[_ Old Earth _] The Non-Evolution of Flight Instincts

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
By definition, they are reptiles. Aminiotes with multiple bones in their lower jaws. They just have a few transitional features.

Mistake. I don't know where you get that definition, but:

Herptology. The people who study reptiles.

Async gives us his definition:

A reptile is any cold blooded, scaly animal that (generally) produce their young in the form of an egg.

So a guppy is a reptile by your definition. Nice going.

The reason scientists use the jaw as a defining feature, is that it is one of the few clear differences between reptiles and mammals.

etc etc. They clearlyknow more about this than you do, so...

...if they are right, then guppies are reptiles. Good going. Maybe you'd be better off using science, instead of Ask.com or whatever. Or at least check your information with a knowledgeable source.

Barbarian observes:
Wrong. The evidence shows that wings were first used for maneuvering during running.

There is, and can be no such evidence.

We see in in small theropod dinosaurs, for example, and in flightless birds like ostriches.

As you just learned, the instincts were already there.
And where did they come from?

Running dinosaurs.

But the shoulder joints of those running dinosaurs were fine for flying...

When describing specimens originally referred to the distinct species Cryptovolans pauli, paleontologist Stephen Czerkas argued that Microraptor may have been able to fly better than Archaeopteryx, noting the fused sternum and asymmetrical feathers of Microraptor, as well as features of the shoulder girdle that indicate flying ability closer to modern birds than to Archaeopteryx.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microraptor

Tripe. What features?

Fused sternum, flight featheres, shoulder that permitted free movement upward. Things like that. BTW, Archaeopteryx didn't have a shoulder girdle that permitted such movement.

Xing Xu and his colleagues at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing said that their examination of Xiaotingia, in comparison with more recognizably bird skeletons from the same period as well as the 150-million-year-old Archaeopteryx, showed that the new fossils fell short of a place in the avian family. Several of its anatomical traits, like the long and robust forelimbs once thought to be diagnostic of birds, were actually common to a group of dinosaurs known as deinonychosaurs.

We still haven't heard from you about the origin of the flight instincts.

You problably missed it. Go back and you'll learn that it was an adaptation of existing movement used by running dinosaurs.

I'm not in the slightest bit surprised. There is no evidence whatsoever that these crearures flew - and if they did, where did the flight instinct come from?

The existence of asymmetrical flight feathers shows that they did fly.

I'm afraid it doesn't. These critters ,probably forgeries

Show us the evidence for that. I'll be asking again, if you forget.

Barbarian observes:
More likely, they used them they way ostriches and other flightless birds do; as means of maneuvering on the ground, or to make longer jumps or land more softly.

None of which is flight

All of which is transitional to flight, using the same structures and movements.

and another question now arises - where did they get their running and jumping instincts from?

Dinosaurs and earlier reptiles had been doing that for about 80 million years.

Same motions as flight. Which is a pretty good clue in itself.

You and your descendants can wave your forelimbs in the air till the cows come home, and you will never evolve a feather, a wing, or be able to fly.

But small, feathered dinosaurs with pre-existing wings and feathers would have a pretty easy time of it.

Why should you supose a reptile had more brain power than you do?

As you learned, brain power has little to do with it.

As you see, the motions and structure used by bird for flight were already present and being used for other purposes before there were birds.

No, I don't see that Flying is an advanced skill, which no reptile could possess.

You just learned better.

But another interesting question appears.

Humming birds do not fly with their arms as all other birde do. They fly with their HANDS, the rest of the arm structure being INSIDE the body.

Don't see a problem with that.

Now you are already struggling with getting a reptile airborne using the whole of the forelimb structure.

See above.:biglol

Get the humming bird airborne, using its hands - like the bats.

You've been misled about that, too. They use the entire arm.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwBjTFTlFvI

It's amazing how a little bird can destroy such a large theory. Facts, you see.

Facts once again tripped you up, I see. Check your facts, and it won't happen so often.

They come from nowhere: these most advanced fliers in the bird kingdom.

They are highly evolved, but some distant relatives (the sunbirds) have some species that also hover and take nectar as the hummingbirds do.

So they aren't out of nowhere.

So that's the end of this birds evolved from reptiles, nonsense.

And a few more times, reality catches you unawares.

Which reptile do you propose as the most likely candidate for H-B ancestry? Have a guess

DNA analysis shows they have a common ancestor with the swifts and are distantly related to the passerines.

You couldn't meet the challenge of the origin of the bats

You were surprised to find that the evidence shows an origin in the insectivores.

who also fly with their hands, and echolocate.

You were a bit taken back when you learned that humans can echolocate too, and sometimes do.

Now try this one for size.
Assuming that the ancestors of the theropods were cold-blooded reptiles, then there is no amount of ‘mutations and natural selection’ that could change cold to warm.

Barbarian chuckles:
Show us that. Sounds interesting.

You're proposing the theory. Defend it.

So you have no evidence for your claim that it couldn't evolve, you just hope we believe it? O.K.

Meantime, here's some of the evidence for endothermic dinosaurs. Haversian canals, high metabolic output, running and flying, insulation on bodies, etc. Even many creationists admit it.

The primary use of feathers in birds is for warmth and display. Many of them can also fly, but that's not the first use. Dinosaurs had feathers long before any of them could fly.

None of them could ever fly.

Microraptor and Archaeopteryx could fly a little.

As I keep pointing out, there are no flight instincts available

Remember, flight uses the same movements and structures used by small theropods in running. As usual, something already there, modified to a new use.

and some joker's idea (in a P-A--P---E--RRRR!) that the shoulder joints could support the flying movement of the wing doesn't make it so

.

Microraptor's shoulder joint allowed an upward reach needed for a strong wing movement. No point in denying it.

Your problem (another one) is that you can't distinguish between fact and speculation, but think they are both identical.

I'm sympathetic to your issue about evidence. But denying it won't help you. Learn more about the subject and you'll do better.

 

[Barbarian]

Turns out they are. Would you like to see the evidence for that?

Surprise. They are structurally, biochemically, and anatomically quite similar.

Snigger.

While most feathers share a common overall structure, there are several different kinds of feathers adopted for specialized roles. Changes in feather structure provide the adaptations necessary for feathers to be used in many different ways.
http://www.birds.cornell.edu/allaboutbirds/studying/feathers/feathers

Worth reading.

As you can see, they are all basically the same structure, just modified in different ways. And yes, transitional. And I believe you were shown earlier how feathers are biochemically alike, even like dinosaur scales.

Barbarian oberves:
Flight feathers are just elaborations of things already there in insulating feathers.

Oh yeah.

Yep. All evidence.

As you know, several things you presented as "powering instinct" turned out to be merely chemical reactions. So that's out.

You keep making this stupid statement. You know its false, fake, and foolish.

It's true. Phototropism is mediated by the chemical reactions of auxins. The interaction of egg and sperm is also. Why deny it?

Why not give it up and learn the difference between 'how' and 'why'?

You've confused efficient and final causes again. I did show you the difference between efficient and final causes. Did you forget, again?

What are you blathering about now?

Efficient causes are the things that directly cause something. As in the case of instincts, chemical reactions. Final causes are the "why." So the efficient causes of instinct are chemical reactions, and the final cause is "God set up nature to work this way according to His will." Science can only do effecient causes. But scientists are limited like that.

Barbarian observes:
As you should know, all of these things were already possessed by dinosaurs.

(denial)

It's demonstrably true. You already learned that the avian lung, feathers, and much more evolved first in dinosaurs.

See above article, showing that this is nonsense.

Carnivorous Dinosaur With Bird-Like Lungs Discovered
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/09/30/elephant-sized-dinosaur-had-bird-like-lungs/

Bus-Size Dinosaurs, as Fuzzy as Chicks
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/05/s...-turns-up-largest-known-feathered-animal.html

Again, you were shown that the avian system:

1. existed first in dinosaurs
2. is merely an increase in a form of respiration already present in other vertebrates.

Sure, sure I was.

Collateral Ventilation in Man

Peter B. Terry, M.D., Richard J. Traystman, Ph.D., Harold H. Newball, M.D., Gopal Batra, M.D., and Harold A. Menkes, M.D.

N Engl J Med 1978; 298:10-15January 5, 1978
Abstract

To determine whether collateral ventilation (defined as the ventilation of alveolar structures through passages or channels that bypass the normal airways) changes with age or emphysema, we compared the mechanics of collateral ventilation in seven young normal subjects, three old normal subjects and five patients with emphysema. In supine normal subjects at the end of a quiet expiration, resistance to airflow was greater through collateral channels than through bronchi and bronchioles. In emphysema, airways resistance could exceed collateral resistance, causing air to flow preferentially through collateral pathways. We conclude that high collateral resistance minimizes collateral airflow in supine normal subjects. When peripheral airways become obstructed or obliterated in emphysema, collateral channels may provide for more even distribution of ventilation. (N Engl J Med 298:10–15, 1978)


You know...

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Turns out that the theropods were warm-blooded.

I've shown you that that is an indeterminable point. You have no proof, apart from the wish.

See the evidence below.

(denial)

Show us that. There are, after all, facultatively warm-blooded creatures that shift back and forth between the two modes. There are warm-blooded fish, which seem to be pretty much like other fish in everything else.

Would you like to know how we know the small theropods were warm-blooded?

Are you referring to the tuna shark

The "tuna shark?"

Tuna are among the warm-blooded fishes.

and the couple others that can do this? You now have 2 things to explain. How did these obtain the power to be either warm or cold-blooded?

Higher metabolism. They use the same processes, they just run them faster.

You're not saying that the birds evolved from these, are you?

If you think so, you're having a lot more trouble focusing than I think you do. The point is that endothermy isn't the magical thing you suppose it is.

Assuming that the ancestors of the theropods were cold-blooded reptiles, then there is no amount of ‘mutations and natural selection’ that could change cold to warm.

Show us that. Sounds interesting.

Show us that. Sounds interesting.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n27537525/

Our analysis suggests that it was a physiological impossibility for the lungs of birds to have evolved from the lungs of the theropod dinosaurs, as has been the conventional wisdom for decades," indicates professor of zoology John Ruben, an expert on dinosaur and avian evolution.

He should have told that poor theropod with bird lungs. He's been extinct for over 300 million years, and no one ever told him that he was impossible.

"For this to have happened, the lungs of such dinosaurs could not have functioned in any normal way. Such an animal probably wouldn't have been active enough to even catch its own food, and there isn't much evolutionary or survival value to that."

I notice road runners don't seem to have any trouble running down prey, and they have bird lungs. So this doesn't seem to be much of an objection.

In the latest study, they looked at lungs. Living reptiles have septate lungs that are like a pair of flabby, compartmentalized air sacs, capable of supporting relatively low rates of oxygen consumption.

Warm-blooded mammals and birds, however, need about 10 times more oxygen than cold-blooded reptiles and have evolved two different types of "high performance" lung structures.

Mammals have efficient alveolar lungs with millions of air sacs clustered like tiny grapes, while birds have greatly modified septate lungs that allow for high rates of gas exchange and activity levels. A specialized "hinged" rib structure and large sternum are required to ventilate the lungs of modern birds.

See above. Realty ruins a beautiful little theory. And of course, the existence of Haversian canals is difficult to explain in an ectotherm.

No dinosaur or early bird had this peculiar rib and sternum arrangement, the scientists note.

This tells them that dinosaurs could not have had modern, bird-like lungs capable of maintaining the activity typical of warm-blooded animals.

Dinosaur lungs would have to have been more conventionally reptilian, probably similar to crocodile lungs.

That would be even more weird. Crocs have a sort of mammal-like diapragm that works entirely unlike the system of other reptiles. BTW, Archeopteryx lacks the "specialized "hinged" rib structure and large sternum" of modern birds.

So now you're telling us that guppies are reptiles, and birds aren't birds.

The theropod dinosaurs, which were the supposed ancestors of the birds, included such prominent species as the Tyrannosaurus rex and Velociraptor," Jones points out. "In them, we see a marked similarity between the hip structure of theropod dinosaurs and crocodiles."

Hm....

Maybe with a lot of imagination...

So you ever seen a crocodile running along the ground trying to jump, leap

Yep.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwThAki0j7U

Sounds like compost heap material to me, but...

You're seeing a lot of stuff for the first time, um?

Warm-blooded animals have Haversian canals in their bones, indicating a high metabolic rate. And...

Dinosaurs had them. It is possible, BTW, to produce Haversian canals in ectothems, by forcing them to output a very high amount of work. In such cases, they heat up like endotherms.

http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/carbbones/dinobone.html

As you've now been shown, that is an outright fabrication.

Nope. there they are.

At higher magnification, the laminar structure of the bone surrounding the haversian canals becomes visible. Some of the bone has also been reabsorbed in the process of growth, as evidenced by cross-cutting relationships between some of the circular laminated bone around the canals.
http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/carbbones/dinobone.html

 

[Asyncritus]

Barbarian observes:
By definition, they are reptiles

Async gives us his definition:

Sorry. That’s wiki’s definition. Go argue there.

A reptile is any cold blooded, scaly animal that (generally) produce their young in the form of an egg.

So a guppy is a reptile by your definition. Nice going.

Go see wiki.

Barbarian observes:
Wrong. The evidence shows that wings were first used for maneuvering during running.

There is, and can be no such evidence.

We see in in small theropod dinosaurs, for example, and in flightless birds like ostriches.

Assertion. Irrelevant. In that order.

As you just learned, the instincts were already there.

Nonsense.

And where did they come from?

Running dinosaurs.

Comic relief.

So a zebra will be able to fly one day.

But the shoulder joints of those running dinosaurs were fine for flying...

When describing specimens originally referred to the distinct species Cryptovolans pauli, paleontologist Stephen Czerkas argued that Microraptor may have been able to fly better than Archaeopteryx, noting the fused sternum and asymmetrical feathers of Microraptor, as well as features of the shoulder girdle that indicate flying ability closer to modern birds than to Archaeopteryx.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microraptor

Which features?

Fused sternum, flight featheres, shoulder that permitted free movement upward. Things like that. BTW, Archaeopteryx didn't have a shoulder girdle that permitted such movement.

Xing Xu and his colleagues at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing said that their examination of Xiaotingia, in comparison with more recognizably bird skeletons from the same period as well as the 150-million-year-old Archaeopteryx, showed that the new fossils fell short of a place in the avian family. Several of its anatomical traits, like the long and robust forelimbs once thought to be diagnostic of birds, were actually common to a group of dinosaurs known as deinonychosaurs.

Nothing to do with flying. Gliding:

This led paleontologist Xu Xing in 2003 to describe it as a "four-winged dinosaur" and to speculate that it may have glided using all four limbs for lift.

Which is not flying.

We still haven't heard from you about the origin of the flight instincts.

You problably missed it. Go back and you'll learn that it was an adaptation of existing movement used by running dinosaurs.

A movement is not an instinct. Check the Concise Oxford. Might extend your vocabulary beneficially.

I'm not in the slightest bit surprised. There is no evidence whatsoever that these crearures flew - and if they did, where did the flight instinct come from?

The existence of asymmetrical flight feathers shows that they did fly.

As Xing said, they glided. Forget it.

I'm afraid it doesn't. These critters ,probably forgeries

Show us the evidence for that. I'll be asking again, if you forget.

Precedent. Archaeoraptor. You have heard of that?

Barbarian observes:
More likely, they used them they way ostriches and other flightless birds do; as means of maneuvering on the ground, or to make longer jumps or land more softly.

None of which is flight

All of which is transitional to flight, using the same structures and movements.

Difficult to characterise this except as stupid. Long jumpers are going to fly soon, are they?

and another question now arises - where did they get their running and jumping instincts from?

Dinosaurs and earlier reptiles had been doing that for about 80 million years.

More comedian material.

Same motions as flight. Which is a pretty good clue in itself.

No it’s not.

You and your descendants can wave your forelimbs in the air till the cows come home, and you will never evolve a feather, a wing, or be able to fly.

]But small, feathered dinosaurs with pre-existing wings and feathers would have a pretty easy time of it.

Not without the flight instincts they won’t. So where did they get them from? And the wings? And the information about how to use them?

As you see, the motions and structure used by bird for flight were already present and being used for other purposes before there were birds.

Question begging again.

No, I don't see that Flying is an advanced skill, which no reptile could possess.

You just learned better.

My mistake. ‘Feathered reptile’ is my intent.

But another interesting question appears.

Get the humming bird airborne, using its hands - like the bats.

You've been misled about that, too. They use the entire arm.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwBjTFTlFvI[/quote]

Get your facts from youtube, do you?

Hummingbird wings are affectionately called “hands” because the wing bone structure is all hand bone.12 The elbow and wrist joints of hummingbirds are rigid and so the wing does not bend or fold in the middle but remains straight out from the body in flight.10

First, the hummingbird has a unique wing structure, in which the upper- and forewings are small and rigid.

Extremely long“hand bones” support the large primary feathersand enable rapid wing strokes while preventing the wings from bending. In a sense, they almost fly with their hands.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
By definition, they are reptiles

Async gives us his definition:

A reptile is any cold blooded, scaly animal that (generally) produce their young in the form of an egg.

Barbarian chuckles:
So a guppy is a reptile by your definition. Nice going.

Sorry. That’s wiki’s definition.

Maybe that's another revelation for you. Unless you actually believe that definition.

Go argue there.
Go see wiki.

Going to Wiki is what brought you down again.

Barbarian observes:
Wrong. The evidence shows that wings were first used for maneuvering during running.

There is, and can be no such evidence.

We see in in small theropod dinosaurs, for example, and in flightless birds like ostriches.

Assertion. Irrelevant. In that order.

Nope. We see the same structures in the small theropods as in ostriches. And they use wings for maneuvering in runs.

And where did they come from?
Running dinosaurs.

So a zebra will be able to fly one day.

If it was a light bipod with feathered wings which were used for control during running.

But the shoulder joints of those running dinosaurs were fine for flying...

When describing specimens originally referred to the distinct species Cryptovolans pauli, paleontologist Stephen Czerkas argued that Microraptor may have been able to fly better than Archaeopteryx, noting the fused sternum and asymmetrical feathers of Microraptor, as well as features of the shoulder girdle that indicate flying ability closer to modern birds than to Archaeopteryx.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microraptor

Which features?

Fused sternum, flight featheres, shoulder that permitted free movement upward. Things like that. BTW, Archaeopteryx didn't have a shoulder girdle that permitted such movement.

Xing Xu and his colleagues at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing said that their examination of Xiaotingia, in comparison with more recognizably bird skeletons from the same period as well as the 150-million-year-old Archaeopteryx, showed that the new fossils fell short of a place in the avian family. Several of its anatomical traits, like the long and robust forelimbs once thought to be diagnostic of birds, were actually common to a group of dinosaurs known as deinonychosaurs.

We still haven't heard from you about the origin of the flight instincts.

As I showed you, flight involved the same structures and movements theropod dinosaurs used for running.

You problably missed it. Go back and you'll learn that it was an adaptation of existing movement used by running dinosaurs.

A movement is not an instinct.

The movements are all that's needed for flight. So now you're telling us that "instinct" isn't necessary. O.K.

I'm afraid it doesn't. These critters ,probably forgeries

Show us the evidence for that. I'll be asking again, if you forget.

Precedent. Archaeoraptor. You have heard of that?

So you have nothing. O.K.

Barbarian observes:
More likely, they used them they way ostriches and other flightless birds do; as means of maneuvering on the ground, or to make longer jumps or land more softly.

None of which is flight

All of which is transitional to flight, using the same structures and movements.

Difficult to characterise this except as stupid.

I don't think hand-waving and calling names is going to help you. Try to find some evidence and see if you can put a cogent argument together.

Same motions as flight. Which is a pretty good clue in itself.

You and your descendants can wave your forelimbs in the air till the cows come home, and you will never evolve a feather, a wing, or be able to fly.

But small, feathered dinosaurs with pre-existing wings and feathers would have a pretty easy time of it.

Not without the flight instincts they won’t.

You just argued they didn't need them.

So where did they get them from?

As you see, the motions and structure used by bird for flight were already present and being used for other purposes before there were birds.

No, I don't see that Flying is an advanced skill, which no reptile could possess.

You just learned better.

My mistake. ‘Feathered reptile’ is my intent.

So reptiles can fly, unless they have feathers? :eeeekkk

Get the humming bird airborne, using its hands - like the bats.

You've been misled about that, too. They use the entire arm.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwBjTFTlFvI

Get your facts from youtube, do you?

Just showing you what they do. As you see, the upper arm moves. The article, if you checked the link, is in Nature.
http://www.nature.com/news/hummingbird-flight-has-a-clever-twist-1.9639

Extremely long“hand bones” support the large primary feathersand enable rapid wing strokes while preventing the wings from bending. In a sense, they almost fly with their hands.

If it wasn't for them using their arms.

 

[cupid dave]

So the draw here, about feathers, seems to leave us wondering whether they are really necessary for flight when we see bats doing so well.

Is it possible that flight, bad as it may have initially been, could feathers have come later, after flight?

 

[Barbarian]

Is it possible that flight, bad as it may have initially been, could feathers have come later, after flight?

Pterosaurs flew before there were birds, so yes. But the non-flying ancestors of birds already had feathers. So specifically for birds, no.

 

[Asyncritus]

As usually happens, we're moving far far away from the original point of the OP.

Which was focussed on the flight instincts.

We now have the absolutely silly proposal that running and jumping skills were the precursors of flight.

From that, we deduce that there is no real accounting for the origin of the flight instincts, apart from divine implantation.

Because no matter how large a bird suit anyone may put on (and his descendants as well, for n generations), no matter how much running, arm-waving, hopping and jumping they may do, they will never fly.

Everything is against the possibility. Most of all, common sense.

The situation becomes worse when we look at what the birds do, with the ability to fly.

They migrate.

 

[Asyncritus]

Pterosaurs flew before there were birds, so yes. But the non-flying ancestors of birds already had feathers. So specifically for birds, no.

And now you have to account for how the pterosaurs learned to fly.

Feathers aren't necessary for flight, as bats, insects, and pterosaurs show very clearly.

As for the pterosaurs, here's youtube on the matter. As usual, they haven't got a clue, and say so quite clearly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP6htc371fM

So all this hoo-hah about reptiles sprouting feathers in order to fly, when feathers really aren't necessary for flight if you're one of the three abovementioned groups, is a waste of time.

What is necessary, is a. the instincts of flight and b. the equipment to perform.

As the law of Asynctropy says very clearly and incontrovertibly.

But the instincts are immaterial, and not subject to evolution's normal mechanisms, as I have shown and will now show.

 

[Asyncritus]

To do this, I will now re-publish my little article on the Pacific Golden Plovers.

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

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

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

Then the impossible happens.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There, isn't that wonderful?

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

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

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

Now I call on the evolutionists to account for

1 How the instinct evolved and

2 How the instinct entered the genome.

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

 

[lordkalvan]

^ Asyncritus, perhaps you would be better engaged in returning to the relevant thread and continuing the discussion there that you have abandoned.

Link: http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=38523&page=4

 

[Asyncritus]

LK

You quoted a paper(s) there, I asked a couple of simple questions, and no answer was forthcoming.

This topic is highly relevant to the OP theme, and I am pursuing it here because of its relevance.

I asked you to point out where your cited paper answers either of the questions. I don't think you did this, but if you did, maybe you could direct me to the answer.

Thanks

Async

 

[lordkalvan]

LK

You quoted a paper(s) there, I asked a couple of simple questions, and no answer was forthcoming.

This topic is highly relevant to the OP theme, and I am pursuing it here because of its relevance.

I asked you to point out where your cited paper answers either of the questions. I don't think you did this, but if you did, maybe you could direct me to the answer.

Thanks

Async

Please refer to the relevant post and questions as I have, as far as I am aware, provided relevant answers for all such questions. Also, it remains the case that there are numerous points arising on that thread that you have not dealt with.

 

[Milk-Drops]

As usually happens, we're moving far far away from the original point of the OP.

This tends to happen when you keep throwing out Redhearings and keep moving the goal posts.

Which was focussed on the flight instincts.

Nah your first post was claiming that instincts can't evolve and then a massive strawman of the research on the evolution of flight.

We now have the absolutely silly proposal that running and jumping skills were the precursors of flight.

Yeah, you proposed them in your strawman and demanded we defend your strawman.

From that, we deduce that there is no real accounting for the origin of the flight instincts, apart from divine implantation.

No, you have denied any argument that dosen't equate to your straw man and now pulling an argument from ignorance that since no one can prove the strawman it must be a God ordained trait. You have not shown how instincts are divinely implemented. Just made the claim that they are.

Because no matter how large a bird suit anyone may put on (and his descendants as well, for n generations), no matter how much running, arm-waving, hopping and jumping they may do, they will never fly.

Oh look, another strawman. I wasn't aware that the evolution of flight was an animal putting on a chicken suit and flapping it wings. I always thought it was the development of certain structures and behavior. Silly phylogeny, where is your chicken suit?

Everything is against the possibility. Most of all, common sense.

Yeah, common sense says that your arguments are poor and laughable.

The situation becomes worse when we look at what the birds do, with the ability to fly.

Unless you have studied birds for awhile and didn't just copy paste someone else's article to use in a silly attempt to show people up on the internet.

They migrate.

Yep, and we are still waiting for your to explain how migration destroys the theory of evolution, which you still haven't done.

 

[cupid dave]

Pterosaurs flew before there were birds, so yes. But the non-flying ancestors of birds already had feathers. So specifically for birds, no.

Hmmmm...

But I am appealing to those here who argue that feathers could not have come before flight and that without feathers flight was impossible.

So my point is that flying things could have merely evolved further and improved flight by developing feathers.

 

[cupid dave]

So the question which evolution theory must answer is: How did the birds learn to fly?

[FONT=&quot]Every one of the functions of life is dependent on THE EXISTENCE OF A POWERING INSTINCT. If the powering instinct is not present or available, THEN THE FUNCTION ITSELF IS ABSENT OR IMPOSSIBLE even if the necessary organ is present.[/FONT]

This is nothing more than applied common sense.

Let's give the first reptile-bird everything required for flight: wings, feathers, new respiratory system, feet, tail feathers, beak, eyes, no diaphragm, the highest metabolic rate in the animal kingdom, warm-bloodedness etc etc.

But in it's mind, the new bird is still a reptile, which has never flown.
.

The only rational answer to this question raises an idea way more important and useful that how did a well endowed ceature know how to use this ability when it had never used it before.

The answer is that Instinct is something learned by previous ancestors, but somehow incorporated into the mind of new borns.

Though the new born did not ever have that actual experience, it "remembers" that previous ancestors did.
The answer posits the idea of learning as recursive, in that the information becomes encoded into the genes through experiences after birth and can be thereafter passed forward in the Unconsious mind of the bird.

For man, this means inside the kingdom of our mind, there is an Unconscious entity that knows about previous existence, but at present, we are not privy to know.
It also suggests that though dreams, visions, sudden flashes of insight, and a closer relationship with our Unconscious mind than is normal informs us of things we never woulkd have thought of otherwise.

 

[Asyncritus]

The only rational answer to this question raises an idea way more important and useful that how did a well endowed ceature know how to use this ability when it had never used it before.

The answer is that Instinct is something learned by previous ancestors, but somehow incorporated into the mind of new borns.

When you think about it, this can't be right either.

Since nothing had ever flown before, then it could not be remembered.

Though the new born did not ever have that actual experience, it "remembers" that previous ancestors did.

See above.

 

[Asyncritus]

Please refer to the relevant post and questions as I have, as far as I am aware, provided relevant answers for all such questions. Also, it remains the case that there are numerous points arising on that thread that you have not dealt with.

As we're discussing that topic here, can you please cut and paste what you consider to heve been your answers to the TWO QUESTIONS?

I didn't see any of the required answers when I reviewed the thread, and perhaps you can direct me to them

 

[Asyncritus]

Which was focussed on the flight instincts.

Nah your first post was claiming that instincts can't evolve and then a massive strawman of the research on the evolution of flight.

????

We now have the absolutely silly proposal that running and jumping skills were the precursors of flight.

Yeah, you proposed them in your strawman and demanded we defend your strawman.

Well, propose something else.

From that, we deduce that there is no real accounting for the origin of the flight instincts, apart from divine implantation.

No, you have denied any argument that dosen't equate to your straw man and now pulling an argument from ignorance that since no one can prove the strawman it must be a God ordained trait.

Your ignorance?

You have not shown how instincts are divinely implemented. Just made the claim that they are.

If they are divinely implanted, and I am not the Divine Implanter, I'm afraid I can't answer your question.

Because no matter how large a bird suit anyone may put on (and his descendants as well, for n generations), no matter how much running, arm-waving, hopping and jumping they may do, they will never fly.

Oh look, another strawman. I wasn't aware that the evolution of flight was an animal putting on a chicken suit and flapping it wings. I always thought it was the development of certain structures and behavior. Silly phylogeny, where is your chicken suit?

Just to explain for the slower among us.

Barbarian claims that reptiles evolved feathers. So we have a reptile in a chicken suit. Because it isn't a bird.

Next he says that by running, arm-waving, hopping and jumping, the reptile in the chicken suit learned to fly.

I am pointing out that it is impossible for it to learn how to fly, no matter how many feathers are on the chicken suit, or how much running, arm-waving, hopping and jumping you or the reptile does.

How long do you think it'll take that guy in the suit to learn how to fly? Do you think it's possible?

Everything is against the possibility. Most of all, common sense.

Yeah, common sense says that your arguments are poor and laughable

.

No poorer and more laughable than the idea of a reptile in a chicken suit running, arm-waving, hopping and jumping and suddenly being able to fly. Probably broke its neck jumping off a cliff or a tree.

The situation becomes worse when we look at what the birds do, with the ability to fly.

Unless you have studied birds for awhile and didn't just copy paste someone else's article to use in a silly attempt to show people up on the internet.

Somebody else's article? No no no. I wrote it myself, with my own fair hand. And the book by the same name: How Does Instinct Evolve?

It's a very serious attempt to show up evolution for the nonsense it really is.

The more people who can see how impossible it is for AN INSTINCT to evolve, the sooner this damned theory will be out the door on the compost heap where it belongs.

They migrate.

Yep, and we are still waiting for your to explain how migration destroys the theory of evolution, which you still haven't done.

Very simple, meatballs.

If a scientific theory of origins can't explain the scientific origin of the migratory instinct, which is an enormous one, then it has failed, and should be discarded.

Don't you agree?

 

[Barbarian]

Lord Kalvan has a point. You should return to the thread you abandoned, when he presented you with his evidence.

Deal with that, and then come back and talk to us.