[_ Old Earth _] Question about evolution...

[Asimov]

Duh! You know I'm asking you to prove the link between a previous "ancestor" and them. Then you have to prove the change was genetic otherwise it's still just adaptation.

Maybe I'm missing something here.....you're saying that the adaptation isn't genetic?? What else would it be, brutus?

And what about the previous ancestor? Why do I need to show a link between the two? What purpose would that serve?

Do you not think that penguins are birds?

 

[Blazin Bones]

Main Entry: ad·ap·ta·tion
Pronunciation: "a-"dap-'tA-sh&n, -d&p-
Function: noun
1 : the act or process of adapting : the state of being adapted
2 : adjustment to environmental conditions: as a : adjustment of a sense organ to the intensity or quality of stimulation b : modification of an organism or its parts that makes it more fit for existence under the conditions of its environment
3 : something that is adapted; specifically : a composition rewritten into a new form

This is Websters definition of adaptation.

ad·ap·ta·tion (dp-tshn) KEY

NOUN:


The act or process of adapting.
The state of being adapted.

Something, such as a device or mechanism, that is changed or changes so as to become suitable to a new or special application or situation.
A composition that has been recast into a new form: The play is an adaptation of a short novel.
Biology An alteration or adjustment in structure or habits, often hereditary, by which a species or individual improves its condition in relationship to its environment.
Physiology The responsive adjustment of a sense organ, such as the eye, to varying conditions, such as light intensity.
Change in behavior of a person or group in response to new or modified surroundings.

This is the American Heritage definition of Adaptation.

In neither of these definitions does it suggests adaptation is always genetic. In both Definitions, it is suggested that adaptation can be habitual alone. Does that clarify why I don't accept all adaptaions as evolutional?

As for your penguin example, it's quite clear the bird doesn't fly, but neither does the Emu or Ostrach. If you are trying to say an earlier ancestor flew, you must show the ancestor you are refering to and prove they are in fact relatedto the now flightless bird. You've made you speculation quite clear, but that's still just speculation.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Why else would the penguin have wings if they were not descended from a common ancestor with birds of flight or a common ancestor which could fly?

 

[Blazin Bones]

Why else would the penguin have wings if they were not descended from a common ancestor with birds of flight or a common ancestor which could fly?

For the same reason not every mammal gives birth to Live young, God made them that way. We don't have to understand why God does what He does. He allows people to Sin instead of annilalating us right? God's ways are higher than ours.

 

[JoshBibleStudyer]

Why else would the penguin have wings if they were not descended from a common ancestor with birds of flight or a common ancestor which could fly?

For the same reason not every mammal gives birth to Live young, God made them that way. We don't have to understand why God does what He does. He allows people to Sin instead of annilalating us right? God's ways are higher than ours.

Amen!!!!!!!!

 

[Asimov]

Biology An alteration or adjustment in structure or habits, often hereditary, by which a species or individual improves its condition in relationship to its environment.

This would be the biological definition of adaptation. Hereditary, brutus. Ergo, genetic.

As for your penguin example, it's quite clear the bird doesn't fly, but neither does the Emu or Ostrach. If you are trying to say an earlier ancestor flew, you must show the ancestor you are refering to and prove they are in fact relatedto the now flightless bird. You've made you speculation quite clear, but that's still just speculation.[/color]

Yes, the emu and the ostrich have wings, and they can't fly, they descended from birds who could fly.

As for proof? They have wings, wings are meant for flying. They have wings and they can't fly. Emu's, Ostrich's, and Penguins are also genetically close to other birds.

Therefore, it is reasonable to deduce that those three animals descended from flight-capable birds.

It is also reasonable to deduce that the emu, ostrich, and penguin lost these capabilities when it no longer became necessary to use them, or they were better suited to flightlessness.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Biology An alteration or adjustment in structure or habits, often hereditary, by which a species or individual improves its condition in relationship to its environment.

This would be the biological definition of adaptation. Hereditary, brutus. Ergo, genetic.

As for your penguin example, it's quite clear the bird doesn't fly, but neither does the Emu or Ostrach. If you are trying to say an earlier ancestor flew, you must show the ancestor you are refering to and prove they are in fact relatedto the now flightless bird. You've made you speculation quite clear, but that's still just speculation.[/color]

Yes, the emu and the ostrich have wings, and they can't fly, they descended from birds who could fly.

As for proof? They have wings, wings are meant for flying. They have wings and they can't fly. Emu's, Ostrich's, and Penguins are also genetically close to other birds.

Therefore, it is reasonable to deduce that those three animals descended from flight-capable birds.

It is also reasonable to deduce that the emu, ostrich, and penguin lost these capabilities when it no longer became necessary to use them, or they were better suited to flightlessness.

That is indeed the Biological definition. What's right there before the "often hereditary" peice, it's the word habit. Habits are rarely geneticly changed.

Just because a creature has wings does not prove they had an ancestor who flew. It does mean that the wings are there for a reason. If you have no proof of an ancestor with wings that flew, then your case is not proved by the presence of wings. Come on, Asimov.

For the wings on a penguin, it is just as conceivable that God created them with these wings to swim. For the Ostrich and the Emu, both birds are clearly built to run. These wings can just as easily have been given to these birds to provide for ventilation as they could have been there to fly. All you reasoning has been based on the absense of God, which since you can't prove He not the creator, you better build a stronger case than the fact that the bird has wings.

 

[Asimov]

That is indeed the Biological definition. What's right there before the "often hereditary" peice, it's the word habit. Habits are rarely geneticly changed.

Behaviour is genetic and learned. That's irrelevant to what we were talking about, and that's morphological changes.

Just because a creature has wings does not prove they had an ancestor who flew. It does mean that the wings are there for a reason. If you have no proof of an ancestor with wings that flew, then your case is not proved by the presence of wings. Come on, Asimov.

Of course it does. That's what wings are, Brutus. Coupled with the fact that penguins are genetically closely related with other birds also helps provide evidence that penguins came from a common ancestor of flight capable birds.

Obviously this cannot be proved, and I'm not saying it is proved. I'm saying that's what is deduced logically.

For the wings on a penguin, it is just as conceivable that God created them with these wings to swim. For the Ostrich and the Emu, both birds are clearly built to run. These wings can just as easily have been given to these birds to provide for ventilation as they could have been there to fly. All you reasoning has been based on the absense of God, which since you can't prove He not the creator, you better build a stronger case than the fact that the bird has wings.

Wrong, all reasoning is based on absence of supernatural intervention, natural processes can surely be attributed to God, and are.

Wow, Brutus, you really think I would sink that low...? You actually think my lack of belief has anything to do with birds? I'm surprised and disgusted. This isn't a freakin discussion about theology. It's about science. You asked for evidence, and I gave you an example. If you have no interest but cawing out "GOD!" every two posts when we're discussing biology, then I have nothing further to say.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Asimov, we all know wings are the instrument of flight. But they can be used for other purposes as these birds show. Just as eggs can be produced by a mammal, wings can be used for swimming or ventilation.

The topic is not just science, but Evolution. If God created the penguins, emus and ostriches as they are, that would shoot evolution in the foot. Since you can't provide a link to an earlier flight capable ancestor, you can't claim evolution as a definate answer. Especially if you're trying to show how this skeptic how viable evolution is. The fact of the matter is, God may have created every species we see almost the same as we see them today. Adaptation does occur, and until you can convince me of Evolution's existence, I can just as easily acredit the changes of these animals to just adaptation as you can to evolution.

As to God not being a part of science, he is science. He gives us the knowledge we have, and sets everything into motion one way or another.

 

[Adams son]

Asimov, we all know wings are the instrument of flight. But they can be used for other purposes as these birds show. Just as eggs can be produced by a mammal, wings can be used for swimming or ventilation.

The topic is not just science, but Evolution. If God created the penguins, emus and ostriches as they are, that would shoot evolution in the foot. Since you can't provide a link to an earlier flight capable ancestor, you can't claim evolution as a definate answer. Especially if you're trying to show how this skeptic how viable evolution is. The fact of the matter is, God may have created every species we see almost the same as we see them today. Adaptation does occur, and until you can convince me of Evolution's existence, I can just as easily acredit the changes of these animals to just adaptation as you can to evolution.

As to God not being a part of science, he is science. He gives us the knowledge we have, and sets everything into motion one way or another.

God sure likes to do misleading things doesn't he?

 

[Asimov]

Asimov, we all know wings are the instrument of flight. But they can be used for other purposes as these birds show. Just as eggs can be produced by a mammal, wings can be used for swimming or ventilation.

They can be, after being adapted to another purpose, hence the term exaptation. It's interesting that you bring up monotremes, because they are a remnant of the mammal-reptilian species that ultimately diverged mammals and reptiles. Monotremes share many mammal characteristics, and many reptilian characteristics. For instance the reptilian trait of having a difficult time regulating their temperature, even though the monotremes are warm-blooded.

The topic is not just science, but Evolution. If God created the penguins, emus and ostriches as they are, that would shoot evolution in the foot. Since you can't provide a link to an earlier flight capable ancestor, you can't claim evolution as a definate answer. Especially if you're trying to show how this skeptic how viable evolution is. The fact of the matter is, God may have created every species we see almost the same as we see them today. Adaptation does occur, and until you can convince me of Evolution's existence, I can just as easily acredit the changes of these animals to just adaptation as you can to evolution.

Evolution is science, brutus. If you insert God into everything, of course you can say it shoots science in the foot. If I say that God hucks lightning bolts down and opens up windows in the firmament to let it rain, then I guess it shoots the hydrological cycle in the foot too. Or if I say God created the earth with the appearance of age, it shoots geology in the foot. Or if I say that God physically sculpted every living being and then placed em on the earth, it kinda shoots reality in the foot.

Evolution is the mechanism which adaptation utilizes so a population can survive. If there was no evolution, species could not adapt. Of course, I can just say God causes all species to adapt, and that shoots your idea of adaptation in the foot as well. The problem is you have no idea what evolution is, and you don't even try to get an idea. You still say the exact same things you were saying when you first got on this board, so I assume that you simply ignore and post the same things over and over again.

As to God not being a part of science, he is science. He gives us the knowledge we have, and sets everything into motion one way or another.

That's fine, but that's not what you are doing. You have a set idea as to what God does, and then discard anything that can't prove it otherwise completely 100%.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Monotremes aren't evolved either, unless you can prove that they had an earlier ancestor you haven't provided as well.

God does not destroy scienece as I said, He is the reason we have science. That's the way it is. The things that science claims as evolution, have in several incedences been proven to be incorrect.

 

[Asimov]

Monotremes aren't evolved either, unless you can prove that they had an earlier ancestor you haven't provided as well.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/platypus.html

God does not destroy scienece as I said, He is the reason we have science. That's the way it is. The things that science claims as evolution, have in several incedences been proven to be incorrect.

Why don't you clarify that statement, brutus?

 

[Blazin Bones]

Interesting Article. However both cases of "previous ancestors" can be explained by something other than evolution. The "ancestor" found in Austrailia is simply a dead platypus. the article even suggests that possiblity. As for the one found in argentina, that can simply be an extinct species. Evolution has to prove the link, not just suggest it. Both cases date back rather far, and mosts people will agree that carbon dating is only goood until about 50,000 years back, if you accept carbon datiing at all.

As to my statement, God is He who gives us the knowledge we call science. God is above science, as such stories as Gideon and the fleece have suggested.

 

[Barbarian]

Actually, one of them is a dead platypus, but very large, with teeth. Turns out, baby platypuses, before they hatch, have teeth, too, but they lose them before hatching.

Just as though they were descended from monotremes with teeth.

Imagine that.

 

[sheseala]

If we provided a fossil that links ostriches and emus to flight capable birds, would you recognise it at a link?

Why do ostriches have asymetrical primary feathers? Why are they genetically closer to Tinamous that can fly and less closer in relation to chickens?

 

[Asimov]

If we provided a fossil that links ostriches and emus to flight capable birds, would you recognise it at a link?

Why do ostriches have asymetrical primary feathers? Why are they genetically closer to Tinamous that can fly and less closer in relation to chickens?

Because Jesus wanted it that way... just accept it.

 

[Blazin Bones]

If only you weren't being sarcastic Asimov... Why is it that we want everything explained for us, but still want free will. If God told us everything that he did to make things the way they are today, why would anyone refute Him? He wants you us to find Him on our own, and believe that he will answer our questions when we meet in Heaven.

Sheseala, if I were given an ancestor that could be proven as an ancestor I'd have no choice to believe it. The problem is proving it's an ancestor and not just an extinct speicies. I won't accept just a "Link," for the same reason an atheist does not accept the archiological proof at the bottem of the Red Sea.

 

[Asimov]

If only you weren't being sarcastic Asimov... Why is it that we want everything explained for us, but still want free will. If God told us everything that he did to make things the way they are today, why would anyone refute Him? He wants you us to find Him on our own, and believe that he will answer our questions when we meet in Heaven.

I don't get what you're saying, brutus.

Sheseala, if I were given an ancestor that could be proven as an ancestor I'd have no choice to believe it. The problem is proving it's an ancestor and not just an extinct speicies. I won't accept just a "Link," for the same reason an atheist does not accept the archiological proof at the bottem of the Red Sea.

Haha...Brutus, we've also discussed this "archaeological proof" at the bottom of the Red Sea. Supposedly found by a man who is known for his deception and lies.

The problem is that you don't understand evolution, or what it is.

 

[Blazin Bones]

You won't get what I'm saying either. What I wrote to you is a clear as a whistle. God doesn't have to explain all he did to us. The fact of the matter is all that you can't explain, He can. Unfortunately for those who don't accept Christ, you have no hope off hearing these answers.

As for the Red Sea, we have evidence other than the one archiologist. I gave this link the last time, but I guess you can veiw it again.

http://redseacrossing.org/Exodus%20map1.17.html