Ask a Young Earth Creationist 2

[civ2]

Oh, yeah, I almost forgot what we're talking about here - the "almightly" evolution.
Now, can anyone bring a solid prove against a simple question:
Taking bird WINGS as an example - can you tell me what use the "protobirds" had from "underdeveloped wings"?
I'll explain my question.
You see, getting additional limbs implies new behaviour.
So in order to FLY, you need to WANT to fly, or have DIRECT benefit in case of evolution.
But wings don't just grow overnight!
And having some feathers grown (HOW is also a serious question - feathers are quite complex themselves!) on your "hands" won't make you think you can fly - until you DO or NEED TO.
Attaching "wings" to a snake won't CONVINCE it to fly!
Even if it makes it ABLE to perfectly.
But there's no URGE to fly until you get one.
Animals DON'T think abstract in order to CONSIDER flying possible - they must be FORCED to try it.
And even some single "winged reptile" was forced to jump off-cliff - and somehow flew - it wouldn't make it REPEAT it "consciously".
I see wings and flight as the best example of how evolution applies HUMAN logic to nature and animals.
Like, if they can they would.
But why SHOULD they?
All "benefits" of flight are either LOGICAL (I know I'll get more insects by flying rather than jumping) OR "after-effects" of flying ALREADY.
Now, PROVIDE me with any reason for an animal suddenly to "want to fly".
I'm serious - this is quite a good refutation of MACRO evolution.
Again, MICRO evolution does work - but it has nothing to do with MACRO one.

 

[warpus]

Have you heard of the flying squirrel?

 

[Cheetah]

I think warpus nailed it perfectly.

Now, can anyone bring a solid prove against a simple question:
Taking bird WINGS as an example - can you tell me what use the "protobirds" had from "underdeveloped wings"?

Have you heard of the flying squirrel?

Is that wikipedia article a good enough answer for you civ2?

 

[civ2]

warpus
You're bringing an NOWADAYS example.
This is no proof for the PAST because you are basing your point on the (assumed correctness of) theory of evolution itself - not proving it.

Cheetah
Well, I actually edited that post after he said it - so he might've BEEN right.
Atheism is a religion where "god" is "no god" which could refer to either "nature", "science", "human" or any other typical substitute.
Any religion is based on BELIEF - and science is also a kind of a belief with all those THEORIES in it.
It's just some people believe it was made by God - and others replace Him with "natural causes".
But both aren't 100% based on FACTS.
And I do mean CLEARLY-PROVABLE-FOR-ALL facts.
About "somebody's God" - I think I said it was about "my God is more God than yours" - not about the way people think about God in general.
Oh, your very own phrase "no reason to think God exists" is a THEORY and a BELIEF!
You just chose to believe a "no God" belief aka an atheistic one.
About "logic".
When you demand "logical" conclusions from God - you're applying your logic to Him.
And that's what I said is ILLOGICAL to do.
Um, SELF-overwriting is an INTERNAL process.
Would you like to read THIS?

They err in their false analogy, and the outcome would be quite different from what they imagine even if they were justified in their analogy, in comparing the work of G‑d, the Creator of heaven and earth, to the work of man and his schemes.
For, when a silversmith has completed a vessel, that vessel is no longer dependent upon the hands of the smith, and even when his hands are removed from it and he goes his way, the vessel remains in exactly the same image and form as when it left the hands of the smith.
In the same way do these fools conceive the creation of heaven and earth.
They imagine that heaven and earth, once created, no longer need their Creator.
But their eyes are covered, so that they do not see the great difference between the work of man and his machinations, which consists of [making] one existent thing out of [another, already] existent thing, merely changing the form and appearance, e.g., from an ingot of silver to a vessel.
Man’s work merely consists of shaping a preexisting mass. Moreover, even the new appearance already existed in potentia, for the nature of physical matter such as silver is such, that it may be extended and bent and made to assume different shapes and forms.
Thus, in reality the craftsman did not change the matter at all. Hence, once he finishes shaping his artifact he can leave it to its own devices, secure in the knowledge that it does not need him any more.
The above-mentioned misguided thinkers fail to see the difference between the activities of the craftsman and the making of heaven and earth, which is creatio ex nihilo.
Before heaven and earth were created they simply did not exist; only after they were created did they come into being as existing entities. Their being is thus something utterly novel, something which previously had not existed at all.
In such a situation, the creative force which brings them into existence must constantly recreate them in order for them to exist. Were this force to withdraw for even the briefest moment, creation would revert to nothingness.

 

[Truronian]

Oh, yeah, I almost forgot what we're talking about here - the "almightly" evolution.
Now, can anyone bring a solid prove against a simple question:
Taking bird WINGS as an example - can you tell me what use the "protobirds" had from "underdeveloped wings"?
I'll explain my question.
You see, getting additional limbs implies new behaviour.
So in order to FLY, you need to WANT to fly, or have DIRECT benefit in case of evolution.
But wings don't just grow overnight!
And having some feathers grown (HOW is also a serious question - feathers are quite complex themselves!) on your "hands" won't make you think you can fly - until you DO or NEED TO.
Attaching "wings" to a snake won't CONVINCE it to fly!
Even if it makes it ABLE to perfectly.
But there's no URGE to fly until you get one.
Animals DON'T think abstract in order to CONSIDER flying possible - they must be FORCED to try it.
And even some single "winged reptile" was forced to jump off-cliff - and somehow flew - it wouldn't make it REPEAT it "consciously".
I see wings and flight as the best example of how evolution applies HUMAN logic to nature and animals.
Like, if they can they would.
But why SHOULD they?
All "benefits" of flight are either LOGICAL (I know I'll get more insects by flying rather than jumping) OR "after-effects" of flying ALREADY.
Now, PROVIDE me with any reason for an animal suddenly to "want to fly".
I'm serious - this is quite a good refutation of MACRO evolution.
Again, MICRO evolution does work - but it has nothing to do with MACRO one.

I'm afraid you don't really understand how evolution works. Species don't weigh up their options and suddenly decide to take to the sky... species become gradual more airborne due to the more nimble in the air members of their species being better at avoiding predators/catching food (which tends to happen if their is a niche in the ecosystem).

 

[warpus]

warpus
You're bringing an NOWADAYS example.
This is no proof for the PAST because you are basing your point on the (assumed correctness of) theory of evolution itself - not proving it.

You asked what use protobirds had for underdeveloped wings.

Glinding, mofo.. the answer is GLIDING.

I'm sure there are others, but gliding is the most obvious one (at least before I have had my morning coffee)

 

[civ2]

Turonian
GOT YOU THERE!
Have you ever seen a "gradually more airborne" PLANE???
Also, what you said is EXACTLY what I said is STUPID to say.

species become gradually more airborne (aha, one-winged bird than flies in circles) due to the more nimble in the air members of their species being better at avoiding predators/catching food (as I said, BEHAVIOUR is not learnt overnight) (which tends to happen if their is a niche in the ecosystem (AFTER-EFFECT)).

And my strongest point was - behaviour doesn't change on the spot.
So if a SINGLE animal changed it - it is most likely to NOT be able to transfer it to its descendants.
Example - you still train dogs from scratch even though their last 10 generations won prizes at exhibitions.

 

[warpus]

How do squirrels get from tree to tree? They jump.

Say a squirrel has a strange mutation that gives it some skin in between its limbs - it will now be able to jump to further trees and thus have a higher chance of surviving - more likely to pass on this mutation to its children.

As a result gliding species slowly evolve, allowing them to glide in between trees.

That's what gradually more airborne means - you waving your hands in the air, screaming, and acting all crazy and stuff isn't going to change that.

 

[Steph]

You know, it's not because you shout to say something wrong that it will become right.

Actually, there are gradually airborne planes... Just compare the first plane from the Wright brothers and todays plane.

I don't see how your point is strong.... We are speaking of evolutions spread on thousandth of years.

Enough to change behaviour.

 

[PeteAtoms]

Wings may have been used for several things before actually being evolved enough to start flying.

Wings may have been used as a way for land-animals to run faster (have you never seen a chicken flap its wings as it runs away?)

Wings may have been for animals already living in trees, as a way to jump farther (glide) and to descend from the tree to the ground more safely.

 

[civ2]

warpus
In order to glide you need to spread your "wings", which means, CONSCIOUSLY understand it will help you to glide.
But FLYING is so much more complex that it's impossible to be used ACCIDENTALLY.
Even the best gliders would never really FLY.
Not to mention that birds have much different SKELETON which is so huge a jump from a reptilian one that it was either made by a "super-evolution" leap or would require few thousands of CONSEQUENT and COHERENT changes to take effect.
Which is simply too low of a chance to actually even be considered.
Repeating again - BEHAVIOUR.

 

[Arakhor]

The trouble with these threads is that there's no difference between sincere YECs and trolls.

 

[PeteAtoms]

warpus
In order to glide you need to spread your "wings", which means, CONSCIOUSLY understand it will help you to glide.
But FLYING is so much more complex that it's impossible to be used ACCIDENTALLY.
Even the best gliders would never really FLY.
Not to mention that birds have much different SKELETON which is so huge a jump from a reptilian one that it was either made by a "super-evolution" leap or would require few thousands of CONSEQUENT and COHERENT changes to take effect.
Which is simply too low of a chance to actually even be considered.
Repeating again - BEHAVIOUR.

All of the animals that tried to jump long distances without the use of their "wings" died. Those that accidentally or instinctively spread their limbs and consciously/unconsciously were more successful, survived. Thus the instinct to use the wings became biological. The winged animals that unconsciously used their wings were more successful than those that didn't.

 

[civ2]

Arakhor
People just tend to believe what they do - and they rarely think deeper into what they actually believe in.
(There's a 200% chance I'll get now a "you do it yourself" answer. )

Pete
What MADE them suddenly need to jump so far that onlysome of them survived???
You're already bringing more implications into the situation.

What about DOGS???
Training does NOT get transferred to puppies even though the parents have it (and probably sometimes even try to "teach" them - which is questionable in itself).

 

[Perfection]

Well to a certain extent you have to. It's extremely difficult to convey a complete and correct view of evolution over a message board.

so Civ2, do you think all scientists are idiots? If not, why do they all (excepting a very small number of nutbags) believe in evolution?

 

[Haseri]

civ2, regarding microevolution, you do know that, eventually, all those inches make a mile?

You brought up winged animals. So let's think about them.

Now, and I'm going to put this as simply as possible (and may be largely wrong), as I can't confess to be an expert myself.

So, sometime in the Jurassic period, a two-legged animal was born with flaps of skin between its wrist and torso. What caused this mutation could be radiation, viral infection or, most likely, simple imperfections in DNA replication, one that happens nearly every time DNA replicates. Usually the process is harmless and has no real effect.

So this dinosaur has flaps of skin. For the moment, its muscles are not configured correctly to fly, but it may get some extra lift. This may help it getting away from predators, or to reach the fruit slightly above everybody else's reach, but it could be equally be a hindrance, as the creature would encounter greater air resistance.

But this creature survived, and bred (because it wasn't a different species - it was only a mutant), as is the nature of living things to do. Its children would have flaps of skin much like the parent, but they wouldn't be that different. They survive and breed because of a beneficial mutation.

Eventually, either through mutation in that line, or another mutation brought in, they get lighter bones, the right muscles, all that. Now they can fly efficiently, but it still may not be instinct to fly. The instinct to fly is another mutation - the ones that fly on instinct to get at food and escape predators will survive over the ones that don't.

Eventually, those that can fly will no longer be able to breed with those that can't, because their DNA is not similar enough - they'll be different species.

Two questions arise from this:

1) How do we know this? We can gleam it from what evidence we have in the fossil record. Fossils probably aren't the best way to do this, but it is really is the only way we have. Yes, the dating can be inaccurate, as we rely on stratification, and the record will always be incomplete, as fossilisation is a very rare occurrence. It is entirely conceivable many species (probably early aquatic creatures) were never fossilised and are now powering our cars, homes and covering the Gulf of Mexico.
2) Doesn't this make everything very unlikely? Yes, but there isn't really any point arguing the improbability of something happening after it happened. Say I roll 3d20s three times, and get 3 20s each time. I may not believe how lucky I was, but the evidence is there that I did it.

Atheism is not a belief; it is a lack of belief. As someone once said, I simply believe in one less god than you do.

And again, just as microevolution is to macroevolution, an inch is to a mile.

EDIT: (When I started writing this, it was on post 904).

Dogs, we have domesticated, but the things we teach them haven't become instinct to them. Thinking that training a dog makes it have trained puppies is Lamarkian evolution, and can be proved wrong with this simple thought:

If that is true, then a child of professional athletes would not need much training after birth.

 

[civ2]

Perfection
There are STUPID idiots and there are STUBBORN idiots.
Atheists being the latter ones.
You can be very smart - but stubborn in your mistake.
And I see a huge difference between APPLICABLE science (gravity, electricity, planes, spaceships and MICRO evolution) and THEORETICAL science (MACRO evolution, age of the universe, time machine, perpetuum mobile).
The first is undeniable since it's based on everyday FACTS.
The second is just THEORIES that CAN'T be proved by nowadays science.
All you have is theories and I don't see ANY difference between a theory "there was a Big Bang" and a theory "God made it all".
For me, theory === belief.
Just different people want to believe different things, that's all.

Haseri
You make it sound so simple - but did you think how many CELLS it requires to make a single muscle???
And all of them must be a result of the SAME mutation.
Also, I don't think behaviour is so easily altered genetically.
Anyways, to really make the example reasonable - it's like rolliing 1 million dice and getting your date of birth (if possible or maybe it's 10-digit dice - NOT the point) repeating itself alongside the line of numbers you got.
I specifically didn't say "only 1s" because even though the probability for a single die to have 1 is directly affecting the total probability of such an event, it does NOT take the ORDER in account while a specific date (or any sequence of numbers) DOES.
So it's not just getting all the needed mutations - it's getting them on the SAME family tree and in the RIGHT order!
Which makes the probability of such an event technically ZERO.
And you still don't call THAT a belief??? Seriously???

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Haseri:

For what it's worth, feathers seem to predate modern birds so skin flaps probably had nothing to do with it.

 

[PeteAtoms]

And again, just as microevolution is to macroevolution, an inch is to a mile.

Yes exactly. Microevolution and Macroevolution are the same process, viewed within different lengths of time.

If a creationists believes that "Artificial Selection" is a real thing. That humans can coordinate breeding to bring about specific traits in successive generations, why is it so hard to believe that nature does the same thing? The dynamic environment is going to present challenges to species that existed previously, and the species that happen to have the right traits are more successful. More successful, in that they are able to compete better and create a greater number of offspring. Propagating their traits.


QUESTION: Where do different skin colors of people come from if we all descended from Noah? Or was Noah's crew/family multiracial?

 

[Perfection]

Perfection
There are STUPID idiots and there are STUBBORN idiots.
Atheists being the latter ones.
You can be very smart - but stubborn in your mistake.
And I see a huge difference between APPLICABLE science (gravity, electricity, planes, spaceships and MICRO evolution) and THEORETICAL science (MACRO evolution, age of the universe, time machine, perpetuum mobile).
The first is undeniable since it's based on everyday FACTS.
The second is just THEORIES that CAN'T be proved by nowadays science.
All you have is theories and I don't see ANY difference between a theory "there was a Big Bang" and a theory "God made it all".
For me, theory === belief.
Just different people want to believe different things, that's all.

That's all well and false, but I don't want to get bogged down in debunking it, (I might later) because you haven't answered my question.

Why do [all scientists] believe in evolution?