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

[Asyncritus]

The fact remains that having re-read the material LK presented, I can see no effort to answer the 2 questions I habitually pose.

There is, therefore, nothing further to discuss on that thread.

If you can find something posted that answers or even responds to the points I raised, I'd be a.surprised and b. grateful if you would cite it here.

Can't say fairer than that.

 

[lordkalvan]

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

I think you would be better served returning to the relevant thread rather than simply repeating the same material here. You can explain there what the TWO QUESTIONS are that you believe haven't been answered and we can then explore whether they have been or not. Of course, if you'd rather just obfuscate here....

 

[Milk-Drops]

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

So you can't back up they very thing that is the key factor to your argument? You just destroyed your own argument.

Just to explain for the slower among us.

I think someone needs an attitude adjustment.

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

Yep, another strawman. I know you can't be bothered to actually represent anyone's argument validly, but that is to be expected since you can't even back your argument up.

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

No, I read his posts an he certainly didn't say this. So far this is lie number 2.

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.

No one is arguing that a reptile in a chicken suit learned to fly, except you.

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

Nice try.

.

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.

At least biologists can demonstrate their evidence and don't have to make up silly nonsense (like chicken suits) to insult people who disagree with them. Then again I think you are a troll and surprised you haven't been kicked yet.

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?

You should not be surprised that I don't believe you. You could have written the book, but my opinion is that you are just a troll.

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

Chicken suit. That is all that needs to be said to discredit your "seriousness".

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.

To bad "your" theory will never catch on because your arguments are horrible and practically nothing but logical fallacies. Your theory will never catch on because it will never survive peer review.

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.

Yep right back to the argument from ignorance fallacy. The Origin of species talks about just that. The Origin of "Species" your attemtps to over throw the theory of evolution is laughable because you don't even understand what it even is. I consider your a nonsense peddler, someone who puts forward their ignorance as some kind of justification. You haven't contributed much of anything or disproven anything. Just rambled on about a theory that you claimed in this very post to now understand the mechanics of. So go ahead, submit your work to peer review.

Don't you agree?

Nope, because its obvious that your are not even close to understanding your own argument. Have a good day.

 

[Barbarian]

Seems to be his M.O. Async starts a thread, gets embarrassed, and then abandons the thread to put the same discredited claims up in a new one.

You're getting boring guy. Think of something new.

 

[cupid dave]

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

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



See above.

The assumption that nothinghdever flown before denies the very basis for evolution theory, that adaptation to the environment is a requirement that IMPLIES innovation.

That out of millions of well equiped but totally inexperienced potential flyers,then one bird-to-be is the first, seems to underscoere the very idea of adoptation.

 

[cupid dave]

????


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?

Oh, yes, I agree.

I would say if science does not insist that theire is a cause behind the observed effect, then that destroyes the very definition of Science, which posites only the one exception, the Axiom that a First Cause by ignored.

All effects must be part of the effort to explain everything as Caused by some rational processes found in the Natural Laws.

This is why we hyopothesize to suggest places for investing our attention.

I suggested above that once an new innovation like flying takes place in a particular generation, the Unconscious entity inside the organism can re-live the events again because it has become memorized within the genes.

There is also another corrolary to this, that the living birds, for instance, communicate information to and from the olective Unconscious of all the members of that species.

This is to say, adults can instruct and tell new younger members things by mens of communications between them that is Subliminal, via Unconscious to Unconscious inter actions;

That is to say, for Humans, there is a realm of human communication between us all that goes basically unnoticed.
As we move forward into the next Age, we are actually holding subliminal conversations with the children born to us.
Those conversations are like Intuition, in that idea and even attitudes bubble into ur conscious mind sourced from the whole body of Humanity.






Bioelectromagnetismis an aspect of all living things, including all plants and animals.

Some animalshave acute bioelectric sensors, and others, such as migratory birds, arebelieved to navigate in part by orienteering with respect to the Earth’smagnetic field.

Also, sharksare more sensitive to local interaction in electromagnetic fields than mosthumans.
Other animals, such as the electric eel, areable to generate large electric fields outside their bodies.


Bioelectromagnetisminvolves the interaction of ions. There are multiple categories ofBioelectromagnetism such as brainwaves, myoelectricity (e.g., heart-musclephenomena), and other related subdivisions of the same generalbioelectromagnetic phenomena. One such phenomenon is a brainwave, which neurophysiologystudies, where bioelectromagnetic fluctuations of voltage between parts of thecerebral cortex are detectable with an electroencephalograph.

This isprimarily studied in the brain by way of electroencephalograms.

 

[Asyncritus]

The assumption that nothinghdever flown before denies the very basis for evolution theory, that adaptation to the environment is a requirement that IMPLIES innovation.

That out of millions of well equiped but totally inexperienced potential flyers,then one bird-to-be is the first, seems to underscoere the very idea of adoptation.

You may not have gathered this yet, but as far as I can see, evolution did not occur, and all the hoohah in the academic world is a waste of taxpayers money and time which could be better spent.

If you understand where I'm coming from, you'll understand why I insist on going back to the first bird that could fly.

There MUST have been one.

Flying didn't appear from nowhere. Flight requires a huge number of abilities to be present and working properly. In human terms, just think of a fighter pilot.

Does the air force shove just anybody into the cockpit of the plane and say, here, get on with it?

Of course not. The pilot is trained to within an inch of his life, in all manner of simulations and practical exercises, goes up win a training plane with the trainer right at hand, etc etc etc.

The bird, however, IS THE PLANE as well as THE PILOT.

Planes don't come from nowhere either. They are intelligently designed and very carefully constructed.

But here, we have a bird - both the plane AND the pilot rolled up into one unit.

And these jokers are trying to tell us that all that just happened. By chance, of course.

Do you believe them? I hope not.

But there MUST have been a first bird that could fly. And in that bird were all the necessary flight instincts. It didn't LEARN them - there wasn't anything to learn them from!

And Barbarian's silly picture of a reptile dressed up in feathers running, hopping and skipping till it learned to fly, is just plain foolish.

So where did these complex instincts, the flight manual if you like, come from?

From God, of course. He implanted those 'powering instincts' into the first bird and all its descendants since then. They could fly from the word 'go'.

Gen 1.20 ¶ And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Isn't that just majestic?

Compared with:

Reptile in feathers

 

[cupid dave]

You may not have gathered this yet, but as far as I can see, evolution did not occur, and all the hoohah in the academic world is a waste of taxpayers money and time which could be better spent.

If you understand where I'm coming from, you'll understand why I insist on going back to the first bird that could fly.

There MUST have been one.

Flying didn't appear from nowhere.

Again, I point out to you that flying originated with the innovation by the first birds to try it out as a survival mathod.

It was that same for man, when the first guy threw a rock at a lion.
The like hit right on the nose worked.

Soon the whole generation of that tribe was throwing rocks which no one had even thought to do prior.



(That was also the evolution of Baseball, where "rocks" travel at 100 mph now.)

 

[Barbarian]

The more people who can see how impossible it is for AN INSTINCT to evolve,

Two of the things you labeled "instincts" turned out to be due to chemical reactions that could easily evolve. So your argument fails due to counterexamples.

the sooner this damned theory will be out the door on the compost heap where it belongs.

You'll need to come up with something of substance if you want to do that.

If you understand where I'm coming from, you'll understand why I insist on going back to the first bird that could fly.

There MUST have been one.

Flying didn't appear from nowhere. Flight requires a huge number of abilities to be present and working properly. In human terms, just think of a fighter pilot.

Does the air force shove just anybody into the cockpit of the plane and say, here, get on with it?

Of course not. The pilot is trained to within an inch of his life, in all manner of simulations and practical exercises, goes up win a training plane with the trainer right at hand, etc etc etc.

The bird, however, IS THE PLANE as well as THE PILOT.

In other words, Orville Wright couidn't possibly have flown the Wright flyer, having never been on a training plane or taught by an instructor "within an inch of his life."

Flying is impossible without a person being trained by an experienced pilot in an advanced jet aircraft, you know. :yes

Oh, wait...

 

[Asyncritus]

Two of the things you labeled "instincts" turned out to be due to chemical reactions that could easily evolve. So your argument fails due to counterexamples.

You lost that one due to your failure to account for the WHY question. And incidentally, could you manufacture auxins given C, H, O, N, K and the other basic substances plants have?

So how did the plants find out how to do that little thing?

Why do shoots grow upwards? Auxins say you.
Why do roots grow downwards? Auxins, say you.

Now WHY didn't shoots grow downwards and roots upwards?

Obviously because the plants were smart enough to figure out that their roots SHOULD grow downwards - it would be good if they did so - and that their shoots should grow upwards - it would be good if they did so too!

Were they smart enough to figure that out?

Of course not. There is an instinct in them that makes them do it. So nuts to your auxins 'explanation'.

You'll need to come up with something of substance if you want to do that.

It's right there in front of you.

In other words, Orville Wright couidn't possibly have flown the Wright flyer, having never been on a training plane or taught by an instructor "within an inch of his life."

Orville Wright had a brain CAPABLE OF doing what he did. The CAPACITY was already there, waiting to be realised.

Now a reptile doesn't have the intellectual capacity to do any such thing, whether it has feathers or not. Notice, INTELLECTUAL CAPACITY. The Wrights had that capacity, to work out the problems facing someone who wanted to fly a powered craft.

Because it was an enormous INTELLECTUAL feat first. No reptile has any such thing.

Unless, of course, you believe that intellectual capacity evolved in the Cambrian because it might be of use in the Cretaceous. That what you think?

BTW, about those pterosaurs. What did they evolve from? Or were they a special creation too?

And how long do you think this will take:

​

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
Two of the things you labeled "instincts" turned out to be due to chemical reactions that could easily evolve. So your argument fails due to counterexamples.

You lost that one due to your failure to account for the WHY question.

No, you aren't allowed that excuse, either. The fact is, what you called "instinct" turns out to be chemical, and very evolvable. And if you were honest, you'd admit that you where told the "why" is "because God created a world in which such things can evolve." A God that capable scares you, it seems, so you deny Him the power to do it.

And incidentally, could you manufacture auxins given C, H, O, N, K and the other basic substances plants have?

I could. More importantly, plants could.

So how did the plants find out how to do that little thing?

Mutation and natural selection:

Unraveling the Evolution of Auxin Signaling
Plant Physiology January 2011 vol. 155 no. 1 209-221

Abstract
...Here, we survey the key players in auxin biology in the available genomes of Chlorophyta species. We found that the genetic potential for auxin biosynthesis and AUXIN1 (AUX1)/LIKE AUX1- and P-GLYCOPROTEIN/ATP-BINDING CASSETTE subfamily B-dependent transport is already present in several single-celled and colony-forming Chlorophyta species. In addition, our analysis of expressed sequence tag libraries from Coleochaete orbicularis and Spirogyra pratensis, green algae of the Streptophyta clade that are evolutionarily closer to the land plants than those of the Chlorophyta clade, revealed the presence of partial AUXIN RESPONSE FACTORs and/or AUXIN/INDOLE-3-ACETIC ACID proteins (the key factors in auxin signaling) and PIN-FORMED-like proteins (the best-characterized auxin-efflux carriers). While the identification of these possible AUXIN RESPONSE FACTOR- and AUXIN/INDOLE-3-ACETIC ACID precursors and putative PIN-FORMED orthologs calls for a deeper investigation of their evolution after sequencing more intermediate genomes, it emphasizes that the canonical auxin response machinery and auxin transport mechanisms were, at least in part, already present before plants “moved†to land habitats.

Why do shoots grow upwards? Auxins say you.
Why do roots grow downwards? Auxins, say you.

Now WHY didn't shoots grow downwards and roots upwards?

Some might have. Some mutants still might, every now and then. But that bit of change tends to leave no descendants.

Obviously because the plants were smart enough to figure out that their roots SHOULD grow downwards - it would be good if they did so - and that their shoots should grow upwards - it would be good if they did so too!

As you learned, the process doesn't require knowing, any more than you have to know to make more WBCs when you have an infection. C'mon. Do you think people don't notice that you're still peddling the story?

Of course not. There is an instinct in them that makes them do it.

As you learned, it was auxins, not instinct. You only used "instinct" as a catch-all for "I don't know why they do it."

(Async claims a man can't fly a plane unless he's been trained and has a modern airplane)

Barbarian chuckles:
In other words, Orville Wright couidn't possibly have flown the Wright flyer, having never been on a training plane or taught by an instructor "within an inch of his life."

Orville Wright had a brain CAPABLE OF doing what he did. The CAPACITY was already there, waiting to be realised.

Now a reptile doesn't have the intellectual capacity to do any such thing, whether it has feathers or not.

As you learned, theropods did. The motions of a bird in flight, and the forces they generate by flapping, are the same that theropods and modern ratites use for balance and force when running. C'mon.

Notice, INTELLECTUAL CAPACITY. The Wrights had that capacity, to work out the problems facing someone who wanted to fly a powered craft.

So suddenly, a long apprenticeship with an experienced pilot isn't required after all? How about that?

Because it was an enormous INTELLECTUAL feat first. No reptile has any such thing.

Nothing intellectual about it. The structures necessary for flight were already there. The motions used for flight were already in running dinosaurs.

BTW, about those pterosaurs. What did they evolve from?

Thecodonts. Sharovipteryx, a gliding thecodont was bipedal winged reptile that had the largest wing surface on the hind limbs. Enlarged pelvic muscles shows it was on the way to endothermy, and the wholly bipedal stance shows it was able to breath and run at the same time.

Or were they a special creation too?

So far, no one has found anything that's a "special creation." Unless you count evolution as "special creation."

Which in a way, it is, I suppose.

And how long do you think this will take:

(man in a chicken suit becoming an eagle)

People are laughing at that, but not for the reason you suppose.

 

[Asyncritus]

Barbarian chuckles:
Two of the things you labeled "instincts" turned out to be due to chemical reactions that could easily evolve. So your argument fails due to counterexamples.

No, sorry. 'A chemical did it' is not an answer to why it was done in the first place.

It certainly is an answer to HOW it was done, but not to WHY it was done. You failed again. Now admit that you don't have an answer and stop this silly bluffing. Do you think people can't distinguish between how and why? Maybe you can't...actually, it seem obvious that you can't, but I won't give up hope of teaching you the difference. maybe you'll learn some day. Maybe.

No, you aren't allowed that excuse, either. The fact is, what you called "instinct" turns out to be chemical, and very evolvable. And if you were honest, you'd admit that you where told the "why" is "because God created a world in which such things can evolve." A God that capable scares you, it seems, so you deny Him the power to do it.

Now you're falling back on the desperate. You're begging the question.
"..in which such things can evolve" begs the question as to whether they did or not.

Try again.

And incidentally, could you manufacture auxins given C, H, O, N, K and the other basic substances plants have?

I could. More importantly, plants could.

And how did they acquire the ability to do something that you with lab and brain claim you can do? But again you beg the question. A plant has no lab, and no brain - yet it manages to do this remarkable thing.

Here it comes, guys, the mantra:
OOO--HHHHH----MMMMM....

Mutation and natural selection:

And, a p--aaaa--pppp----errrr!

BTW, did you read it? Let me highlight the really interesting bits:

Unraveling the Evolution of Auxin Signaling
Plant Physiology January 2011 vol. 155 no. 1 209-221

Abstract

We found that the genetic potential for auxin biosynthesis and AUXIN1 (AUX1)/LIKE AUX1- and P-GLYCOPROTEIN/ATP-BINDING CASSETTE subfamily B-dependent transport is already present in several single-celled and colony-forming Chlorophyta species.

You got that? It is already present. Ding Dong!!!

We're asking: HOW did it get there, and more important WHY did it get there

In addition, our analysis of expressed sequence tag libraries
[...]

emphasizes that the canonical auxin response machinery and auxin transport mechanisms were, at least in part, already present

Ding dong!Get that? No, I didn't think you did, or you wouldn't have cited this hoping I wouldn't read it!"..were, at least in part, already present". No evolution there! Creation, yes. Evolution - failed again.
Now here's the real stupid bit:

before plants “moved” to land habitats.

As I said before, they think that life, and therefore plant life, originated in the sea.

Therefore, plants “moved” to land habitats.

Which means that seaweeds, etc. in the words of one idiot, 'invaded' the land, and eventually became tomatoes, lettuces and sequoias.
Doesn't it embarrass you to be associated with such utter nonsense? I'm embarrassed for you, even if you're not.

Some might have. Some mutants still might, every now and then. But that bit of change tends to leave no descendants.

Now, can we have some sense please?

As you learned,

You're still doing this damned nonsense. You don't know what I've learned, and haven't learned. I certainly haven't learned anything from you. I've asked you to stop with it, and I'm going to report this now.

Obviously because the plants were smart enough to figure out that their roots SHOULD grow downwards - it would be good if they did so - and that their shoots should grow upwards - it would be good if they did so too!

As you learned, the process doesn't require knowing, any more than you have to know to make more WBCs when you have an infection. C'mon. Do you think people don't notice that you're still peddling the story?

The question still stands.

WHY do they do this thing? Did they figure out how to do it all by themselves - or was the behaviour implanted in them? Instinct, I call it.

As you learned, it was auxins, not instinct. You only used "instinct" as a catch-all for "I don't know why they do it."

Ah, you've managed to find the word 'why' at long last.

But you don't know 'why' they do it. I do. So that the shoots can receive light and air, and so that the roots can receive nutrients and water from the soild, and anchorage etc.

You observe, that this answer implies purpose: but purpose and evolution are anathema to one another. Evolution is purposeless, going nowhere fast, or slow, really.

So you cannot admit such an answer.

Implanted instinct was implanted deliberately, purposively, and with the mechanism to execute the commands of the instinct. You've got as far as the mechanism - but you, like evolution, are helpless in the face of the PURPOSE of the existence of these things.

BTW, you haven't addressed the point that the Wrights had the intellectual CAPACITY to create a flyng machine.

A reptile doesn't have any such capacity - but doubtless you can produce a p--a--p-errr that'll prove otherwise! Should be interesting to see. Hope it's better than the one above.

As you learned, theropods did. The motions of a bird in flight, and the forces they generate by flapping, are the same that theropods and modern ratites use for balance and force when running. C'mon.

But theropods can't flap. The glide! If the story is true - and flapping and gliding are two different things, as you should know by now.

Running, hopping, skipping and jumping are not the precursors of flight. They're the precursors of running, hopping , skipping and jumping.

So suddenly, a long apprenticeship with an experienced pilot isn't required after all? How about that?

Go try flying a 747 and let me know what happens.If you survive, that is.

Nothing intellectual about it. The structures necessary for flight were already there. The motions used for flight were already in running dinosaurs.

It took mankind heaven only knows how many centuries and efforts to learn how to fly. That's not intellectual? Tell that to any aerodynamic engineer or pilot, and if you survive the experience, let me know how you get on.

Honestly barbarian, you do talk some utter nonsense at times.

Now you're forced into the corner where you're ging to credit reptiles with enough brain power to invent self-propelled and self-piloted flying machines.

Gosh, these Wright brothers were a pair of imbeciles for taking so long to figure it out, weren't they!

Thecodonts. Sharovipteryx, a gliding thecodont was bipedal winged reptile that had the largest wing surface on the hind limbs. Enlarged pelvic muscles shows it was on the way to endothermy, and the wholly bipedal stance shows it was able to breath and run at the same time.

So it flew with its behind stuck up in the air, did it!!

You mean it ran backwards when it wanted to take off, huh??? Oh dear. Yu're good for a laugh if nothing else!

So far, no one has found anything that's a "special creation."

You're wrong again. Everything they investigate is a special creation. Whether they admit it or not.

(man in a chicken suit becoming an eagle)

People are laughing at that, but not for the reason you suppose.

Makes the point, though, doesn't it? Heh heh heh!

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
Two of the things you labeled "instincts" turned out to be due to chemical reactions that could easily evolve. So your argument fails due to counterexamples.

No

Yep. It takes out your belief that there was some magical "instinct." It's just chemistry. Very evolvable.

sorry. 'A chemical did it' is not an answer to why it was done in the first place.

Barbarian observes:
No, you aren't allowed that excuse, either. The fact is, what you called "instinct" turns out to be chemical, and very evolvable. And if you were honest, you'd admit that you where told the "why" is "because God created a world in which such things can evolve." A God that capable scares you, it seems, so you deny Him the power to do it.

Now you're falling back on the desperate. You're begging the question.

Nope. Let's see what your excuse is this time...

"..in which such things can evolve" begs the question as to whether they did or not.

Here you go...

Unraveling the Evolution of Auxin Signaling
Plant Physiology January 2011 vol. 155 no. 1 209-221

Abstract
...Here, we survey the key players in auxin biology in the available genomes of Chlorophyta species. We found that the genetic potential for auxin biosynthesis and AUXIN1 (AUX1)/LIKE AUX1- and P-GLYCOPROTEIN/ATP-BINDING CASSETTE subfamily B-dependent transport is already present in several single-celled and colony-forming Chlorophyta species. In addition, our analysis of expressed sequence tag libraries from Coleochaete orbicularis and Spirogyra pratensis, green algae of the Streptophyta clade that are evolutionarily closer to the land plants than those of the Chlorophyta clade, revealed the presence of partial AUXIN RESPONSE FACTORs and/or AUXIN/INDOLE-3-ACETIC ACID proteins (the key factors in auxin signaling) and PIN-FORMED-like proteins (the best-characterized auxin-efflux carriers). While the identification of these possible AUXIN RESPONSE FACTOR- and AUXIN/INDOLE-3-ACETIC ACID precursors and putative PIN-FORMED orthologs calls for a deeper investigation of their evolution after sequencing more intermediate genomes, it emphasizes that the canonical auxin response machinery and auxin transport mechanisms were, at least in part, already present before plants “moved” to land habitats.


Try again.

And incidentally, could you manufacture auxins given C, H, O, N, K and the other basic substances plants have?

Barbarian chuckles:
I could. More importantly, plants could.

And how did they acquire the ability to do something that you with lab and brain claim you can do? But again you beg the question. A plant has no lab, and no brain - yet it manages to do this remarkable thing.

Turns out evolution doesn't need brains or labs to work. God is a lot smarter than you want Him to be.

Mutation and natural selection:

BTW, did you read it? Let me highlight the really interesting bits:

You're not going to like what happens here...

Unraveling the Evolution of Auxin Signaling
Plant Physiology January 2011 vol. 155 no. 1 209-221

Abstract

We found that the genetic potential for auxin biosynthesis and AUXIN1 (AUX1)/LIKE AUX1- and P-GLYCOPROTEIN/ATP-BINDING CASSETTE subfamily B-dependent transport is already present in several single-celled and colony-forming Chlorophyta species.

You got that? It is already present. Ding Dong!!!

Yep. You keep running into the same wall. As you learned, evolution never makes anything de novo; it always modifies something already there. And here's another example that's got you in knots.

We're asking: HOW did it get there, and more important WHY did it get there

In addition, our analysis of expressed sequence tag libraries
[...]

emphasizes that the canonical auxin response machinery and auxin transport mechanisms were, at least in part, already present

Ding dong!Get that?

Yep. The precursors to auxins were already there. Doing different things, of course, but modified a bit by natural selection, they became functional auxins. God is smarter than you thought.

As I said before, they think that life, and therefore plant life, originated in the sea.

Comes down to evidence. Science has it. You don't.

Which means that seaweeds, etc. in the words of one idiot, 'invaded' the land, and eventually became tomatoes, lettuces and sequoias.
Doesn't it embarrass you to be associated with such utter nonsense? I'm embarrassed for you, even if you're not.

Your embarrassment seems to be more precisely located in the fact that the evidence shows auxins evolved from things already there in more primitive plants.

Barbarian, on the possibility of maladaptive auxins:
Some might have. Some mutants still might, every now and then. But that bit of change tends to leave no descendants.

Now, can we have some sense please?

Directly observed. Maladative mutations tend to disappear, and useful ones tend to be preserved. You learned that, earlier.

You're still doing this damned nonsense. You don't know what I've learned, and haven't learned.

Everyone has seen it here. No point in you denying it.

I certainly haven't learned anything from you. I've asked you to stop with it, and I'm going to report this now.

I don't think it will help you much. Even if the mods ask me not to use that phrase, I'll just point out where I showed you earlier.

Obviously because the plants were smart enough to figure out that their roots SHOULD grow downwards - it would be good if they did so - and that their shoots should grow upwards - it would be good if they did so too!

Barbarian chuckles:
As you learned, the process doesn't require knowing, any more than you have to know to make more WBCs when you have an infection. C'mon. Do you think people don't notice that you're still peddling the story?

The question still stands.

It's still based on the assumption that plants can "know" things. You can make the claim, but it won't help you any.

WHY do they do this thing?

Natural selection. Auxins for negative phototropism, if they ever evolved, were removed by natural selection.

Did they figure out how to do it all by themselves - or was the behaviour implanted in them? Instinct, I call it.

"Instinct" seems to be your new word for "chemistry." You learned, that tropisms in plants are simply chemical reactions.

As you learned, it was auxins, not instinct. You only used "instinct" as a catch-all for "I don't know why they do it."

Ah, you've managed to find the word 'why' at long last.

The "why" is "Because God made a universe in which such things can evolve."

But you don't know 'why' they do it. I do. So that the shoots can receive light and air, and so that the roots can receive nutrients and water from the soild, and anchorage etc.

Here, you're conflating efficient and final causes. The efficient cause is the chemical reactions involved. The final causes are the way God made the universe.

You observe, that this answer implies purpose: but purpose and evolution are anathema to one another.

You might as well say that purpose and gravity are anathema to one another. Again, you've conflated efficient and final causes.

Implanted instinct was implanted deliberately, purposively, and with the mechanism to execute the commands of the instinct.

Your problem, of course, is that so far, when we find the actual way instinct works, it turns out to be chemical. All your magical principles turn out to be a simple confusion between efficient and final causes.

You've got as far as the mechanism - but you, like evolution, are helpless in the face of the PURPOSE of the existence of these things.

hmmm...

You've got as far as the mechanism - but you, like gravity, are helpless in the face of the PURPOSE of the existence of these things.

Science can't address final causes. But scientists can. Learn the difference, and your problem goes away.

BTW, you haven't addressed the point that the Wrights had the intellectual CAPACITY to create a flyng machine.

So the story changes again. It is possible for a man to fly a plane without training.

A reptile doesn't have any such capacity - but doubtless you can produce a p--a--p-errr that'll prove otherwise!

As you learned, theropods did. The motions of a bird in flight, and the forces they generate by flapping, are the same that theropods and modern ratites use for balance and force when running. C'mon.

But theropods can't flap.

But they did. As you learned, they used their wings to help them maneuver when running, much as ratites do today.

So suddenly, a long apprenticeship with an experienced pilot isn't required after all? How about that?
Go try flying a 747 and let me know what happens.If you survive, that is.

I was in the AF. I wasn't a tanker pilot, but I did get checked out on the control systems of tankers, so I could probably do it, with a manual and a little reading. Newest thing at the time, and easier to fly than the old KC-135s. Landing would be an experience, though. Never landed anything close to that size, other than in simulators.

Barbarian observes:
Nothing intellectual about it. The structures necessary for flight were already there. The motions used for flight were already in running dinosaurs.

It took mankind heaven only knows how many centuries and efforts to learn how to fly. That's not intellectual?

If you're telling me that equating human technology with animal behavior is a bad idea, then I think you're right.

Honestly barbarian, you do talk some utter nonsense at times.

I can sympathize with your frustration, but the mods aren't too sympathetic with venting.

Now you're forced into the corner where you're ging to credit reptiles with enough brain power to invent self-propelled and self-piloted flying machines.

See above. This is where conflating human technology and animal behavior will take you. I'm sure that if you took a little time to calm yourself and think about it, you could see why.

Thecodonts. Sharovipteryx, a gliding thecodont was bipedal winged reptile that had the largest wing surface on the hind limbs. Enlarged pelvic muscles shows it was on the way to endothermy, and the wholly bipedal stance shows it was able to breath and run at the same time.

So it flew with its behind stuck up in the air, did it!!

Apparently, the whole animal was involved.

You mean it ran backwards when it wanted to take off, huh???

Given the aerodynamics of the animal, that seems unlikely.

Barbarian observes:
So far, no one has found anything that's a "special creation." Unless you count evolution as "special creation."
(I colored red, the part of my response you quote-mined out)

You're wrong again.

Comes down to evidence.

(man in a chicken suit becoming an eagle)

People are laughing at that, but not for the reason you suppose.

Makes the point, though, doesn't it?

Very well. You realized that you can't come up with an argument against the theory, so you built your own and knocked it down. Do you think people don't notice?

 

[Asyncritus]

sorry. 'A chemical did it' is not an answer to why it was done in the first place.

Barbarian wriggles:

No, you aren't allowed that excuse, either. The fact is, what you called "instinct" turns out to be chemical, and very evolvable. And if you were honest, you'd admit that you where told the "why" is "because God created a world in which such things can evolve." A God that capable scares you, it seems, so you deny Him the power to do it.

Barbarian begs the question again, because he has no answer to give to the question 'why does this happen'. Readers please note.
Now you're falling back on the desperate. You're begging the question.

Nope. Let's see what your excuse is this time...

"..in which such things can evolve" begs the question as to whether they did or not.

Here you go...

Unraveling the Evolution of Auxin Signaling

In case you didn't notice it, this title also begs the question, by assuming that evolution did take place. Please, remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus.

And incidentally, could you manufacture auxins given C, H, O, N, K and the other basic substances plants have?

Barbarian chuckles:
I could. More importantly, plants could.

And how did they acquire the ability to do something that you with lab and brain claim you can do? But again you beg the question. A plant has no lab, and no brain - yet it manages to do this remarkable thing.

Turns out evolution doesn't need brains or labs to work.

Marvellous! Here is this blind undirected process, doing far more than you can with a lab, brain and whatever else. Evolution takes the place of a Creator. It really is the creation myth of our time!

Don't you see the absurdity of your position?

God is a lot smarter than you want Him to be.

If He's so smart, why do you deny that all these things came into existence without this evolutionary nonsense?

Mutation and natural selection:

BTW, did you read it? Let me highlight the really interesting bits:
You're not going to like what happens here...
Unraveling the Evolution of Auxin Signaling
Plant Physiology January 2011 vol. 155 no. 1 209-221

Black Mark #3

Did you notice the question-begging again? No? I thought not.

Abstract

We found that the genetic potential for auxin biosynthesis and AUXIN1 (AUX1)/LIKE AUX1- and P-GLYCOPROTEIN/ATP-BINDING CASSETTE subfamily B-dependent transport is already present in several single-celled and colony-forming Chlorophyta species.

You got that? It is already present. Ding Dong!!!

Yep. You keep running into the same wall.

Yes, I do. No matter how illogical, nonsensical, and brothers Grimm-like the stuff these people shove out, you can't seem to recognise it.

If it was ALREADY THERE, then isn't it obvious that IT DIDN'T EVOLVE? I didn't think that required any great feats of intellectual excellence to perceive. Turns out, I was wrong - but that's life, I'm afraid.

Barbarian annoys me deliberately, and begs the question again and again:

As you learned, evolution never makes anything de novo; it always modifies something already there. And here's another example that's got you in knots.

Question begged. Black mark #4

We're asking: HOW did it get there, and more important WHY did it get there

In addition, our analysis of expressed sequence tag libraries
[...]

emphasizes that the canonical auxin response machinery and auxin transport mechanisms were, at least in part, already present

Ding dong!Get that?

Yep. The precursors to auxins were already there. Doing different things, of course, but modified a bit by natural selection, they became functional auxins. God is smarter than you thought
Black mark #5

Once upon a time, there was this fairy called OOO_HHH_MMM. With a magic wand too, called Natural Selection.

No Barbarian, here's your missing link:Gen.1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

No evolution there, is there?

As I said before, they think that life, and therefore plant life, originated in the sea.

Comes down to evidence. Science has it. You don't.

Oh yeah. We all know that, don't we?

Which means that seaweeds, etc. in the words of one idiot, 'invaded' the land, and eventually became tomatoes, lettuces and sequoias.

Doesn't it embarrass you to be associated with such utter nonsense? I'm embarrassed for you, even if you're not.

Your embarrassment seems to be more precisely located in the fact that the evidence shows auxins evolved from things already there in more primitive plants.

Just as a matter of interest then, how did the land plants evolve from sea plants?

Barbarian, on the possibility of maladaptive auxins:
Some might have. Some mutants still might, every now and then. But that bit of change tends to leave no descendants.

Unbelievable bit of science.
Now, can we have some sense please?

Barbarian again seeks to irritate:

Directly observed. Maladative mutations tend to disappear, and useful ones tend to be preserved. You learned that, earlier.

Then you don’t know whether they existed or not, from the fossil record.

I certainly haven't learned anything from you. I've asked you to stop with it, and I'm going to report this now.

I don't think it will help you much. Even if the mods ask me not to use that phrase, I'll just point out where I showed you earlier.

That might be preferable.

You might get thrown off the site, as has happened previously. Don't make life difficult for everybody. Just stop with the condescension.

Obviously because the plants were smart enough to figure out that their roots SHOULD grow downwards - it would be good if they did so - and that their shoots should grow upwards - it would be good if they did so too!
Barbarian chuckles:

As you learned, the process doesn't require knowing,

[FONT=&quot]
Because it happens automatically. But complex automatic processes don't just happen - they are designed, and happen for a reason, a WHY if you like. But you can't face that question, can you? Evolution can never answer WHY, because it means purposiveness, intelligent construction for a reason - which evolution cannot have.

[/FONT]

 

[Asyncritus]

[FONT=&quot]

any more than you have to know to make more WBCs when you have an infection. C'mon. Do you think people don't notice that you're still peddling the story?

See above, for THE WHY question. We produce more WBCs BECAUSE they kill off infections. There's a reason, a purpose which happens even though I know nothing about it - because it's INSTINCTIVE, meaning unlearned, innate, and inherited.
Another little problem for evolution.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The question still stands.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It's still based on the assumption that plants can "know" things. You can make the claim, but it won't help you any.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
No? But it does destroy unintelligent, purposeless, aimless, random, evolutionary meanderings.

Plants produce these substances IN ORDER TO produce given effects: but that statement is again a denial of any evolutionary processes, because it uses the words 'IN ORDER TO'.

Evolution cannot stomach those words.

Your problem is, that it's everywhere in the living world. Things happen for a purpose. The organisms act AS IF they know what's necessary, AS IF there's a purpose in their responses.

I call it INSTINCT. You can call it whatever you like - it is unquestionably there, as the eels, plovers, yuccas and any number of others prove beyond any doubt.

Barbarian again demonstrates inability to distinguish between 'how' and 'why'. Just look:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]WHY do they do this thing?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

Natural selection. Auxins for negative phototropism, if they ever evolved, were removed by natural selection.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Did they figure out how to do it all by themselves - or was the behaviour implanted in them? Instinct, I call it.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"Instinct" seems to be your new word for "chemistry." You learned, that tropisms in plants are simply chemical reactions.

As you learned, it was auxins, not instinct. You only used "instinct" as a catch-all for "I don't know why they do it."
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
See what I mean?[/FONT] Doesn't know the meaning of WHY.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Ah, you've managed to find the word 'why' at long last. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
The "why" is "Because God made a universe in which such things can evolve."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
Wrong again. Here is the proper form of words:

God made a universe in which such things exist.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]But you don't know 'why' they do it. I do. So that the shoots can receive light and air, and so that the roots can receive nutrients and water from the soil, and anchorage etc.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Here, you're conflating efficient and final causes. The efficient cause is the chemical reactions involved. The final causes are the way God made the universe. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
I've got you.

'efficient' means 'how it happened.'

'final causes' is simply another way of saying 'why this happened'.

Hooray! You've acknowledged there's difference!
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You observe, that this answer implies purpose: but purpose and evolution are anathema to one another.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You might as well say that purpose and gravity are anathema to one another. Again, you've conflated efficient and final causes.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

I don't quite understand what you mean here, but can we stick to evolution and biology for the moment?
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Implanted instinct was implanted deliberately, purposively, and with the mechanism to execute the commands of the instinct.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Your problem, of course, is that so far, when we find the actual way instinct works, it turns out to be chemical. All your magical principles turn out to be a simple confusion between efficient and final causes.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]No magic about them. Science books are full of statements like: thus and so happens BECAUSE of this and that.

You gave us an excellent example just now. More WBCs are produced when we have an infection BECAUSE the wbcs kill off the pathogens.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Science has exercised a duty in explaining WHY things happen. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The blood circulates round the body BECAUSE it transports various substances to parts that need them. Arteries exist BECAUSE the blood has to be transported to those places. Veins exist BECAUSE the blood needs to return to the heart. The heart exists BECAUSE a pumping organ is necessary for circulation to take place.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Every one of those BECAUSE’s is an explanation of WHY those things exist. More, they are expressions of PURPOSE, of INTENTION, of DESIGN.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Now unless you are going to write to every textbook writer and tell them they should abandon such loaded anti-evolutionary statements, you are forced to admit that evolution did not take place – since, as I have said, PURPOSE and evolution are diametric opposites.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

Science can't address final causes. But scientists can. Learn the difference, and your problem goes away. .

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]As I’ve conclusively shown above, science does little else. So your problems stands there, winking at you.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

BTW, you haven't addressed the point that the Wrights had the intellectual CAPACITY to create a flyng machine.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]So the story changes again. It is possible for a man to fly a plane without training.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You really think that the Wrights had no training? You mean, all the years they spent in designing, experimenting with the construction of their machine, doesn’t count as training? That’s a serious mistake.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

A reptile doesn't have any such capacity - but doubtless you can produce a p--a--p-errr that'll prove otherwise!

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]As you learned, theropods did. The motions of a bird in flight, and the forces they generate by flapping, are the same that theropods and modern ratites use for balance and force when running. C'mon.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Look. People could run, jump, hop, skip and leap off cliffs and treetops for millennia. They still can’t fly. So running, jumping, waving forelimbs in the air etc etc does not mean anything can fly.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Theropods might have been able to do all those besides fly, but what about the insect precursors ( I mean the non-existent ones), and the pterosaur precursors (I mean the non-existent ones), and the bat precursors (( I mean the non-existent ones) – did they all practice running jumping hopping and skipping too? Gimme a break, willya[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

But theropods can't flap.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]But they did. As you learned, they used their wings to help them maneuver when running, much as ratites do today.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Wings are of no use to manoeuvre when running. No bird uses its wings that way. They would be more than a hindrance – they’d be a huge liability.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Ratites, BTW, can’t fly, and worse, COULDN’T fly even if they had wings:[/FONT]

Unlike other flightless birds, the ratites have no keel on their sternum—hence the name from the Latin ratis (for raft). Without this to anchor their wing muscles, they could not fly even if they were to develop suitable wings. Wiki

Got that?

I edited out your AF experience: admirable, but alas, irrelevant.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
any more than you have to know to make more WBCs when you have an infection. C'mon. Do you think people don't notice that you're still peddling the story?

See above, for THE WHY question. We produce more WBCs BECAUSE they kill off infections.

Wrong. In some cases, they don't even do that. We produce more WBCs because specific chemical signals cause haemopoetic tissues in the bone marrow and other spots to rapidly reproduce. I have a somewhat unusual tissue type, and so I used to donate WBCs through pheresis for patients needing them. By the time they had separated out the WBC, my body had already replaced them. No infection. It's chemically mediated, by a variety of mechanisms.

There's a reason, a purpose which happens even though I know nothing about it - because it's INSTINCTIVE, meaning unlearned, innate, and inherited.

And again, what you call "instinct" turns out to be a chemical process. Every time we figure out an "instinct", it has a physical cause. And remember, the final cause is God creatiing the sort of world in which such amazing things can evolve.

The question still stands.

Barbarian observes:
It's still based on the assumption that plants can "know" things. You can make the claim, but it won't help you any.

No?

Nope.

But it does destroy unintelligent, purposeless, aimless, random, evolutionary meanderings.

It is pretty effective against strawmen. But that's won't help you much, will it?

Plants produce these substances IN ORDER TO produce given effects: but that statement is again a denial of any evolutionary processes, because it uses the words 'IN ORDER TO'.

Evolution cannot stomach those words.

You're still having trouble sorting out efficient and final causes. Science doesn't deal in final causes. It just figures out how things work.

Your problem is, that it's everywhere in the living world. Things happen for a purpose. The organisms act AS IF they know what's necessary, AS IF there's a purpose in their responses.

And yet, as you learned, they don't need to "know" any more than a rock needs to "know" it should fall downward. In your system, rocks "instinctively" fall.

I call it INSTINCT. You can call it whatever you like - it is unquestionably there, as the eels, plovers, yuccas and any number of others prove beyond any doubt.

Ah, it's your private word for "chemistry." O.K.

Barbarian again demonstrates inability to distinguish between 'how' and 'why'. Just look:
WHY do they do this thing?

Barbarian observes:
Natural selection. Auxins for negative phototropism, if they ever evolved, were removed by natural selection.

Did they figure out how to do it all by themselves

No more than a rock figures out how to fall down. As you learned, that's not how it works in nature.

or was the behaviour implanted in them? Instinct, I call it.

So behaviors are implanted, in rocks, in your imagination.

Again, you've confused efficient and final causes.

"Instinct" seems to be your new word for "chemistry." You learned, that tropisms in plants are simply chemical reactions.

As you learned, it was auxins, not instinct. You only used "instinct" as a catch-all for "I don't know why they do it."

See what I mean? Doesn't know the meaning of WHY.

The "why" is the final cause. God created the universe so that things evolve, and rocks fall down. They don't have to know anything to do that.

Wrong again. Here is the proper form of words:

God made a universe in which such things exist.

Comes down to evidence. You lose.

But you don't know 'why' they do it.

We know why they do it. God created a universe where such things can form.

Barbarian observes:
Here, you're conflating efficient and final causes. The efficient cause is the chemical reactions involved. The final causes are the way God made the universe.

I've got you.

Oh noes! :shocked

'efficient' means 'how it happened.'

'final causes' is simply another way of saying 'why this happened'.

The terms are technical ones in philosophy, as usual, you've conflated the colloquial usage with the strict meaning.

You observe, that this answer implies purpose: but purpose and evolution are anathema to one another.

Barbarian observes:
You might as well say that purpose and gravity are anathema to one another. Again, you've conflated efficient and final causes.

I don't quite understand what you mean here, but can we stick to evolution and biology for the moment?

You've wandered over into philosophy, and out of science. Final causes are not part of biology.

Implanted instinct was implanted deliberately, purposively, and with the mechanism to execute the commands of the instinct.

Your problem, of course, is that so far, when we find the actual way instinct works, it turns out to be chemical. All your magical principles turn out to be a simple confusion between efficient and final causes.

No magic about them.

No, but you keep insisting there must be.

Science books are full of statements like: thus and so happens BECAUSE of this and that.

You gave us an excellent example just now. More WBCs are produced when we have an infection BECAUSE the wbcs kill off the pathogens.

Wrong. There are a number of ways more WBCs are produced, and they are all chemically mediated. Want to learn about some of them?

The blood circulates round the body BECAUSE it transports various substances to parts that need them. Arteries exist BECAUSE the blood has to be transported to those places. Veins exist BECAUSE the blood needs to return to the heart. The heart exists BECAUSE a pumping organ is necessary for circulation to take place.

Again, you've confused efficient and final causes. And final causes aren't any use to science. We need to find out the mechanisms for WBC production, because that gives us useful knowledge.

Faith can give you useful knowledge too, but not how biology works.

Now unless you are going to write to every textbook writer and tell them they should abandon such loaded anti-evolutionary statements, you are forced to admit that evolution did not take place – since, as I have said, PURPOSE and evolution are diametric opposites.

As you learned, they just answer different questions. Which is fine. Both science and faith have important uses for us.

Science can't address final causes. But scientists can. Learn the difference, and your problem goes away. .

As I’ve conclusively shown above, science does little else.

Denial won't help you here. Science, as you learned, is about the way it happens, and not at all about final causes. We will sometimes use functional teleolgy to say "we produce WBCs to fight infections", but in research, the answers focus on the efficient causes.

BTW, you haven't addressed the point that the Wrights had the intellectual CAPACITY to create a flyng machine.

Did that when I pointed out your admission invalidated your claim that a pilot had to be highly trained in order to fly an airplane.
So the story changes again. It is possible for a man to fly a plane without training.

You really think that the Wrights had no training?

They pretty much did it all on their own. And they made mistakes. It's why the first flight was very low, and very short. They didn't know what they were doing in a lot of ways.

A reptile doesn't have any such capacity - but doubtless you can produce a p--a--p-errr that'll prove otherwise!

As you learned, theropods did. The motions of a bird in flight, and the forces they generate by flapping, are the same that theropods and modern ratites use for balance and force when running. C'mon.

Look. People could run, jump, hop, skip and leap off cliffs and treetops for millennia.

But of course, they didn't have feathered wings they used to control their movements in running, and they were too large to have flown, in any event. So it's not surprising that the only organisms that evolved flight were those with characteristics compatible with flight.

They still can’t fly. So running, jumping, waving forelimbs in the air etc etc does not mean anything can fly.

See above.

Theropods might have been able to do all those besides fly, but what about the insect precursors ( I mean the non-existent ones)

The story of insect flight is pretty interesting, but complicated. Start a new thread and I'll tell you about it. There are still insect precursors. They are called "stoneflies" and they mainly use wings for other purposes.

and the pterosaur precursors (I mean the non-existent ones)

You were already shown a flying thecodont, with a primitive wing arrangement. So denial isn't going to help you.

and the bat precursors (( I mean the non-existent ones)

You were also shown a transitional to modern bats. So you're out there. BTW, what we haven't yet found, isn't evidence that there's nothing to find. When I was in college we didn't have transitionals for:

salamanders to frogs
ungulates to whales
lizards to snakes
anapsids to turtles
wasps to ants

and many more. Yet we have found all of them today.

But theropods can't flap.

But they did. As you learned, they used their wings to help them maneuver when running, much as ratites do today.

Wings are of no use to manoeuvre when running. No bird uses its wings that way.

After three years, when the ostriches were full-grown, thescientists video-recorded them as they raced down nearly 1,000-foot (300-meter)stretches outdoors. They found the ostriches used wings as sophisticatedair-rudders for rapid braking, turning and zigzag maneuvers. Experiments thatplaced ostrich feathers in streams of air showed they could indeed provide lift,which would come in handy for animals that did fly.
http://www.livescience.com/6657-ostrich-wings-explain-mystery-flightless-dinosaurs.html

Reality hits you from the blind side, again.

They would be more than a hindrance – they’d be a huge liability.

The ostriches will be really upset to hear that.

Ratites, BTW, can’t fly, and worse, COULDN’T fly even if they had wings:

They have wings. And they work as rudders and they provide lift.

Unlike other flightless birds, the ratites have no keel on their sternum—hence the name from the Latin ratis (for raft). Without this to anchor their wing muscles, they could not fly even if they were to develop suitable wings. Wiki

Archaeopteryx lacks a keeled sternum. But it could fly a little. It's the large size of the ratites that makes them unable to fly. So a keeled breastbone was unnecessary.

Got that?

Surprise, again.

 

[Asyncritus]

[FONT=&quot]We have strayed from the point – largely because you have no hope of ever answering it.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The origin of the instincts of flight.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You are postulating this foolish idea that acquired characteristics can be inherited.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If a given reptile learns how to fly, then its descendants CANNOT receive that information, nor can it transmit the information to any of its own descendants.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]No matter how many generations intervene.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If the flying reptile really can fly, then it had somehow acquired the necessary instincts to do so.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It could not have acquired it from any flightless ancestor for the above reasons. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Therefore, those instincts were implanted completely.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]That’s your real problem, and all this dust you keep throwing into the air, is merely a smokescreen to cover you unwillingness to concede that these facts completely ruin any evolutionary theory.

So do you concede?
[/FONT]

 

[Barbarian]

We have strayed from the point

What seems to have you in knots is that we're right on the point. You asked how reptiles could have the instincts to fly, and I pointed out that feathered small dinosaurs already had everything. I showed you that they had the feathered wings, and they already used them for control while running. You denied that any running animal could do that, and I showed youi that ostriches do that today. (and btw, ostrich wings also provide lift).

largely because you have no hope of ever answering it.

See above. Remember when I told you that what you don't know can hurt you? It just did. Again.

You are postulating this foolish idea that acquired characteristics can be inherited.

(when Async gets in trouble, he responds by dreaming up foolish ideas and insisting that other people must believe them)

If a given reptile learns how to fly, then its descendants CANNOT receive that information, nor can it transmit the information to any of its own descendants.

As you learned, the "instincts" were already there, and being used for other purposes. They used wings for lift and control while running, long before they used the same structures and motions for flight.

So do you concede?

I don't think so. Maybe I can get you to declare that there are no such things as ostriches, again. Or was it that there are ostriches, but they don't use their wings for control while running? Something like that.

Or that there were never any flying reptiles.

Or that organisms can't fly without a keeled sternum.

Or any of the other entertaining things you write here.

Worth keeping you on the thread for a little longer.

 

[Asyncritus]

You have failed to answer the point is post 57, Please make some effort to do so:

[FONT="]That’s your real problem, and all this dust you keep throwing into the air, is merely a smokescreen to cover you unwillingness to concede that these facts completely ruin any evolutionary theory.[/FONT]

What seems to have you in knots is that we're right on the point. You asked how reptiles could have the instincts to fly, and I pointed out that feathered small dinosaurs already had everything.

Excuse me, but this is not intended to be an intelligence test.

The question is: how did birds obtain flight instincts from reptiles?

Reptile (can't fly) ----X------> Bird (can fly)

What happened at X?

Your answer is: the reptiles had those instincts already. Which is, of course, pure nonsense, and a total failure to answer the simple question, because feathered reptiles can't fly.

However, to humour you, let's make the assumption (you're good at that) that reptiles had the flight instincts and could fly.

Question: where did the first flying reptile obtain the flight instincts?

I showed you that they had the feathered wings, and they already used them for control while running. You denied that any running animal could do that, and I showed youi that ostriches do that today. (and btw, ostrich wings also provide lift).

And so, you expect running ostriches to be able to fly at some point in the future. Is that your idea? Too bad.

Identifiable ostriches date back to the Eocene. That's between 34-54 million years ago. They are still here today, and they still can't fly.

Maybe you should get those stupid experimenters to have them running down slalom courses and jumping off at the end. They'll evolve flight sooner that way just as soon as they break their necks!

So running and jumping, skipping and hopping for 34-54 million years hasn't produced a flying ostrich. What makes you think that 34-54 million years of running, jumping etc will make a reptile fly?

Stupidity kills, you know.

Barbarian bluffs again:

As you learned, the "instincts" were already there, and being used for other purposes. They used wings for lift and control while running, long before they used the same structures and motions for flight.

See above.

Note that he has put "instincts" in quote marks - indicating that he doesn't think they exist. Of course, we all can see differently, because as I said, bird (and bat and insect and pterosaur) flight is a complex, unlearned, innate, inherited, automatic skill. An instinct in other words.

A bird needs to know (for example)

1 How to flap its wings
2 How to angle its wings
3 How to use its tail feathers
4 How to navigate when several hundred or thousand feet above ground
5 How to dive controllably
6 How to slow down controllably
7 How to avoid mid-air stalling
8 How to take off and land safely on/from water or branches
9 How to use its hallux to avoid falling off those branches
10 How to catch its prey when in flight
11 How to produce 10 different types of feather
12 how to maintain a given body temperature
13 How to produce a one way respiratory system from the bellows system used by reptiles
14 How to breathe without a diaphragm
15 How to produce feathers with all the vanes, hooks barbs and barbules from reptilian scales
16 How to navigate accurately over distances of 3000 to 25,000 miles, and in some cases arrive on the same date at the destination

I could go on, but that's good for starters.

there were never any flying reptiles.

You mean the pterosaurs whose existence you cannot account for?

OK. Let's have some ferocious hand-waving now.

 

[cupid dave]

You may not have gathered this yet, but as far as I can see, evolution did not occur, and all the hoohah in the academic world is a waste of taxpayers money and time which could be better spent.

If you understand where I'm coming from, you'll understand why I insist on going back to the first bird that could fly.

There MUST have been one.

Flying didn't appear from nowhere. Flight requires a huge number of abilities to be present and working properly. In human terms, just think of a fighter pilot.

Consider the ideas of skip, hop, jump, flutter, glide, fly.

These are progressive learning stages preruisite to the evovled flight we see today.

The first skip may have been on thin ice, and then a way for penquins to move faster than waddling thereafter.