[_ Old Earth _] Simple Question for Non-Evolutionists

[Doulos Iesou]

I have a simple question..

Why are there some flightless animals that have feathers and wings? It would seem like a strange design to create a creature that has wings and feathers like any other bird, but lacked the ability to fly and thus makes this design rather odd an unnecessary.

This observation seems to fit well with the idea that these flightless birds such as an Ostrich or Chicken, it makes much more sense to believe that these birds all have a common ancestor.

 

[gr8grace3]

I would say adaptation to the change of environment around the species. I agree with you on the idea that the birds you mention all have a common ancestor.I would add that it stays within their own species.

Gen 1:21~~New American Standard Bible
God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I would say adaptation to the change of environment around the species. I agree with you on the idea that the birds you mention all have a common ancestor.I would add that it stays within their own species.

Gen 1:21~~New American Standard Bible
God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

This seems to be a sufficient answer, but when we take into account other examples it seems to fail the test.

Take for example whales.

View attachment 5227

Whales are mammals, that likes other mammals give birth to live young, have fur, give milk to their young and even have a similar skeletal structure such as fingers.

This does not fit the kind of micro evolution that some creationists embrace, small adaptations within a certain "kind." Whales are clearly different "kinds" than other mammals from an initial viewpoint, yet they clearly identify with mammals upon further inspection.

It is also peculiar that Marsupials are primarily only in Australia, take for instance the Thylacinus the extinct Marsupial Wolf. It's environmental niche could have easily fit with a normal wolf, yet it was a Marsupial. This would seem odd from a standpoint of an ultimate designer, but makes sense when we take into account common ancestry.

 

[Gary]

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I can't watch a video right now, can you perhaps elaborate on what the video contains?

 

[Gary]

I can't watch a video right now, can you perhaps elaborate on what the video contains?

The fossil evidence of bats speaks against evolution.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

The fossil evidence of bats speaks against evolution.

Hmm, perhaps you can elaborate in your own words on why that is so, in turn I will respond with evidence on how their fossils (which there are very few given their small brittle bones) as well as other factors absolutely lend towards evolution being true.

 

[Gary]

Hmm, perhaps you can elaborate in your own words on why that is so, in turn I will respond with evidence on how their fossils (which there are very few given their small brittle bones) as well as other factors absolutely lend towards evolution being true.

There's no evidence of transitional change. The evolutionist is unable to say what it used to be before it became a bat.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

There's no evidence of transitional change. The evolutionist is unable to say what it used to be before it became a bat.

Ahh this argument. Many Creationists demand transitional fossils for any given species, and if that cannot be found then it's "score one for creationistm." This is clearly not so though.

Take for example the fossil below.

This is the earliest fossil we have that dates back to 52.5 million years ago, and you can see some more of the transitional features.

"The clawed bat part refers to one of the many intermediate features that makeOnychonycteris the most primitive bat species ever described. In all current and prior fossil species of bats, most of the digits in the wing lack the claws typical of mammalian digits. That's not the case here: all Onychonycteris digits end in claws. The hind limbs are also unusually long, as is the tail, but the limb contains a feature that suggests the presence of a skin flap between the hind limbs and the body.

The relatively short wings and long hindlimbs place Onychonycteris outside of all previous bat species in terms of the ratio between its limbs. In fact, a plot of this ratio puts the fossil species neatly between bats and long-armed creatures like sloths—exactly what would be expected from a species at the base of the bat lineage. The authors argue that the configuration of its limbs, combined with the claws, suggests that it would be powerful climber, able to easily scramble around trees when not flying.

The fossil's teeth indicate that Onychonycteris ate insects, but its ear is probably too small to support echolocation. This supports the "flight first" model of bat evolution, and suggests that it probably hunted visually. Unfortunately, the eye sockets of the sample aren't well preserved, so that remains conjecture. Beyond this one bit of damage, however, the find is stunning for what it tells us about the gradual evolution of the traits that have made the bats the exceptional mammals that they are."
Source: http://arstechnica.com/science/2008/02/earliest-bat-fossil-reveals-transition-to-flight/

There aren't billions of fossils out there of every transitional form, fossils are preserved under very specific and extreme circumstances that makes it very rare to find a fossil, especially of animals that have small brittle bones like the bat or it's ancestors. Given that this transitional fossil dates back to 52.5 million years ago, it is unlikely that we would even find earlier fossils of what it transitioned from as it was such a long time ago now. Nothing we have learned about bats though contradicts the theory of evolution, but we can see here from this fossil how many of the abilities that all modern bats now have, were not present with this early transitional species and evolved later. Unless you think these different bats and the modern bats both just popped out of no where, it makes much more sense to think they evolved from common ancestors.

 

[gr8grace3]

Ahh this argument. Many Creationists demand transitional fossils for any given species, and if that cannot be found then it's "score one for creationistm." This is clearly not so though.

Take for example the fossil below.

This is the earliest fossil we have that dates back to 52.5 million years ago, and you can see some more of the transitional features.

"The clawed bat part refers to one of the many intermediate features that makeOnychonycteris the most primitive bat species ever described. In all current and prior fossil species of bats, most of the digits in the wing lack the claws typical of mammalian digits. That's not the case here: all Onychonycteris digits end in claws. The hind limbs are also unusually long, as is the tail, but the limb contains a feature that suggests the presence of a skin flap between the hind limbs and the body.

The relatively short wings and long hindlimbs place Onychonycteris outside of all previous bat species in terms of the ratio between its limbs. In fact, a plot of this ratio puts the fossil species neatly between bats and long-armed creatures like sloths—exactly what would be expected from a species at the base of the bat lineage. The authors argue that the configuration of its limbs, combined with the claws, suggests that it would be powerful climber, able to easily scramble around trees when not flying.

The fossil's teeth indicate that Onychonycteris ate insects, but its ear is probably too small to support echolocation. This supports the "flight first" model of bat evolution, and suggests that it probably hunted visually. Unfortunately, the eye sockets of the sample aren't well preserved, so that remains conjecture. Beyond this one bit of damage, however, the find is stunning for what it tells us about the gradual evolution of the traits that have made the bats the exceptional mammals that they are."
Source: http://arstechnica.com/science/2008/02/earliest-bat-fossil-reveals-transition-to-flight/

There aren't billions of fossils out there of every transitional form, fossils are preserved under very specific and extreme circumstances that makes it very rare to find a fossil, especially of animals that have small brittle bones like the bat or it's ancestors. Given that this transitional fossil dates back to 52.5 million years ago, it is unlikely that we would even find earlier fossils of what it transitioned from as it was such a long time ago now. Nothing we have learned about bats though contradicts the theory of evolution, but we can see here from this fossil how many of the abilities that all modern bats now have, were not present with this early transitional species and evolved later. Unless you think these different bats and the modern bats both just popped out of no where, it makes much more sense to think they evolved from common ancestors.

But it is still a bat. And overall is very, very similar to today's bats. Plus we know nothing of the life of the fossil above. Maybe it was deformed,malnourished,ill or otherwise,not "normal." We just don't know.

How old do you postulate the earth to be? Because I am not a young earth advocate.However, I do not believe in the theory of evolution.

 

[gr8grace3]

This seems to be a sufficient answer, but when we take into account other examples it seems to fail the test.

Take for example whales.

View attachment 5227

Whales are mammals, that likes other mammals give birth to live young, have fur, give milk to their young and even have a similar skeletal structure such as fingers.

This does not fit the kind of micro evolution that some creationists embrace, small adaptations within a certain "kind." Whales are clearly different "kinds" than other mammals from an initial viewpoint, yet they clearly identify with mammals upon further inspection.

It is also peculiar that Marsupials are primarily only in Australia, take for instance the Thylacinus the extinct Marsupial Wolf. It's environmental niche could have easily fit with a normal wolf, yet it was a Marsupial. This would seem odd from a standpoint of an ultimate designer, but makes sense when we take into account common ancestry.

I guess I am really not following you in this post. God just created whales as mammals. Possibly ,some haven't changed at all?

 

[jasonc]

so the question is why he did that? because he just can and wanted to. why did jesus have to be tortured and bleed and die when GOD could have said something like this. pray and repent and not have any being suffer. yet he choose not to. His prerogative that's why.

 

[Barbarian]

The fossil evidence of bats speaks against evolution.

Until there recently, there was no fossil evidence of bats. As Doulos says, we now have a transitional between modern and primitive bats. It is precisely what you'd expect to see in a transitional between bats and more primitive mammals.

The creationist hope is that no more of those transitional forms will be found, but given that since I was a college student, we have filled in missing transitionals for tetrapods, whales, snakes, turtles, frogs, mammals, amphibians, dicots, (long list) it that's probably a forlorn hope. The good news for them is that bats tend to live in places that don't produce many fossils, and bats have extremly fragile bones.

Still, given the record, it's not a good one for creationists.

 

[gr8grace3]

Until there recently, there was no fossil evidence of bats. As Doulos says, we now have a transitional between modern and primitive bats. It is precisely what you'd expect to see in a transitional between bats and more primitive mammals.

The creationist hope is that no more of those transitional forms will be found, but given that since I was a college student, we have filled in missing transitionals for tetrapods, whales, snakes, turtles, frogs, mammals, amphibians, dicots, (long list) it that's probably a forlorn hope. The good news for them is that bats tend to live in places that don't produce many fossils, and bats have extremly fragile bones.

Still, given the record, it's not a good one for creationists.

But it is still a bat.

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution."

(Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University.)

 

[Milk-Drops]

But it is still a bat.

Taxonomy wise its considered to be part of the same group as bats. My concentration in biology was on taxonomy and phylogeny. Species is given to a group of organisms that share the same morphological and genetic components and usually are capable of breeding together. Bats are part of larger groups, such as omnivores, linking with primates genetically, being mammals, and being vertebrates, etc. Just because we haven't found proto bat fossils, isn't a high indicator that there wasn't bat ancestors, considering that genetically we know there are. Fossils are far from the only evidence of Evolution.

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions

in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution."

(Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University.)

Gould is probably one of the most misquoted people by anti evolution creationists next to Darwin. This snippet was taken from a larger piece where Gould explains his concept of Punctuated equilibrium. It is very common in a thesis to adress criticisms and then answer them with your supporting evidence. That snippet is where he is voicing the concern's of his critics but then he goes on to fully explain the concept of punctuated equilibrium. In short, Gould repeatedly stated in interviews that he has been massively misquoted by charlatans and he died being championed for a cause he was actually against.

The elaboration can be found here. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html

I suggest many check out this section because it reveals a lot of information that has been quote mined by charlatans.

 

[gr8grace3]

Taxonomy wise its considered to be part of the same group as bats. My concentration in biology was on taxonomy and phylogeny. Species is given to a group of organisms that share the same morphological and genetic components and usually are capable of breeding together. Bats are part of larger groups, such as omnivores, linking with primates genetically, being mammals, and being vertebrates, etc. Just because we haven't found proto bat fossils, isn't a high indicator that there wasn't bat ancestors, considering that genetically we know there are. Fossils are far from the only evidence of Evolution.

Gould is probably one of the most misquoted people by anti evolution creationists next to Darwin. This snippet was taken from a larger piece where Gould explains his concept of Punctuated equilibrium. It is very common in a thesis to adress criticisms and then answer them with your supporting evidence. That snippet is where he is voicing the concern's of his critics but then he goes on to fully explain the concept of punctuated equilibrium. In short, Gould repeatedly stated in interviews that he has been massively misquoted by charlatans and he died being championed for a cause he was actually against.

The elaboration can be found here. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html

I suggest many check out this section because it reveals a lot of information that has been quote mined by charlatans.

So He went on to show his many examples of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions to answer his critics? Can you give me a link to his evidence for this?

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions........"

 

[Doulos Iesou]

But it is still a bat.

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution."

(Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University.)

Wow...

1. Stephen Jay Gould said this in 1980, we have found loads of fossils since this time.
2. He wrote this not because he was criticizing evolution, but the idea that it occurred gradually. He supported the notion of Punctuated Equilibrium which mean that when evolutionary changes happened, they occurred rapidly, while the norm was relatively stable.

Perhaps it is best that you recognize what the man meant, before ripping his quote out of context.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

So He went on to show his many examples of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions to answer his critics? Can you give me a link to his evidence for this?

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions........"

He noted this in 1980 to support his conclusion of Punctuated Equilibrium, not to refute evolution...

This was a dispute among scientists who embrace evolution, as Stephen Jay Gould did.

Educate yourself on the nuances before you misquote more people.

 

[gr8grace3]

Wow...

1. Stephen Jay Gould said this in 1980, we have found loads of fossils since this time.
2. He wrote this not because he was criticizing evolution, but the idea that it occurred gradually. He supported the notion of Punctuated Equilibrium which mean that when evolutionary changes happened, they occurred rapidly, while the norm was relatively stable.

Perhaps it is best that you recognize what the man meant, before ripping his quote out of context.

So can you show us this evidence then?

Perhaps a misunderstanding on your part? His quote on the notion of punctuated equilibrium is refuting what you are advocating........a slow"micro-evolution" proves "macro evolution" theory.

 

[gr8grace3]

He noted this in 1980 to support his conclusion of Punctuated Equilibrium, not to refute evolution...

This was a dispute among scientists who embrace evolution, as Stephen Jay Gould did.

Educate yourself on the nuances before you misquote more people.

I actually used the "nuance" of his quote to show that he refutes what you have been advocating on this thread......a "slow" transition.