°F (-51°C).).

They must be, therefore, extraordinarily well insulated creatures. Which poses yet another problem for the evolutionists. Did they develop their absolutely superior insulation IN ORDER TO FLY THAT HIGH? Or do they fly that high BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE INSULATION? And how did they figure out how to produce it?

 

[Asyncritus]

But that's just the beginning of the problem. Water freezes at 0 deg C. The liquid covering the eyes of the birds is mainly water. If it is like normal tears, then it should freeze at -0.52 C. But since the birds fly in considerably lower temperatures, the problem becomes very severe. If the liquid froze at -0.52 C, then they could not possibly fly at that height, because their eyes would freeze up. But they do manage it.

Therefore the tears of their eyes must be specially designed with antifreeze built in. So must their nostril linings, and their lungs.

But how is that possible? A bird has no way of knowing what the upper tropospheric temperature will be. Neither does it know what chemicals need to be in its tears to prevent freezing, and least of all does it know how to synthesise that material.

So where did it come from? Design seems the only possible answer.

And then there’s the pressure question. The cabin of an aircraft flying at 26-30,000 feet HAS TO BE PRESSURISED, or all air travellers would die. The atmospheric pressure outside, is far too low to sustain human life. Here is a summary of what happened to James Glaisher, a balloonist who went up to 26,000 feet in the days before we knew all that we know today about the effects of high altitude:

In 1862, James Glaisher and Henry Coxwell ascended to 29,000 feet in an open hot-air balloon. During the ascent, Glaisher described marked neurologic compromises: appendicular and later truncal paralysis, blindness, initially preserved cognition, and subsequent loss of consciousness.
James Glaisher

The birds, therefore, MUST have a compensating mechanism built in. But they didn’t know about all this before starting their journeys! So Who knew?

 

[Asyncritus]

We will discuss the instincts powering flight later on, but let's return to the navigation problem.

Whooper swans fly from Siberia to Britain and return each year - something over 2000 miles. Short-tailed shearwaters, Puffinus tenuirostris migrate from South Australia to the North Pacific and back - a total distance of some 32,000 km (20,000 miles).

[FONT=&quot]"Each year the bulk of the colony (the breeding age birds) return to the nesting grounds on almost the same day. Individuals return to the same nest burrow they occupied the previous year and generally mate with the same partner throughout their breeding life...

In mid April the adult birds commence their Pacific migration leaving the young behind. Hunger begins to bring the chicks from the nest at night, until they eventually set off after the adults. Somehow they find the migratory route without the guidance of the older birds."
[/FONT]
Shearwaters

 

[Asyncritus]

This, I thought, was astonishing enough. Maybe the shearwater is unique in this.

But no. Although not over such a great distance, the Pacific golden plover is another phenomenal migrator.

It flies from its breeding grounds in Alaska to its wintering grounds in Hawaii.

That is a distance of about 2,800 miles across open ocean, without any stopping points either available or possible. The birds stock up on food, fattening themselves, and burn it up on the journey. In Alaska, they breed and rear their young.

But that's not the end of the matter.

When the young have reached a reasonably independent state of maturity, the adults fly off and leave them!

Some time later, the young set off on their own, and without parents or any other guides, fly the return 2,500 miles to Alaska. Again across open ocean: no waymarks, no food, no stopping places.

Can you see the nonsense all this makes of evolution?

There are 2 journeys before us, totalling 25,000 miles, which is approximately the circumference of the planet. The plovers strain credulity, but the shearwaters kill it altogether.

And then we find out about the arctic tern - which flies from the top of the world, down to the antarctic every year, and back again.

All this is unbelievable, but comes from the work of highly reputable observers and organisations.

We may as well toss in the fourth unbelievable migration for good measure.

 

[Asyncritus]

The Swallows of Capistrano

Cliff swallow scouts fly in from the sea, to the village/town of Capistrano in southern California, on the 17th of March every year. The following day, on the 18th March EVERY YEAR, the main flock arrives. They return to the nests they built last year, squabble and fight and breed, and then on October 23rd, they fly up, circle the town as if saying goodbye, and disappear out to sea once again.

This happens EVERY YEAR, on the same date (apart from leap years) without fail.

For the longest time, they had no idea where the birds came from, or where they went, until modern tracking methods were employed, and the truth came out.

They start their journey in Goya, a town in southern Argentina, and fly 7,500 miles up to Capistrano, and return about 6 months later.
In every case, there is dating accuracy – but the Capistrano swallows take the breath away. Somehow, those little birds have a calendar built in and arrive on the same date EVERY YEAR.

Now consider what the theory of evolution has to account for.

1 The ability to fly, and how that ability came from wingless reptiles. More on this later.

2 The existence in the birds of an amazingly accurate GPS system which somehow navigates them to and from their incredibly distant destinations.

3 The existence of a calendar in their little brains, accurate to the very day.

Instinct, says the evolutionist. Yes, we say – but where did this stupendous instinct come from?

In order for a GPS system to work, there must be navigational satellites ready set up, and accurate to within a few hundred feet. There has to be a receptor device, which will not only read those satellite signals, but also unscramble them and translate the messages into comprehensible materials.

There has to a map of some kind, built in to the navigator device. And lastly there must be a mind with the ability to receive and obey the messages from the satellites.


If any one of these elements missing, the whole thing is useless. Therefore in the birds, all of this had to have arisen AT THE SAME TIME. But a map implies that someone has been there before, who knows the way, and can program the route into the system.

The sheer improbability of all this happening by chance is incalculable. And there’s no use bleating pathetically that evolution is not a random process. Random or not, it cannot reasonably explain the origin of these mighty instincts by any method at all.

It’s no wonder that they never attempt to explain the origin of instinct.

Darwin was right when he said:

C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species (London: Cassell and Co., Ltd., 1909), p. 189.

"This [instinct] is by far the most serious special difficulty which my theory has encountered. . . . The problem at first appeared to me insuperable, and actually fatal to my theory."

"No complex instinct can possibly be produced through natural selection except by the slow and gradual accumulation of numerous, slight, yet profitable variations. . . .We ought at least to be able to show that gradations of some kind are possible, and this we certainly can do."

He was wrong. No amount of ‘numerous, slight yet profitable variations’ can take a bird from Australia to Japan, to the Bering Strait, to California and back across the Pacific ocean to Australia, to arrive there at the same time every year, and nest in the same nest each time. Any errors, and the bird would be as good as dead.

No amount of ‘numerous, slight yet profitable variations’ can take a bird 7,500 miles from Goya in Argentina to Capistrano in California ON THE SAME DATE every year.

 

[Asyncritus]

And how many of such variations do we need to carry the arctic tern from the top of the world down to the bottom, every year? Or how many do we need to carry the golden plover young 2,500 miles across a trackless ocean and back – without parents, guides and way marks ? At every step of the way an error means death and species extinction.

Yet they are still here doing the same wonderful things year after year.

How much more evidence do we need before we dump this silly theory which is so hopelessly useless at explaining such gigantic phenomena?

 

[abrown9]

How many of the same post are you going to have to make before you realize that your premise is based on one, misplaced argument.

Instinct, whether you like it or not, can be connected to certain areas of the brain (different instincts connected to different areas depending on species). As a physical characteristic, instinct (or better, the parts of the brain controlling instinct) can be passed on and changed (descent with modification) through generations. As an imperfect, hereditary trait, instinct is as vulnerable to selective pressures as any other physical characteristic.

Like any complex characteristic, the evolution of any instinctual behaviour is very difficult to understand. Some have proposed to analyze avian migrational behaviour in parts (Zink, 2002 - Towards a framework for understanding the evolution of avian migration) and try to map each individual component of migration in the phylogeny. This would demonstrate where certain traits (ie. hyperphagia, navigation, etc.) first came into existence and where instinctual migration likely started. This, however, has had some issues, which can be read about in:

An integrative framework for understanding origin and the evolution of avian migration by Rappole et al. (2003)

As a sidenote, this review article is an excellent example of how evolutionary biology is self-correcting and not merely "blindly following" some Darwinian standard.

An interesting argument presented by Rappole is the idea that that instinctual migration did not first originate with genetic change. If this was the case, then it would be almost impossible to map migration through physical characteristics.

Instead, Rappole argues that migration first arose as an adaptive behaviour in species that possessed all of the components necessary for migration. The theoretical adapter would have inhabited an environment that underwent major environmental changes and suddenly required migration during the winter months to survive. Under these circumstances, selective pressure would be huge for those that had advantages in migration, and of course there would be huge selective pressure for instinctual migration.

Your argument basically boils down to the typical "X is too complex/beautiful/amazing for it to have arose through natural means. Some of the scenarios you have provided certainly provide challenges in understanding through an evolutionary standpoint, but in now way, shape, or form do they invalidate evolutionary theory.

The typical argument against the TOE is the evolution of the eye (how does half an eye help?), but there are THREE types of eyes that have developed INDEPENDENTLY in different clades over the course of evolutionary history. One of these (the cephalopod eye) is better than the human eye (no blind spot). If that isn't evidence for not only the possibility, but also the readiness for evolution to direct towards the development of beneficial, complex structures, then I don't know what is.

Your assertion that "no one tries to understand the origin of instinct" is completely off base, as there are many biologists that work in that area.

I guess I don't really know what you would actually consider evidence. Do you want a scientist to produce a directed evolution experiment that shows the evolution of a complex structure? That can't possibly happen due to the huge time frames involved. There are directed evolution experiments that show how individual steps towards large change can occur through evolution, so it isn't a stretch (for me at least) to put them all together.

 

[Asyncritus]

How many of the same post are you going to have to make before you realize that your premise is based on one, misplaced argument.

Instinct, whether you like it or not, can be connected to certain areas of the brain (different instincts connected to different areas depending on species).

I do not deny that such a connection may exist. That is not the point being made by these posts.

The question that is raised by every one of these posts is: How did that connection (if it is there at all) arise, and b. How did it get into the genome (if that's where it is)?

What is your answer to those questions?

As a physical characteristic, instinct (or better, the parts of the brain controlling instinct) can be passed on and changed (descent with modification) through generations. As an imperfect, hereditary trait, instinct is as vulnerable to selective pressures as any other physical characteristic.

But instinct is not a physical characteristic. No experiments can show a location in the brain or elsewhere where it may be situated.

Therefore this 'descent with modification' is pure nonsense. It's your theory, so what 'modifications' do you see as being able to guide a swallow 7000 miles and more to Capistrano and back to the Argentine? ON THE SAME DAY EVERY YEAR?

Like any complex characteristic, the evolution of any instinctual behaviour is very difficult to understand.

You're certainly right there!

Some have proposed to analyze avian migrational behaviour in parts (Zink, 2002 - Towards a framework for understanding the evolution of avian migration) and try to map each individual component of migration in the phylogeny. This would demonstrate where certain traits (ie. hyperphagia, navigation, etc.) first came into existence and where instinctual migration likely started. This, however, has had some issues, which can be read about in:

An integrative framework for understanding origin and the evolution of avian migration by Rappole et al. (2003)

When they find out, let me know, won't you.

As a sidenote, this review article is an excellent example of how evolutionary biology is self-correcting and not merely "blindly following" some Darwinian standard.

If it is so wonderfully 'self-correcting', then why does it still exist?

Instead, Rappole argues that migration first arose as an adaptive behaviour in species that possessed all of the components necessary for migration.

Oh yes. And how did 'all those components arise? By chance?

What components would induce a bird to fly 7000 miles to a place it had never been?

The theoretical adapter would have inhabited an environment that underwent major environmental changes and suddenly required migration during the winter months to survive. Under these circumstances, selective pressure would be huge for those that had advantages in migration, and of course there would be huge selective pressure for instinctual migration.

Can't you face the fact that a flight of 7000 miles to a place unknown is a recipe for extinction? Perhaps you'd better inform Rappole about that simple fact.

Your argument basically boils down to the typical "X is too complex/beautiful/amazing for it to have arose through natural means. Some of the scenarios you have provided certainly provide challenges in understanding through an evolutionary standpoint, but in now way, shape, or form do they invalidate evolutionary theory.

If a theory of origins cannot even begin to account for the thousands of such examples, don't you think science is duty bound to discard it?

The typical argument against the TOE is the evolution of the eye (how does half an eye help?), but there are THREE types of eyes that have developed INDEPENDENTLY in different clades over the course of evolutionary history. One of these (the cephalopod eye) is better than the human eye (no blind spot). If that isn't evidence for not only the possibility, but also the readiness for evolution to direct towards the development of beneficial, complex structures, then I don't know what is.

Can we stick to the migration of birds please, for the time being?

Your assertion that "no one tries to understand the origin of instinct" is completely off base, as there are many biologists that work in that area.

I am well aware that they do. I am also aware that they really have nothing substantial to say about the origin of these things.

I guess I don't really know what you would actually consider evidence. Do you want a scientist to produce a directed evolution experiment that shows the evolution of a complex structure? That can't possibly happen due to the huge time frames involved. There are directed evolution experiments that show how individual steps towards large change can occur through evolution, so it isn't a stretch (for me at least) to put them all together.

I would like to see at least one successful, evidenced answer to the 2 main questions being posed in my writings and my little book.

Can you help?

 

[abrown9]

Okay you want a connection between migration and physiology, here it is:

Ecological Constraints on the Evolution of Avian Brains - Winkler, 2004

Migratory birds have smaller brains than nonmigratory birds. They have to migrate because they do not possess enough behavioural flexibility to combat changing environments.

How did it get into the genome? The same way any other modern character found its way into the genome. Descent...with...modification. The new modification provided some advantage for the species and so it was selected for. The same thing can happen with instinctual behaviour. I'm not suggesting the bird developed one mutation that led to its perfect current migration, rather, it had the tools to migrate, and one day the environment change. The bird flies (not instinctively) further south to avoid the cold. When it starts to get too hot, they fly back up again. Obviously, those that are better adapted to the migration will reproduce more. Some of these offspring might be slightly better adapted to make the flight and find a suitable location. Go many more generations down the line and now behaviour (based in genetics) that helps direct the bird to a specific location in starting to evolve. This is even more advantageous to the bird, so it produces more offspring with this modification. Even more selection happens to get the bird to the point it is at today.
'
My example of the eye was meant to illustrate evidence of complex modifications happening (such as migratory instinct).

In the end, you are offering nothing to this conversation other than criticisms based on your own beliefs that complex mutations like this cannot occur. You clearly either have no concept of, or don't believe in pre-adaptation.

On the other hand, you offer no alternative other than (I assume) Genesis, and if that's the case, please explain vestigial structures, legs on whales,and three different complex eyes (the human's not being the best). On that note, what about the evidence pointing to a really old earth, or better yet, what about the earth being the center of the universe because clearly everything in the bible is literal?

 

[jasoncran]

Okay you want a connection between migration and physiology, here it is:

Ecological Constraints on the Evolution of Avian Brains - Winkler, 2004

Migratory birds have smaller brains than nonmigratory birds. They have to migrate because they do not possess enough behavioural flexibility to combat changing environments.

How did it get into the genome? The same way any other modern character found its way into the genome. Descent...with...modification. The new modification provided some advantage for the species and so it was selected for. The same thing can happen with instinctual behaviour. I'm not suggesting the bird developed one mutation that led to its perfect current migration, rather, it had the tools to migrate, and one day the environment change. The bird flies (not instinctively) further south to avoid the cold. When it starts to get too hot, they fly back up again. Obviously, those that are better adapted to the migration will reproduce more. Some of these offspring might be slightly better adapted to make the flight and find a suitable location. Go many more generations down the line and now behaviour (based in genetics) that helps direct the bird to a specific location in starting to evolve. This is even more advantageous to the bird, so it produces more offspring with this modification. Even more selection happens to get the bird to the point it is at today.
'
My example of the eye was meant to illustrate evidence of complex modifications happening (such as migratory instinct).

In the end, you are offering nothing to this conversation other than criticisms based on your own beliefs that complex mutations like this cannot occur. You clearly either have no concept of, or don't believe in pre-adaptation.

On the other hand, you offer no alternative other than (I assume) Genesis, and if that's the case, please explain vestigial structures, legs on whales,and three different complex eyes (the human's not being the best). On that note, what about the evidence pointing to a really old earth, or better yet, what about the earth being the center of the universe because clearly everything in the bible is literal?

when you can prove without the fossils and with dna that the homology of the ungulates werent from convergent evolutuion, then you have a case. till then this is an exercise in which forensic specialist to believe in.


W.G. Tifft, an astronomer at the University of Arizona, has maintained for some two decades that the redshifts of the galaxies do not fall on a smooth curve as one would expect. Instead, Tifft asserts, redshifts are bunched at intervals of 72 kilometers/second and at onehalf and one-third that value. Mainstream astronomers insist that redshifts be interpreted as Doppler shifts due to the expanding universe. Quantized redshifts just don't fit into this view of the cosmos, for they imply concentric shells of galaxies expanding away from a central point -- earth!
Even though more recent redshift data have supported the notion of quantized redshifts, cosmologists find them undigestible, even pathogenic. But replication and non-replication are the essence of science, so B. Guthrie and W.M. Napier, at the Royal Observatory at Edinburgh, undertook another study. They selected 89 nearby spiral galaxies that had not been incorporated in any of the previous surveys. These galaxies had very accurately measured redshifts and were distributed all over the celestial sphere.

"As expected, the galaxies' redshifts showed a smooth distribution. Clearly, no quantization was being introduced by the radio telescopes or the data reduction process. But after Guthrie and Napier corrected each redshift to account for the Earth's motion around the center of the Milky Way -- a different correction for each location in the sky -- out popped a periodicity of 37 km/sec, close to one of Tifft's values. It was so strong that the chance of it being a statistical fluke was less than 1 in 3,000."​

Tifft's work therefore seems to have been verified again. But Tifft is now waxing even more iconoclastic, claiming that galactic redshifts have actually changed slightly in just a few years! (Anonymous; "Quantized Redshifts: What's Going on Here?" Sky and Telescope, 84:128, 1992.)


from here a page that posts reports on observations that defy current consesus
Galactic Shell Game


and you ab missunderstand creationism. or should i post on where darwin got his idea from? hint the egyptians beleived in life from non life.

 

[abrown9]

Redshifts, without a segue, on a thread about the evolution of avian migration?

Also, why should I prove that ungulates aren't a paraphyletic grouping? They are. From Wikipedia as I really didn't feel like finding a review article:

"As a result of all this, the typical ungulate morphology appears to have originated independently three times: in Meridiungulata, Afrotheria and the "true" ungulates in Laurasiatheria. This is a great example of convergent evolution."

I don't misunderstand creationism. I completely understand, that, at its core, creationism has to do with the idea that a supernatural being created life. That's it, kaput. I have no issue if you want to believe that.

A large number of creationists, however, seem to reject evolution based on Genesis. There are many who will frame their denials in pseudoscience or vague criticisms of evolution (often based on "the sheer complexity of life being impossible"), but I have yet to meet anyone familiar with the subject who denies evolution without a religious bias. For some reason, people's faith seems to hinge on whether or not Genesis (or some aspects of it) is literal. For some other reason, a good number of these people don't seem to mind selectively picking their battles, and leave things like geocentrism by the wayside. That is blatant hypocrisy.

 

[jasoncran]

Redshifts, without a segue, on a thread about the evolution of avian migration?

Also, why should I prove that ungulates aren't a paraphyletic grouping? They are. From Wikipedia as I really didn't feel like finding a review article:

"As a result of all this, the typical ungulate morphology appears to have originated independently three times: in Meridiungulata, Afrotheria and the "true" ungulates in Laurasiatheria. This is a great example of convergent evolution."

I don't misunderstand creationism. I completely understand, that, at its core, creationism has to do with the idea that a supernatural being created life. That's it, kaput. I have no issue if you want to believe that.

A large number of creationists, however, seem to reject evolution based on Genesis. There are many who will frame their denials in pseudoscience or vague criticisms of evolution (often based on "the sheer complexity of life being impossible"), but I have yet to meet anyone familiar with the subject who denies evolution without a religious bias. For some reason, people's faith seems to hinge on whether or not genesis (or some aspects of it) are literal. For some other reason, a good number of these people don't seem to mind selectively picking their battles, and leave things like geocentrism by the wayside. That is blatant hypocrisy.

ah yes wikipedia.

i counter with this

is could have, might have evidence?? nope conjecture.

and then theres this. logically fallacies
Stephen Hawking says universe not created by God | Science | The Guardian

cant state that can we without being a god ourself.

no creationism doesnt say evolution didnt happen it says this.

evolution from genus to genus does happen, what doesnt occur is the protozoa to man evolution.

on darwin

copied that idea of origin of the species from the egyptians

Ancient Egypt - New World Encyclopedia

and also his grandfather
Zoonomia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and what background did darwin the alleged free thinker have in science? none! he had a degree in theology. so you sir a calling the pot black while your a kettle yourself.

he didnt do any tests, just observed and interpreted his idea to that bend of his world view. and this

When we descend to details we can prove that no one species has changed (i.e., we cannot prove that a single species has changed): nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not. The latter case seems to me hardly more difficult to understand precisely and in detail than the former case of supposed change" - Darwin, 1863.

"Long before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to my reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered . . ." - Charles Darwin (ed. J. W. Burrow), The Origin of Species (Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, 1974.), p. 205.

"But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" (Origin of Species, 1859).

"The case at present (problems presented by the fossil record) must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." - The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Penguins Books, New York, Edition 6, p. 310.

"You will be greatly disappointed (by the forthcoming book); it will be grievously too hypothetical. It will very likely be of no other service than collocating some facts; though I myself think I see my way approximately on the origin of the species. But, alas, how frequent, how almost universal it is in an author to persuade himself of the truth of his own dogmas." - Charles Darwin, 1858, in a letter to a colleague regarding the concluding chapters of his Origin of Species. As quoted in 'John Lofton's Journal', The Washington Times, 8 February 1984.

"I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science." - From a letter to Asa Gray, Harvard biology professor, cited in Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation, N.C. Gillespie, p.2)

 

[abrown9]

Jason, Darwin is old, old, old. Darwin did not know about genetics, and had only a fraction of fossil evidence that we have now. Citing his own problems with his theory does not cause the TOE to lose credibility. These problems are nonexistent.

You asked me to use DNA evidence to confirm that ungulates are not a result of convergent evolution. I guess I can't, because they are a result of convergent evolution. I also have no idea what that has to do with the migration of birds. A little more than redshifts I guess. here is some sequence data suggesting some convergent relationships:

CytochromeBSequences Suggest Convergent Evolution of the Asian Takin and Arctic Muskox - Groves and Shields, 1997.

The bottom line is this. You have NO evidence that is contradictory to the TOE. You have issues with it based on your religious beliefs. Your retort involves slandering Darwin for what benefit I can't imagine. I don't care if Darwin stole his theory from Cleopatra, King Arthur, his grandaddy, or if he never actually observed anything and imagined it all in a drug fueled dream. His HYPOTHESIS has been rigourously tested and perfectly explains the distribution of life. It is now a THEORY due to its ability to stand up to centuries of scrutiny. How else could you possibly explain the congruency between morphological and genetic data? How else could you possibly explain vestigial structures, so-called transitional forms, and our own directed evolutionary experiments that we conduct in the lab?

The TOE has no flaws. There are no gaps in the TOE. What there are gaps in, is our understanding of evolutionary history. These gaps are being filled in as more and more evidence is analyzed.

 

[jasoncran]

Jason, Darwin is old, old, old. Darwin did not know about genetics, and had only a fraction of fossil evidence that we have now. Citing his own problems with his theory does not cause the TOE to lose credibility. These problems are nonexistent.

You asked me to use DNA evidence to confirm that ungulates are not a result of convergent evolution. I guess I can't, because they are a result of convergent evolution. I also have no idea what that has to do with the migration of birds. A little more than redshifts I guess. here is some sequence data suggesting some convergent relationships:

CytochromeBSequences Suggest Convergent Evolution of the Asian Takin and Arctic Muskox - Groves and Shields, 1997.

The bottom line is this. You have NO evidence that is contradictory to the TOE. You have issues with it based on your religious beliefs. Your retort involves slandering Darwin for what benefit I can't imagine. I don't care if Darwin stole his theory from Cleopatra, King Arthur, his grandaddy, or if he never actually observed anything and imagined it all in a drug fueled dream. His HYPOTHESIS has been rigourously tested and perfectly explains the distribution of life. It is now a THEORY due to its ability to stand up to centuries of scrutiny. How else could you possibly explain the congruency between morphological and genetic data? How else could you possibly explain vestigial structures, so-called transitional forms, and our own directed evolutionary experiments that we conduct in the lab?

The TOE has no flaws. There are no gaps in the TOE. What there are gaps in, is our understanding of evolutionary history. These gaps are being filled in as more and more evidence is analyzed.

But his theory is borrowed from religous texts and i shown that to be the case



really? so explain to me how macro cant be observed?


so you assume that its the case that by seeing small changes that it will make changes .heres some odds against human brain evolution from common descent

Chimpanzee gene is 45, 050 base pairs long/15,016 amino acids
Human gene is 37,610 base pairs long/12,536 amino acids.

Mutations in this gene result in frameshifts causing something called Junctional Epidermolysis Bullosa and other dreadful things.
This one is another major difference that remains accounted for. The odds of getting the 18 substitutions required are 1 in 782, 917, 642, 535, 650, 449 according to the producer of the video.

from this video

YouTube - ‪Evidence against evolution -The HAR-1 Gene‬‏

so we just assume based on argumentum ad futura?

yes i know that evolution cant be tested but look at the evidence of that. if one gene is off. that is why i consider it a hypothesis or a model at best. the same with creationism. a model that is all. and a more accurate model.

 

[jasoncran]

in otherwords you my friend would waste taxpayer money on reasearching what we already know. its settled, dont doubt it.

Good i am running for office and i will defund all reaserch on evolution. we dont need to know how we got here if its settled. weak my friend i debunked that a long time ago.

i am glad you arent a lawyer. no questions asked or challenged evidence for the defendants guilt. after all the origins theory is based on forensic style research.

no holes eh. i know better then that. i have a book on that that are athiests that no longer buy evolution because of behavioral research is agianst that. why do you bother with this site if its so true?

i dont go to flat earthers or geocentrist sites to "educate" them. pointless.

you may continue to post here but i have doubt whether you really buy the toe at all. i am on a pro evo site and naturalist and theisitic evolutionist site,. yet i dont even bother trying to change their minds. pointless. i observe what they say science says and ask questions. that is where i get my basic understanding of current theories from.

 

[abrown9]

]

But his theory is borrowed from religous texts and i shown that to be the case

[/QUOTE]

You have hardly shown that to be the case. Its a tenuous connection at best. Regardless, that fact is irrelevant when discussing the validity of the theory.

really? so explain to me how macro cant be observed?

? I assume you mean for me to explain to you how macro can be observed. There is no macro or micro, there is just descent with modification. The terms "speciation", "evolution" etc. are all terms created by humans. Nature does not think in species or clades. The lines between species are immensely blurred and we define them based on arbitrary characteristics. If you want to look at an example of what we consider a species that has recently diverged, I suggest you look at the London Underground Mosquito. There is a fair amount of debate among entomologists on whether it actually is a new species or just a subspecies of C. pipiens, but it certainly is reproductively isolated both PRE and POST zygotically from aboveground C. pipiens populations, which gives evidence of speciation in progress.

so you assume that its the case that by seeing small changes that it will make changes .heres some odds against human brain evolution from common descent

Chimpanzee gene is 45, 050 base pairs long/15,016 amino acids
Human gene is 37,610 base pairs long/12,536 amino acids.

Mutations in this gene result in frameshifts causing something called Junctional Epidermolysis Bullosa and other dreadful things.
This one is another major difference that remains accounted for. The odds of getting the 18 substitutions required are 1 in 782, 917, 642, 535, 650, 449 according to the producer of the video.

AGAIN WITH THE ODDS! I have explained this to you before. This is the sharpshooter fallacy - assuming that the result you are observing is the only result. Please refer to my other post for a more detailed explanation.

yes i know that evolution cant be tested but look at the evidence of that. if one gene is off. that is why i consider it a hypothesis or a model at best. the same with creationism. a model that is all. and a more accurate model.

I would love to see your rationale for Creationism being a "more accurate" model than Evolution. Evolution is tested, constantly. Our findings fall in with the predictions of the TOE. The TOE provides the only known framework that actually makes sense of the distribution of genetic and morphological diversity throughout all known life.

 

[jasoncran]

]

You have hardly shown that to be the case. Its a tenuous connection at best. Regardless, that fact is irrelevant when discussing the validity of the theory.





? I assume you mean for me to explain to you how macro can be observed. There is no macro or micro, there is just descent with modification. The terms "speciation", "evolution" etc. are all terms created by humans. Nature does not think in species or clades. The lines between species are immensely blurred and we define them based on arbitrary characteristics. If you want to look at an example of what we consider a species that has recently diverged, I suggest you look at the London Underground Mosquito. There is a fair amount of debate among entomologists on whether it actually is a new species or just a subspecies of C. pipiens, but it certainly is reproductively isolated both PRE and POST zygotically from aboveground C. pipiens populations, which gives evidence of speciation in progress.

so you assume that its the case that by seeing small changes that it will make changes .heres some odds against human brain evolution from common descent



AGAIN WITH THE ODDS! I have explained this to you before. This is the sharpshooter fallacy - assuming that the result you are observing is the only result. Please refer to my other post for a more detailed explanation.




I would love to see your rationale for Creationism being a "more accurate" model than Evolution. Evolution is tested, constantly. Our findings fall in with the predictions of the TOE. The TOE provides the only known framework that actually makes sense of the distribution of genetic and morphological diversity throughout all known life.[/QUOTE]


yet math to you is irrevalant.

lol the london underground species. ah yes that is proof of again?

btw they can mate and produce offspring and when they come back to the surface they loose the adoptions

uh simple which hypothesis changes the most? evo.

creationism never said there would be fossils that would be in transition, just fully formed as we see.

so macro and micro is the same eh?again proof? given enough time anything will happen. so if they dna doesnt go you way and the fossils just do what you just said.

lol. and you wonder why i dont buy the toe at all.

so can you explain to me how something blind selects just one gene and keeps it going to add a function and related part that controls that function? ie the eye and the human brain that a bit different then the other primates?ie the limbs that grew and changed on the birds? surely you see a problem with that suddenly from one change we get it again and again and somehow it survives, nature somehow

ah yes and you call it science. just so.

so what good is stats then? ah yes if it supports the toe.

but if not toss it out. so why study dna if it contradicts. convergent dna doesnt support common descent! its the opposite. meaning that somehow another species get the same type of organ or function from a different set of genes.

meaning if ape a has this x chromosome for his brain and humans have a chromosome y for that.they cant have common ancestry. yes it general but you get the idea.

 

[abrown9]

yet math to you is irrevalant.

Only your biased math.

lol the london underground species. ah yes that is proof of again?

btw they can mate and produce offspring and when they come back to the surface they loose the adoptions

"Breeding experiments show compatibility between the Underground populations but not with those breeding above ground."

Culex pipiens in London Underground tunnels: differentiation between surface and subterranean populations - Byrne and Nichols

Since the difference between the two putative species is so small, it makes sense that they would, as you say, "loose the adoptions", when exposed to an environment that selects against the adaptations.

uh simple which hypothesis changes the most? evo

How has evolutionary THEORY changed? It still says "descent with modification" and "natural selection". There is nothing else to it. Also, Creationism, by definition, cannot be a hypothesis. You can't test the supernatural.

creationism never said there would be fossils that would be in transition, just fully formed as we see.

Creationism doesn't say anything other than "a supernatural being created life".

so macro and micro is the same eh?again proof? given enough time anything will happen. so if they dna doesnt go you way and the fossils just do what you just said.

Yes. I'm not sure why I need proof that if you walk one foot ten times, it equals walking ten feet once. I have no idea what your second point is.

lol. and you wonder why i dont buy the toe at all.

No, I don't wonder. Clearly you don't buy it because of your religious views.

so can you explain to me how something blind selects just one gene and keeps it going to add a function and related part that controls that function? ie the eye and the human brain that a bit different then the other primates?ie the limbs that grew and changed on the birds? surely you see a problem with that suddenly from one change we get it again and again and somehow it survives, nature somehow

Not "somehow". Natural selection. Your need to understand the concept of pre-adaptation.


so what good is stats then? ah yes if it supports the toe.

but if not toss it out. so why study dna if it contradicts. convergent dna doesnt support common descent! its the opposite. meaning that somehow another species get the same type of organ or function from a different set of genes.

Convergent can't lend support or provide evidence against anything. It is what it is. Similar environments exhibit similar selective pressures on their inhabitants. Similar selective pressures force the adaptation of morphologically similar structures that serve similar purposes. These structures may or may not be synapomorphies. Convergent evolution is one of the things we have to be careful about when morphological traits for phlyogenetic analysis.

meaning if ape a has this x chromosome for his brain and humans have a chromosome y for that.they cant have common ancestry. yes it general but you get the idea.

Yes, but that isn't the case. In fact Chimps and Humans have remarkably similar Karyotypes (note how the extra chimp chromosome and chimp chromosome 2 almost perfectly match human chromosome two if they were fused)