[_ Old Earth _] Evolution: Running out of Puff?

[Asyncritus]

Of all the migrations I have ever read about, this one must now supersede my previous favourite, the Pacific Golden Plover.

I've no doubt I shall be accused of the usual suspects 'personal incredulity', hand waving and so forth, but surely my opponents must bow the knee when they read about this one?

And what a name for the bird? the GODWIT!

This is copied from the well-known Washington Post. Read and wonder you unbelievers. Ask yourselves: how could this possibly have evolved - and from what?

Birds Fly More Than 7,000 Miles Nonstop, Study Shows

A male bar-tailed godwit with a solar transmitter attached to his leg. (By Kamenobu Ooshiro -- Okinawa Wild Bird Society)

Enlarge Photo

By David Brown
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 22, 2008

The bar-tailed godwit, a plump shorebird with a recurved bill, has blown the record for nonstop, muscle-powered flight right out of the sky.

A study being published today reports that godwits can fly as many as 7,242 miles without stopping in their annual fall migration from Alaska to New Zealand. The previous record, set by eastern curlews, was a 4,000-mile trip from eastern Australia to China.

The birds flew for five to nine days without rest, a few landing on South Pacific islands before resuming their trips, which were monitored by satellite in 2006 and 2007.

As a feat of sustained exercise unrelieved by sleeping, eating or drinking, the godwit's migration appears to be without precedent in the annals of vertebrate physiology.

"The human species doesn't work at these levels. So you just have to sit back in awe of it all," said Robert E. Gill Jr., a biologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, who headed the study.

The birds were expending energy at eight-to-10 times the rate they do at rest. The previous record for a boost in energy output is seven times the "basal metabolic rate." Peak output in human beings, achieved by Tour de France bicyclists, is a sixfold increase.

As astounding as the feat is the fact that it represents a highly evolved solution to a problem, not a fluke or one-time occurrence.

[I guess we must have the stupidity element out in force somewhere]

The nonstop, over-water route is free of predators and substantially shorter than a hopscotching route down the eastern coast of Asia, which is the alternative. Landing and eating -- literally, refueling -- would expose the birds to disease and parasites when they are probably somewhat immune-suppressed. Refueling also would add weeks to the trip and itself take energy.

All in all, flying nonstop across most of the north-south span of the Pacific Ocean is the safest thing to do.

[I mentioned stupidity, didn't I?]

The death rate during the migration is unknown but presumably low, as the population of bar-tailed godwits, estimated at 100,000, has been stable and long-lasting.

"This system would not have perpetuated itself if mortality were a big problem," said Gill, whose study is being published today in Proceedings B, a journal of The Royal Society, in England.

Now for the problems.

How to navigate across 7000 miles or more of ocean safely? With no equipment?

How did that instinct arise?

And how did it get into their genome?

And Rhea, there are no 'meadows' etc in the Pacific, you know!

 

[Asyncritus]

And there's more...

"...young godwits usually arrive in New Zealand early next month.

"Some might fly down in flocks with adults but other ones will fly down without any adults involved at all which is pretty amazing," says Dr Battley. "They're only two months old and here they are about to fly from Alaska to New Zealand."

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Godwit makes huge Pacific flight

And what about timing? Not as deadly accurate as the Capistrano swallows, but not bad:

"After spending almost a year at sea and with most birds circumnavigating the southern hemisphere in that time, arriving back to Taiaroa Head within a few days of their previous arrival date often astounds me," Department of Conservation ranger Lyndon Perriman told the Otago Daily Times newspaper.

Read more: http://www.3news.co.nz/Godwits-long...0/articleID/225805/Default.aspx#ixzz1YGvWJw2N
​

Glory to the God who made these things so wonderfully!

"For thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created..."

 

[Rhea]

It says right in the article how it got into the genome.

 

[lordkalvan]

It says right in the article how it got into the genome.

It's no good, Rhea, you are addressing a mind already determined that no naturalistic explanation at all is possible and that all it has to do to provide 'evidence' of a supernatural origin for a phenomenon that it seems to have only a superficial understanding of is to express incredulity at the 'impossibility' or 'extraordinariness' of the phenomenon. Which is why we see this Gish Gallop of threads littered with misrepresentations and misunderstandings, and dismissed or ignored questions, arguments and points, all of which do nothing more than emphasize that no matter what evidence and arguments are presented Morton's Demon will act as an effective filter against them.

 

[lordkalvan]

...How to navigate across 7000 miles or more of ocean safely? With no equipment?...

Good grief, they've got 'equipment'. How many times do you need to be told this before it registers?

 

[Asyncritus]

It says right in the article how it got into the genome.

Show me.

 

[Asyncritus]

Good grief, they've got 'equipment'. How many times do you need to be told this before it registers?

Show me.

And when you've done that, tell me how it originated, and how it entered the genome.

Bird A (couldn't fly across Pacific) 'evolves' -----X-------> Godwit (can fly across)

What happened at X?

 

[Asyncritus]

It's no good, Rhea, you are addressing a mind already determined that no naturalistic explanation at all is possible and that all it has to do to provide 'evidence' of a supernatural origin for a phenomenon that it seems to have only a superficial understanding of is to express incredulity at the 'impossibility' or 'extraordinariness' of the phenomenon. Which is why we see this Gish Gallop of threads littered with misrepresentations and misunderstandings, and dismissed or ignored questions, arguments and points, all of which do nothing more than emphasize that no matter what evidence and arguments are presented Morton's Demon will act as an effective filter against them.

Ah, the ad homs are back again in force.

The threads are asking two question and two questions only. Any extraneous information such as that which you have kindly provided has been regrettably irrelevant to those two issues.

Or maybe I've missed something somewhere?

I AM looking for a naturalistic explanation - but so far, nothing has emerged from the welter of posts.

And here's Rhea's statement that the answer is in the article! What was it again?

"a highly evolved solution to a problem"

No kidding!

Now since were are discussing whether it evolved at all, can you not see a major piece of question-begging just there?I can.While we're here, I would be very disappointed in you if you can fail to describe this phenomenon as 'extraordinary', 'wonderful', 'amazing', 'incredible' and other such words.

The researchers were clearly mind boggled, as was the journalist, at this great thing which is one of the glories of our profession.

It means your sense of appreciation of the great things in the natural world is diminished or non-existent.

It would be sad if that were the case, you know.

 

[jasoncran]

i dont see any reference to any intermediates from the predessor of the gotwit to its present from and dna to wit showing the genes that drive that behavior.

 

[lordkalvan]

Show me.

So you want to deny decades of ornithological research? Why would that be?

And when you've done that, tell me how it originated, and how it entered the genome.

Why did ancestral godwits migrate? They date back at least 6 MY and possibly to as long ago as 35 MY. It 'entered the genome' through the evolutionary algorithm.

Bird A (couldn't fly across Pacific) 'evolves' -----X-------> Godwit (can fly across)

What happened at X?

Your question is foolish. Bird A does not 'evolve', but rather discrete populations of Bird A follow different evolutionary pathways. 'X' is not a particular moment that marks an abrupt change from one type of behaviour (or organism) to another, but an indeterminate period during which evolutionary pressures influence development in a particular way. There is no 'X' at which something 'happened'.

 

[lordkalvan]

Ah, the ad homs are back again in force.

Can you point to the specific ad hominems that you believe have attacked you rather than your 'debating' style and argument?

The threads are asking two question and two questions only. Any extraneous information such as that which you have kindly provided has been regrettably irrelevant to those two issues.

And who appointed you arbitrator of what is or is not relevant to these 'two issues', given that they are clearly founded on a raft of misunderstandings and misrepresentations in the various claims and demands that have littered your OPs and subsequent posts? Do you believe you are above answering questions, arguments and points that go the heart of your various claims, assertions and assumptions?

Or maybe I've missed something somewhere?

You have missed explaining why questions, arguments and points that go the heart of your various claims, assertions and assumptions are 'regrettably irrelevant', which leaves me to ponder whether it's because you can't or whether it's because you can but are well aware of the implications of those answers.

I AM looking for a naturalistic explanation - but so far, nothing has emerged from the welter of posts.

Plenty has emerged, but you have ignored, denied or handwaved away much of it.

And here's Rhea's statement that the answer is in the article! What was it again?

"a highly evolved solution to a problem"

No kidding!

Now since were are discussing whether it evolved at all, can you not see a major piece of question-begging just there?I can.While we're here, I would be very disappointed in you if you can fail to describe this phenomenon as 'extraordinary', 'wonderful', 'amazing', 'incredible' and other such words.

Rhea can speak for himself, as you are well aware.

The researchers were clearly mind boggled, as was the journalist, at this great thing which is one of the glories of our profession.

So they were 'mind boggled'? What is this evidence of, other than boggling minds? And you say 'our profession'. Just out of interest, what is 'our profession'?

It means your sense of appreciation of the great things in the natural world is diminished or non-existent.

Thanks for the analysis. I am amazed you can read minds over the Internet. Have you volunteered for scientific examination of this talent?

It would be sad if that were the case, you know.

But completely irrelevant to the validity of evolutionary theory, of course.

 

[Rhea]

It says right in the article how it got into the genome.

Show me.

Well, I can't show "you" because you have demonstrated a refusal to discuss the implications of natural evidence. But for anyone else reading, here it is.

The nonstop, over-water route is free of predators and substantially shorter than a hopscotching route down the eastern coast of Asia, which is the alternative. Landing and eating -- literally, refueling -- would expose the birds to disease and parasites when they are probably somewhat immune-suppressed. Refueling also would add weeks to the trip and itself take energy.

All in all, flying nonstop across most of the north-south span of the Pacific Ocean is the safest thing to do.

This is a PERFECT example of evolutionary adaptation.

• The birds migrate a little south during winter for food.
• The ones that go further south get even better food.
• Any mutation which rewards further southering will tend to have more survivors. This might be a pleasure feedback at being pointed in that direction, it might include a desire to just go as far south as the stored fat reserves will take it, where better south food results in more fat stores which results in further south which results in better fat stores...
• The population starts to include more and more of the ones that tend further south.
• The larger fat reserves, or the compelling chemical production - whichever it is - allow the birds to land less often, which allows them to go further south, which allows them to not get eaten so often, which causes the population to included yet more of the ones that go further south.
• The non-stop flight time continues to increase until it begins to allow significant over-ocean flight, which makes them even less likely to get eaten, which increases still more the percent of the population that is doing over-water flights.
• Meanwhile, other mutations occur that perhaps delete the urge to see land during navigation and these birds now have a shorter route as well as safer, and are even more successful.
• A tipping point arrives at which the over-water population is *so much* safer that their reproductive success swamps the non-distance birds.
• The population becomes one that is virtually exclusively long-distance over-water flyers.

In short, one mutation can make way for another to succeed, which can increase the advantage of the first and make the deletion of yet another not deleterious but actually advantageous. These things interact over tens of thousands of generations and result in significant physiological and behavioral changes to the group. The group - never any individual. Individuals don't "change". They are born different and either survive better and spread their difference or they don't.

Rhea can speak for himself, as you are well aware.

Herself. And yes.

 

[Asyncritus]

Can you point to the specific ad hominems that you believe have attacked you rather than your 'debating' style and argument?

I'll emphasise the bits that seem to me to be directed at me personally rather than at the case I am presenting.

It's no good, Rhea, you are addressing a mind already determined that no naturalistic explanation at all is possible and that all it has to do to provide 'evidence' of a supernatural origin for a phenomenon that it seems to have only a superficial understanding of is to express incredulity at the 'impossibility' or 'extraordinariness' of the phenomenon. Which is why we see this Gish Gallop of threads littered with misrepresentations and misunderstandings, and dismissed or ignored questions, arguments and points, all of which do nothing more than emphasize that no matter what evidence and arguments are presented Morton's Demon will act as an effective filter against them.

Enough? Where is your factual and scientific attack on the facts/ material being presented? You are broad-brushing, and cannot provide specific illustrations of the above red-lettered remarks.

And who appointed you arbitrator of what is or is not relevant to these 'two issues', given that they are clearly founded on a raft of misunderstandings and misrepresentations in the various claims and demands that have littered your OPs and subsequent posts? Do you believe you are above answering questions, arguments and points that go the heart of your various claims, assertions and assumptions?

No I don't believe that I am above answering anything that is relevant to my 2 standard questions.

You have yet to provide any such answers, but have contented yourself with answering other questions which I did not ask.

You have provided material which nicely explain why migration may be a good thing. Most papers on the subject deal with this, but you and they fall at the first hurdle.

Which is a rather large one, with Lamarckism writ large all over it. Perhaps you haven't grasped that fact, but let me help you to see the point.

Let X seek better pastures and feeding/higher temperatures/ whatever.

Let X find such a spot say 400 miles away south of wherever it was.

Now here's your great problem.

Acquired characteristics (and information) cannot be inherited. If you make such a claim, you are in the Lamarckian trap.

How then does X pass that information to its offspring?

It MUST DO SO! Because we see (in the case of the eels, and the plovers, and the godwits and innumerable others) that the young make the same journey, having never gone there before, and with no parents to guide them!

They received that information from their parents, via the genome, I believe, otherwise they are being supernaturally guided - a possibility which I am not prepared to discount entirely, but will not pursue.

You have missed explaining why questions, arguments and points that go the heart of your various claims, assertions and assumptions are 'regrettably irrelevant', which leaves me to ponder whether it's because you can't or whether it's because you can but are well aware of the implications of those answers.

Let's keep this simple, shall we?

Show me a single case, where you have indicated a. how (note, HOW, not WHY) the instinct arose and b. how that instinct entered the genome.

I will thereupon apologise profusely for my remarks, to which you take such exception.

Can't say fairer than that, can I?

 

[jasoncran]

simple evolution did it and we know it did.

lets spend more money that is borrowed to find out what we know find out.

 

[Rhea]

Acquired characteristics (and information) cannot be inherited. If you make such a claim, you are in the Lamarckian trap.

You are making a claim that something is *IMPOSSIBLE*. That takes a lot of proof.

Alcoholism cannot be inherited. But a tendency for it can be. For example.

The mutation that drives a long flight *CAN* be inherited.
A variety of tools are used by birds in migrating and no one of them is "impossible".

But if you want to call something "impossible" you'll need one tremendous proof, not just that it seems incredible.

I enjoyed reading some of the details on migration at Wiki. It has some intersting explanations of how the genetic information is incorporated. Plus it details how this gnetic detail can go wrong and those mutations created an entirely new flight pattern, sometimes thousands of miles off course.

 

[lordkalvan]

I'll emphasise the bits that seem to me to be directed at me personally rather than at the case I am presenting.

Criticizing your understanding is not attacking you personally as a means of attacking your argument, which is what an ad hominem amounts to; here's a definition for you again:

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.

Source: ww w.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

The understanding that you demonstrate in respect of a subject is directly relevant to the arguments you make about that subject and is an entirely legitimate target of criticism in a debate. For example, claiming that evolutionary theory says that human beings are descended from chimpanzees or that birds lack navigational equipment is demonstrably wrong, represents a failure of understanding and so this failure is fair comment.

As to expressing incredulity about a phenomenon as a precursor to declaring evolutionary theory incapable of explaining it, well this litters your OPs and threads. Some examples:

…the astonishing feats of bird navigation and migration defy belief.

A bit of imagination soon makes these feats quite unbelievable.

That they should do this, heading for a destination they cannot see, with terrible problems they must meet, navigating only with a heavenly guide – it can be nothing else…

The second requirement, together with the first, makes the whole thing completely, unbelievably miraculous.

So as expressing incredulity appears to be the basis of most of your arguments, I am not sure why you are so surprised (and offended) that others point this out.

If you engage in Gish Gallops, then you’ll get called on that as well. Given that you have started multiple threads while questions, points and counter-arguments about your claims, assertions and assumptions remain unanswered on other threads you have started, I am not really sure why you are complaining about this. Here’s another definition, which seems appropriate in this case:

In the classic Gallop, a long string of assertions are thrown out in an argument, most of which have questionable sources if any at all; consequently addressing all of the issues raised with the depth that they deserve is practically impossible: it would simply take too long.

Source: ww w.youdebate.com

As to misrepresentations and misunderstandings, we have seen you imply that, for example, the ability to perform a given behaviour springs into being wholly and complete in one instance:

…from the very first time they made this journey, and ever since, they had the mechanism implanted into their little heads.

That evolutionary theory is quite unable to offer hypotheses to explain the development of instinctive behaviour:

…and yet, evolution, that theory which began with the optimistic title 'On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection' has no idea as to HOW THAT BEHAVIOUR EVOLVED, and HOW IT ENTERED THE GENOME.

And that instincts are unaffected by evolutionary pressures:

Instincts… are not subject to evolutionary mechanisms…

Enough?

I would think so.

Where is your factual and scientific attack on the facts/ material being presented?

It’s not the material, it’s the claims, assertions and assumptions you make on the back of it.

You are broad-brushing, and cannot provide specific illustrations of the above red-lettered remarks.

Not so. See above.

No I don't believe that I am above answering anything that is relevant to my 2 standard questions.

Well, that’s one big codicil, isn’t it, as all you have to do is declare something irrelevant in order to avoid answering it?

You have yet to provide any such answers, but have contented yourself with answering other questions which I did not ask.

Nope, I have made comments, raised points, offered counter-arguments and asked questions which are entirely relevant to your various claims, assertions, assumptions and questions, but that you have variously dismissed, ignored, handwaved away or denied.

You have provided material which nicely explain why migration may be a good thing. Most papers on the subject deal with this, but you and they fall at the first hurdle.

Why do you continue to imagine that the why of migratory behaviour has no relevance to the how? Do you not see that this goes to the heart of the narrow, incomplete understanding that you appear to have of this behaviour?

Which is a rather large one, with Lamarckism writ large all over it.

Eh, no it isn’t. Again you demonstrate your misunderstanding.

Perhaps you haven't grasped that fact, but let me help you to see the point.

Please do.

Let X seek better pastures and feeding/higher temperatures/ whatever.

Why does it do this?

Let X find such a spot say 400 miles away south of wherever it was.

Why do we ‘say’ this? Why not 20 miles?

Now here's your great problem.

Oooh, scary large red font, so this must really be a problem.

Acquired characteristics (and information) cannot be inherited. If you make such a claim, you are in the Lamarckian trap.

Well, as I make no such claim so far all I see is a strawman argument.

How then does X pass that information to its offspring?

Through the genes: descent with modification through natural selection.

It MUST DO SO! Because we see (in the case of the eels, and the plovers, and the godwits and innumerable others) that the young make the same journey, having never gone there before, and with no parents to guide them!

Wow, bold, italics and upper case. Clearly an even more irrefutable point. See my last comment.

They received that information from their parents, via the genome, I believe, otherwise they are being supernaturally guided - a possibility which I am not prepared to discount entirely, but will not pursue.

Well, that’s what the best hypothesis is so far. I’ve seen you offer nothing that falsifies it.

Let's keep this simple, shall we?

Show me a single case, where you have indicated a. how (note, HOW, not WHY) the instinct arose and b. how that instinct entered the genome.

How is not answerable without considering why. The instinct arose through the why behind migratory behaviour at all. Here (again) is an explanation that is entirely naturalistic and based on an evolutionary hypothesis:

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.

It ‘entered the genome’ because birds that followed this type of behaviour were more successful and had more successful descendants than birds that didn’t. Those that lacked the behavioural modification either stayed at home and followed a different evolutionary pathway (consider the different types of migratory behaviour – oh, wait, you regard that as quite irrelevant, don’t you?) or simply died out. Just like Northern Europeans evolved much lighter skin (and consequently blue eyes and fair hair) in response to different environmental conditions: those with darker skin were simply less able to cope with the environmental impact of North European weather.

I will thereupon apologise profusely for my remarks, to which you take such exception.

Apology awaited.

Can't say fairer than that, can I?

Mouth and money, please.

 

[Asyncritus]

Well, I can't show "you" because you have demonstrated a refusal to discuss the implications of natural evidence. But for anyone else reading, here it is.

This is a PERFECT example of evolutionary adaptation.

• The birds migrate a little south during winter for food.
• The ones that go further south get even better food.
• Any mutation which rewards further southering will tend to have more survivors. This might be a pleasure feedback at being pointed in that direction, it might include a desire to just go as far south as the stored fat reserves will take it, where better south food results in more fat stores which results in further south which results in better fat stores...

Rhea, please. I don't wish to be abusive and sardonic. But since you are acquainted with google, why don't you look up 'mutations' and find out for yourself what those things actually do?

LK, do explain to her what a mutation is, and what we might expect to happen as a result of one or a dozen. She might listen to you, and stop these fatuous remarks which do her no credit at all.

The population starts to include more and more of the ones that tend further south.
The larger fat reserves, or the compelling chemical production - whichever it is - allow the birds to land less often, which allows them to go further south, which allows them to not get eaten so often, which causes the population to included yet more of the ones that go further south.

Rhea, there are NO STOPPING POINTS in the Pacific between Alaska and New Zealand, so all this "allow the birds to land" idea is just pure nonsense.

• The non-stop flight time continues to increase until it begins to allow significant over-ocean flight, which makes them even less likely to get eaten ...

...And a lot more likely to drown!

I missed how they found out WHERE TO GO in this amazing over-water flight. And how they informed their children, because the children GO WITHOUT THEM! As with the Pacific Golden Plovers.

• Meanwhile, other mutations occur that perhaps delete the urge to see land during navigation :toofunny and these birds now have a shorter route as well as safer, and are even more successful.

7200 miles is shorter????

• A tipping point arrives at which the over-water population is *so much* safer that their reproductive success swamps the non-distance birds.

Safer? 7,200 miles over water? :toofunny

• The population becomes one that is virtually exclusively long-distance over-water flyers.

In short, one mutation can make way for another to succeed, which can increase the advantage of the first and make the deletion of yet another not deleterious but actually advantageous. These things interact over tens of thousands of generations and result in significant physiological and behavioral changes to the group.

But they all drowned. Good for physiology, isn't it?

The group - never any individual. Individuals don't "change". They are born different and either survive better and spread their difference or they don't.

But the group drowned.

 

[lordkalvan]

Rhea, please. I don't wish to be abusive and sardonic. But since you are acquainted with google, why don't you look up 'mutations' and find out for yourself what those things actually do?

Well, why don't you? You still haven't responded to points I raised about mutations.

LK, do explain to her what a mutation is, and what we might expect to happen as a result of one or a dozen. She might listen to you, and stop these fatuous remarks which do her no credit at all.

Well, some are out-and -out bad for the individual, some are bad for the individual, but good for the population and some are good for both. Most mutations have no impact on evolution at all, but those that do can become very quickly fixed in a population (for a current example, see the rapid growth in numbers of the England overwintering blackcap warblers). To take an obvious example of the generally neutral effect of mutations, consider that, as I believe Rhea has already pointed out, for example, every human being born carries between 50 and 100 mutations, of which about three matter in the sense that they cause changes in a protein. Determining whether any of those individual mutations will have positive consequences for the individual and the potential population of his/her descendants, negative consequences for the individual, but positive ones for the potential population of his/her descendants, or negative consequences for both is almost impossible to tell, but if these mutations were overwhelmingly dangerous or harmful as you suggest, then we wouldn't be here exchanging views on the subject.

Rhea, there are NO STOPPING POINTS in the Pacific between Alaska and New Zealand, so all this "allow the birds to land" idea is just pure nonsense...

Actually, there are plenty of landfalls between Alaska and New Zealand; Samoa, for example is almost exactly on a Great Circle route between the two. There are numerous other waystations.

 

[Asyncritus]

Criticizing your understanding is not attacking you personally as a means of attacking your argument, which is what an ad hominem amounts to; here's a definition for you again:

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.

Source: ww w.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Which is precisely what you have been doing, as I indicated.

The understanding that you demonstrate in respect of a subject is directly relevant to the arguments you make about that subject and is an entirely legitimate target of criticism in a debate. For example, claiming that evolutionary theory says that human beings are descended from chimpanzees or that birds lack navigational equipment is demonstrably wrong, represents a failure of understanding and so this failure is fair comment.

I don't recall saying that humans are descended from chimpanzees, but I'll look it up and correct the statement if needed.

I missed Barbarian's explanation of the origin of the a. psychological differences and b. the metatersal ligament differences.

I was appalled at the disgraceful lack of comprehension of the differences between the microscopic pores between alveoli and the totally different structure of the lung of the birds - so I did not pursue the matter.

As to expressing incredulity about a phenomenon as a precursor to declaring evolutionary theory incapable of explaining it, well this litters your OPs and threads. Some examples:

…the astonishing feats of bird navigation and migration defy belief.

A bit of imagination soon makes these feats quite unbelievable.

That they should do this, heading for a destination they cannot see, with terrible problems they must meet, navigating only with a heavenly guide – it can be nothing else…

The second requirement, together with the first, makes the whole thing completely, unbelievably miraculous.

So as expressing incredulity appears to be the basis of most of your arguments, I am not sure why you are so surprised (and offended) that others point this out.

I may express incredulity - but the flat-footed lack of, and any appreciation of, these factual phenomena which you first exhibit, and then attack me for, is, I feel, quite disgraceful in someone claiming some acquaintance with biology and the natural world.

Not only that, but you have utterly failed to present any coherent accounting for the two questions which have been raised time and again. You have indulged in question-begging quite extensively, and in this post, there is a classic example which I shall belabour later.

If you engage in Gish Gallops, then you’ll get called on that as well. Given that you have started multiple threads while questions, points and counter-arguments about your claims, assertions and assumptions remain unanswered on other threads you have started, I am not really sure why you are complaining about this. Here’s another definition, which seems appropriate in this case:

In the classic Gallop, a long string of assertions are thrown out in an argument, most of which have questionable sources if any at all; consequently addressing all of the issues raised with the depth that they deserve is practically impossible: it would simply take too long.

I have made no assertions in these accounts - and refuse to dehumanise my descriptions. But to say that there are assertions which are unjustified, and to say that the sources are questionable is grossly unfair, and completely misleading.

The fact remains that there is an enormous number of such phenomena as I have been describing, for which evolution cannot account and can only fudge.

I am placing them on the board in the hope that readers who have some admiration for the natural world can see them, and perhaps join with me in my admiration. If that is your idea of a Gish Gallop, then so be it - but the fact remains that you have been completely unable to account for the origin and genome entry of any of the phenomena I have presented. The facts trample evolution underfoot as surely as a horse would

My express intention is to destroy the theory of evolution, since it is a crassly incompetent theory, whose only support is the cunning debating tactics of its misguided supporters.

It is a disgrace to the fair name of Biology, and I deeply resent the utter nonsense that has to be invoked in order to shore it up: 'fragile towers of hypotheses piled upon hypotheses' as W R Thopson once described it.

Rhea's theorising, if it can be dignified by that name, is typical of the torrent of tripe poured out by the evolution apologists. She is a chemist - but the stuff she has turned out would do credit to the junk the evolution establishment produces.

And you can't see it!

Why? Because you were taught it at school and in the university - and you are totally blinkered by your education.

As Steven Stanley said in Macroevolution (p2): if our knowledge of biology was restricted to the species presently existing on earth, "we might wonder whether the doctrine of evolution would qualify as anything more than an outrageous hypothesis."

As Denton said in 1989, (Evolution: A theory in Crisis p 158)Without intermediates or transitional forms to bridge the enormous gaps which separate existing species and groups of organisms, the concept of evolution could never be taken seriously as a scientific hypothesis.

Yet you support it in defiance of the blindingly obvious facts of natural history, and above all of palaeontology and biochemistry.

As to misrepresentations and misunderstandings, we have seen you imply that, for example, the ability to perform a given behaviour springs into being wholly and complete in one instance:

…from the very first time they made this journey, and ever since, they had the mechanism implanted into their little heads.

How else do you account for their ability to migrate from Goya to Capistrano - or from Alaska to New Zealand? Apart from the usual tower of nonsensical hypotheses?

Have you any evidence of your own assertions?

That evolutionary theory is quite unable to offer hypotheses to explain the development of instinctive behaviour:

…and yet, evolution, that theory which began with the optimistic title 'On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection' has no idea as to HOW THAT BEHAVIOUR EVOLVED, and HOW IT ENTERED THE GENOME.

And that instincts are unaffected by evolutionary pressures:

Instincts… are not subject to evolutionary mechanisms…

Perfectly true. They cannot be created by evolutionary mechanisms, and they cannot enter the genome by evolutionary mechanisms. As I put it so picturesquely: one degree off and the birds would be belly up in the Pacific.

If you disagree, then produce some evidence as to how these two phenomena (Plovers and Godwits) evolved.

Will you descend into the production of tripe? Or admit the truth?

It’s not the material, it’s the claims, assertions and assumptions you make on the back of it.

So the Gish Gallop was a false accusation. I make those claims and assertions because of the observed facts. That is called 'inference' and 'conclusions'. I call on you to make your own claims, and justify them by using those phenomena.

Well, that’s one big codicil, isn’t it, as all you have to do is declare something irrelevant in order to avoid answering it?

Surely your intelligence can distinguish between the words HOW and WHY? They are distinctly different questions, and demand completely different responses. Till now, you have utterly failed to show any ability to distinguish between the two, and most telling of all, you have produced no evidence to support your irrelevant answers.

Nope, I have made comments, raised points, offered counter-arguments and asked questions which are entirely relevant to your various claims, assertions, assumptions and questions, but that you have variously dismissed, ignored, handwaved away or denied.

You have fallen, on several occasions now, into Lamarckism, as I have demonstrated quite clearly.

Why do you continue to imagine that the why of migratory behaviour has no relevance to the how?

Because with the best will in the world, a reason for (= the WHY) a migration is no guarantee of it's success.

It is certainly no guarantee that the route and the timing will be passed on to the descendants.

It is no guarantee that the way back will be found by the parents.

And it it decidedly no guarantee that the offspring will ever find it again in the absence of their parents.

So you can protest to your heart's content that a WHY is somehow an adequate explanation of something - but I am interested in the two HOWs, and evolution theory purports to answer those very questions.

Of course, it doesn't, and it can't.

Why does it do this?
Why do we ‘say’ this? Why not 20 miles?

Because, my friend, the distance involved in the 3 cases I have presented is a minimum of 2,800 miles and a maximum of 7200 miles. 400 is a bagatelle, and 20 is of no significance.

You are compelled to make such a claim (of Lamarckism), like it or not. Let me walk you through it.

The first Bird A migrates 400 miles for whatever reason, and is successful in finding food/whatever.

It flies back home, and dies.

In order for the offspring now to set off and GET THERE, down a thousand generations, that information HAS TO ENTER THEIR GENOMES SOMEHOW from the first parents to make the trip.

But that is impossible. Acquired information CANNOT be inherited.

Therefore, the question stands. HOW DID THE OFFSPRING ACQUIRE THE INFORMATION?

Through the genes: descent with modification through natural selection.

Honestly LK. Aren't you embarrassed to be talking such nonsense?

The question before you is HOW DID THE FIRST BIRD (that wipes out the 'descent' bit)

a. acquire the information (that wipes out the genes)

and b. pass it into its genes (that's Lamarckism)

and c. pass it down to its offspring? (Again impossible - Lamarckism).

They received that information from their parents, via the genome, I believe, otherwise they are being supernaturally guided - a possibility which I am not prepared to discount entirely, but will not pursue.

Well, that’s what the best hypothesis is so far. I’ve seen you offer nothing that falsifies it.

I'm not clear what you mean. Are you saying that supernatural guidance is the method? Because Darwin and Dawkins will nail your hide to the wall if that's what you mean. (Don't worry - mine has been there for years already).

If that's what you mean, then you and I have no quarrel - but you need to tell me that.

I'll leave this here till you give me an answer to that question.

 

[Rhea]

Rhea, please. I don't wish to be abusive and sardonic. But

LOL, but you will.

since you are acquainted with google, why don't you look up 'mutations' and find out for yourself what those things actually do?

I'm good, actually, on understanding mutations.

What are you acquainted with?

Async, you claimed way back that you are a scientist. Several posters have asked you several times what kind of scientist you are.

Why is it that you are unwilling to talk more about the qualifications that you claimed earlier?

The reason I ask is because your method of analysis is very different than one would expect. So We would like to know more about the science background you bragged about when you said, "Rhea I realize you are not a scientist, but I am..."

Rhea, there are NO STOPPING POINTS in the Pacific between Alaska and New Zealand, so all this "allow the birds to land" idea is just pure nonsense.

You missed in your own link, and pointed out again in my reply that the birds could and would go down the shoreline. They could do this for hunderd of thousands of ytears before the first one capable of flying long and also flying in the wrong direction (also linked to you) would happen upon a much MUCH safer route.

I missed how they found out WHERE TO GO in this amazing over-water flight.

The possibility of them finding this by accident is certainly something that has happened before. The links showed birds "migrating to the wrong place, sometimes thousands of miles off course."

And how they informed their children, because the children GO WITHOUT THEM! As with the Pacific Golden Plovers.

There is plenty of literature on this. Fascinating studies of migratory navigation mechanisms, and scientists deliberately changing those mechanisms (as a mutation would do) and finding the birds flying to a new place.

And plenty of examples of populations of birds in a different place altogether than the rest of their species.

But they all drowned. Good for physiology, isn't it?

But the group drowned.

I do expect that quite a few birds have drowned over the years when they fly in a direction they are too weak to complete, or they fly in the wrong direction due to a navigational mutation and the result is not favorable. Evolution would expect this. Evolution would suggest that they don't tend to pass on their genes.


Please tell us what kind of scientist you are. You used it as a cudgel against me when you thought I was not a scientist. What where you bragging on?