• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • CFN welcomes new contributing members!

    Please welcome Roberto and Julia to our family

    Blessings in Christ, and hope you stay awhile!

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Asyncritus
  • Start date Start date
I find it very interesting that, just like Christians, evolutionists can't seem to agree on the details. :D

Yet another evolutionist fantasy that just won't fly!
The whole idea that an arm could evolve into a wing is patently absurd, since the arm would become completely useless and a hindrance long before it could possibly become a functional wing. Even the leading evolutionist Stephen J. Gould recognizes evolution by gradual changes (neo-Darwinism) as a pipe-dream: "Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing?"

Stephen Jay Gould, "The Return of Hopeful Monsters", Natural History, Vol 86, June-July 1977, pg 23.
Gould substitutes the fairy tale of neo-Darwinism with his own fairy tale, which he calls punctuated equilibrium - evolution in rapid bursts in isolated populations. Gould does this to accommodate 1) the half-a-wing problem, 2) the utter lack of transitional fossils in the fossil record, and most importantly 3) his atheistic world view. It is apropos that the evidence for Gould's fairy tale of punctuated equilibrium appears to be based on lack of evidence (in the fossil record)!



 
Yet another evolutionist fantasy that just won't fly!
The whole idea that an arm could evolve into a wing is patently absurd, since the arm would become completely useless and a hindrance long before it could possibly become a functional wing. Even the leading evolutionist Stephen J. Gould recognizes evolution by gradual changes (neo-Darwinism) as a pipe-dream: "Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing?"

Ostriches have (and feathered theropod dinosaurs had) half a wing. They use it to control their motion while running, and to generate lift.

Ostrich wings apparently help the giant flightless birds run,explaining the puzzling phenomenon of why ancient dinosaurs evolved feathered limbsbefore developing flight.
http://www.livescience.com/6657-ostrich-wings-explain-mystery-flightless-dinosaurs.html

Gould substitutes the fairy tale of neo-Darwinism with his own fairy tale, which he calls punctuated equilibrium - evolution in rapid bursts in isolated populations.

It explains the rapid speciation of insects on the Hawaiian Islands, for example. Darwin spoke of the issue in his book. As organisms come into a new environment, they are not well-fitted. So a higher percentage of mutations will be favorable than in a well-fitted population. So evolution proceeds rapidly (in geologic terms), after which stasis ensues for the now-fit population. Stabilizing selection prevents much evolution.

The theory was proposed to account for Mayr's observation that aberrant species tended to be in isolated places. Also check out "Founder Effect."

Gould does this to accommodate 1) the half-a-wing problem, 2) the utter lack of transitional fossils in the fossil record,

Let's test that belief. Give me any two major groups said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if there's a transitional. I gave that one to Fred Williams a long time ago. (And Fred is one of my favorite creationists; he was quite kind the last time we talked) and he never found an example lacking one. There are still a few left, BTW, but gaps are becoming increasingly rare.

and most importantly 3) his atheistic world view.

Gould was an agnostic. He once speculated that intelligence arose in our universe because God wanted someone with whom He could share it all.

It is apropos that the evidence for Gould's fairy tale of punctuated equilibrium appears to be based on lack of evidence (in the fossil record)!

Turns out, there's a great deal of evidence for it. I mentioned some of it. Want to see some more?
 
Ostriches have (and feathered theropod dinosaurs had) half a wing. They use it to control their motion while running, and to generate lift.

Ostrich wings apparently help the giant flightless birds run,explaining the puzzling phenomenon of why ancient dinosaurs evolved feathered limbsbefore developing flight.
http://www.livescience.com/6657-ostrich-wings-explain-mystery-flightless-dinosaurs.html

As you were shown, not only can ostriches NOT fly, even if they had wings, they couldn't.

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

As you were asked, since ostriches have neen running, hopping, skipping and jumping for about 34 million years, and still can't fly, then what makes you suppose that dinosaurs could do any better?


It explains the rapid speciation of insects on the Hawaiian Islands, for example. Darwin spoke of the issue in his book. As organisms come into a new environment, they are not well-fitted. So a higher percentage of mutations will be favorable than in a well-fitted population. So evolution proceeds rapidly (in geologic terms), after which stasis ensues for the now-fit population. Stabilizing selection prevents much evolution.

As I remarked elsewhere, that rate of speciation cannot account for the number of species in the Cambrian. Especially when we note that there are huge periods of stasis involved.

The theory was proposed to account for Mayr's observation that aberrant species tended to be in isolated places. Also check out "Founder Effect."

My theory is that the reproductive isolation leads after a while to considerable amounts of inbreeding, which produces very odd effects.

Gould knew about ediacaran fossils, since they were first discovered in 1878 or so. He still proposed punctuated equilibrium, which in my opinion differs very little from direct creation of the creatures.

Let's test that belief. Give me any two major groups said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if there's a transitional. I gave that one to Fred Williams a long time ago. (And Fred is one of my favorite creationists; he was quite kind the last time we talked) and he never found an example lacking one. There are still a few left, BTW, but gaps are becoming increasingly rare.

I'm not Fred Williams, but I asked you to prove some transitionals between the non-existing ancestors of the bat (from whatever taxon you like) and the modern bat. I'm still waiting.

Gould was an agnostic. He once speculated that intelligence arose in our universe because God wanted someone with whom He could share it all.

If he said that, then he was not an agnostic.

Turns out, there's a great deal of evidence for it. I mentioned some of it. Want to see some more?

I would, but can we please distinguish clearly between fact and fiction, in whatever you choose to bring forth.
 
Hey Barbarian, there are a few questions waiting for an answer:

Post 57

[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?

Post 59

[/FONT]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.

[...]

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.

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hey Barbarian, there are a few questions waiting for an answer:
Post 57 We have strayed from the point – largely because you have no hope of ever answering it.

You were kinda upset to learn how easily those questions were answered; there's no point in pretending they weren't explained to you.

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

You're confusing natural selection with Lamarckism, again. I don't know how to make it any simpler for you.

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 small feathered theropod dinosaurs already had the structures and behaviors necessary to fly. They (like ostriches today) use wings to control movement when running and to provide lift. A very small dinosaur like Archaeopteryx (and if you like I can show you again, why Archy has more dinosaur characteristics than avian ones) could fly. And did.

If the flying reptile really can fly, then it had somehow acquired the necessary instincts to do so.

As you learned, every time we find out how an "instinct" works, it turns out to be natural and heritable. No point in denying that, either.

So do you concede?

Reminds me of an old "Tumbleweeds" comic strip. Col. Fluster is negotiating with the chief to end hostilitis:

Fluster: Give me one good reason why you shouldn't surrender.

Chief: We're winning.

Fluster: Give me another reason.

Chief: You're losing.


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

I don't think you're dumb. You're just profoundly ignorant about science in general and biology in particular.

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

Anatomy and nervous systems are heritable. I thought you knew. As you learned, everything needed for flight, except very small size was already present in the feathered theropods. Not surprisingly, we see a very small dinosaur preceded birds in flight.

Your answer is: the reptiles had those instincts already.

No. My answer is that the structures and behaviors necessary for flight were already present in small theropod dinosaurs.

You pretty much put all your effort into arguing against the things you wish I had said, instead of the evidence I show you.

Which is, of course, pure nonsense

Well, I think you'd be more effective if you dealt with the evidence, instead of inventing ideas you want me to believe.

and a total failure to answer the simple question, because feathered reptiles can't fly.

Archaeopteryx.gif


Surprise.

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

Evolved from running behavior. Even non-feathered bipeds move their upper limbs for balance while running. Feathered limbs (which evolved for warmth and display) increase the effectiveness, and provide lift that makes running more efficient. So those things were selected for.

Barbarian chuckles:
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.

Nope. Too big. Scaling up, the lift increases by the square of the size, but the load increases by the cube of the size. So there's a limit on how big a flyer can get.

Is that your idea?

No, it's just another goofy idea you dreamed up and want me to claim as my own. Your argument seems to depend on tactics like that.


Indeed.

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.

Yep. For reasons you just learned. Surprise.

Barbarian observes:
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.

As you learned, "instinct" just means "we don't know how it works." Several things you identified as "instinct" turned out to be chemical reactions.


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.

Surprise.

A bird needs to know (for example)
1 How to flap its wings

Present in feathered theropods.

2 How to angle its wings

Present in feathered theropods.

3 How to use its tail feathers

In order to do that, a bird needs a pygostyle, that little bulgy thing you see on the rear end of a cooked turkey. Early birds, like most of the Confuciusornithidae lacked them. Instead, they occupied the same flight characteristics seen in the early pterosaurs like Rhamphorhynchus. They had long, relatively immobile tail feathers that were like the tail of a kite. They make flight inherently stable, but not very agile. The pygostyle made flight inherently unstable, but very agile. Think of the difference between a sailplane and a modern fighter aircraft.

Surprise.

How to navigate when several hundred or thousand feet above ground

Most likely the earliest birds didn't fly that high, but it turns out that aerodynamics are pretty much the same up there as they are at treetop level.

How to dive controllably

As you just learned, the earliest birds didn't have a lot of manuverabilty, but it doesn't take a lot of work to stall.

How to slow down controllably

Already present in feathered theropods.

How to avoid mid-air stalling

We see that in fledgling, which have a lot of trouble learning how to avoid that. Some never make it. But most of them learn.

How to take off and land safely on/from water or branches

Turns out that it works pretty much like taking off from everything else.

How to use its hallux to avoid falling off those branches

Archaeopteryx did fine without a reversed hallux. Some birds today perch just fine without a reversed hallux.

How to catch its prey when in flight

Pretty much like when running, but it seems unlikely that it did, given that the first birds were not very agile flyers.

How to produce 10 different types of feather

Pretty much the way you learn to produce dozens of kinds of WBCs. But as you learned, only assymetrical flight feathers evolved after dinosaurs took to the air.

how to maintain a given body temperature

As you learned, the small feathered dinosaurs were already endotherms.

How to produce a one way respiratory system from the bellows system used by reptiles

As you learned, avian lungs were already present in theropod dinosaurs.

How to breathe without a diaphragm

See above. Respiratory sacs were found in dinosaurs, so that already happened.

How to produce feathers with all the vanes, hooks barbs and barbules from reptilian scales

I showed you that they evolved from scutes. Would you like to see the evidence, again?

How to navigate accurately over distances of 3000 to 25,000 miles, and in some cases arrive on the same date at the destination

The evidence shows dinosaurs were already migrating.

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

If you want to challenge any of those, I'd be pleased to show you some details. Shotgunning won't help you. Focus on one of those and we'll show you how it works.
 
I find it very interesting that, just like Christians, evolutionists can't seem to agree on the details. :D

Yet another evolutionist fantasy that just won't fly!
The whole idea that an arm could evolve into a wing is patently absurd, since the arm would become completely useless and a hindrance long before it could possibly become a functional wing. Even the leading evolutionist Stephen J. Gould recognizes evolution by gradual changes (neo-Darwinism) as a pipe-dream: "Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing?"

Stephen Jay Gould, "The Return of Hopeful Monsters", Natural History, Vol 86, June-July 1977, pg 23.
Gould substitutes the fairy tale of neo-Darwinism with his own fairy tale, which he calls punctuated equilibrium - evolution in rapid bursts in isolated populations. Gould does this to accommodate 1) the half-a-wing problem, 2) the utter lack of transitional fossils in the fossil record, and most importantly 3) his atheistic world view. It is apropos that the evidence for Gould's fairy tale of punctuated equilibrium appears to be based on lack of evidence (in the fossil record)!


The issue for christians ought be whether they should continue to oppose science savy people who might read past Genesis, page one, if those christians would allow them to believe what is written is comparable to what they know.


That the genealogy lists 22 names of creatures in the ascent to modern man compares well with the now 22 species of extinct humans is really a matter of opinion either way.

I suggest the christian thing to do is shut up and encourage readers to understand the bible they read the way they will.
 
The issue for christians ought be whether they should continue to oppose science savy people who might read past Genesis, page one, if those christians would allow them to believe what is written is comparable to what they know.


That the genealogy lists 22 names of creatures in the ascent to modern man compares well with the now 22 species of extinct humans is really a matter of opinion either way.

I suggest the christian thing to do is shut up and encourage readers to understand the bible they read the way they will.


Oh so as someone who calls themselves a Christian, you think that Christians ought to "SHUT-UP" and encourage non-Christians to read the Bible whatever way they want to?
 
Back
Top