Evidence for creationism, Part 2.

[magicfan101]

learn2google

UC Berkeley - Evolution of Flight

gliders did not elvolve to birds

But a gliding stage is not intermediate between a land animal and a flier. Gliders either have even longer wings than fliers (compare a glider's wingspan with an airplane's, or the wingspan of birds like the albatross which spend much time gliding), or have a wide membrane which is quite different from a wing (note the shape of a hang-glider or a flying squirrel). Flapping flight also requires highly controlled muscle movements to achieve flight, which in turn requires that the brain has the program for these movements. Ultimately, this requires new genetic information that a non-flying creature lacks.

it takes more than wings to fly

Birds also have septate lungs, but their breathing is much more complex. But birds, in addition to their lungs, have a complicated system of air sacs in their bodies, even involving the hollow bones. This system keeps air flowing in one direction through special tubes (parabronchi, singular parabronchus) in the lung, and blood moves through the lung's blood vessels in the opposite direction for efficient oxygen uptake

 

[PeteAtoms]

So a modern glider's wing is different from a modern flyer's wing? Is that your argument?

How does that show gliding wasn't an intermediate step?

EDIT:

Spoiler :

Waits for bumblebees to be brought up...

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

please explain how a "blind" process produced such beautiful patterns on a butterfly.

Mate selection.

You do know that bright, striking, contrasting colors allows mates to see you better, right?

Your arguments have been nothing but the false argument that complex things need a designer. I suppose complicated crystal structures need an architect. I suppose Jupiter's striking, complex atmosphere requires a decorator. I suppose each star in the sky was planted exactly where it was supposed to be. Darn those scientists who say that the heavens are in constant motion... don't those stars realize they are exactly where God put them?

Argument from complexity is simply argument from incredulity which is another form of argument from ignorance.

Spoiler :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argume...ment_from_incredulity_.2F_Lack_of_imagination

Read up on this before using such arguments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

Now read some of the responses to those arguments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Response_of_the_scientific_community


Seriously, if we could all be at least a little bit familiar with the concepts before we argue, that would be totes awesome.

If we intend to seriously debate the issues, we should find out what the opposition actually believes, and what their standard responses are to standard criticisms.

I don't want to sit here and have a re-hash of every old argument over and over and over. I'd prefer we try to build off of past arguments or RESPOND TO THE RESPONSES GIVEN BY SCIENTISTS INSTEAD OF PRETENDING THEY DON'T EXIST.


Know something about what your opponent has said and what their standard responses are, then counter those. Counter THOSE. Don't start at square zero over and over again, as if this hasn't been discussed already.


Argument from ignorance/complexity is a fallacy and is not reasonable, and I've explained that over and over again in this thread alone.


Jebus tap-dancing Jehosaphat.






Edit: Favorite quote-

Like intelligent design, the concept it seeks to support, irreducible complexity has failed to gain any notable acceptance within the scientific community. One science writer called it a "full-blown intellectual surrender strategy."

 

[sophie]

learn2read

A comparative study of the functional morphology of the wings of the earliest known flying members of the lineage with the "pre-wing" structures of likely ancestors and close relatives provides the best evidence for how wings evolved. Why wings (and hence flight) evolved from this point is a matter of contention among scientists; various hypotheses proposed include:

Wings evolved from arms used to capture small prey. (This seems rational, so we can ask whether the ancestral forms were actually doing this.)
Wings evolved because bipedal animals were leaping into the air; large wings assisted leaping. (This is possible; any amount of wing could assist leaping. Remember that we first need phylogenetic evidence for a bipedal running or leaping origin.)

Wings were used as sexual display structures; bigger wings were preferred by potential mates. (This is a non-falsifiable evolutionary hypothesis — we cannot test it.)

Wings evolved from gliding ancestors who began to flap their gliding structures in order to produce thrust. (This is reasonable and possible, but only with phylogenetic evidence for an arboreal gliding origin.)

It seems that #1, #2, and #4 are the best hypotheses to use for the origin of wings because they can be tested by bringing in other lines of evidence. Move on to consider these origins, but remember: the issues of the evolution of flight and the origins of flight are inextricably linked.

Birds showed a gradual increase in flying ability during their early evolution — Archaeopteryx was not a powerful flyer, but it seems it was not much of a glider either. Later birds such as Sinornis, Confuciusornis, and Ichthyornis improved on the basic flight adaptations of their ancestors, becoming better flyers. Some birds found niches that were more suited for flightless birds: Hesperornis was a flightless diving bird in the late Cretaceous period, and in the Eocene epoch (shortly after the demise of the dinosaurs), there were large flightless birds such as Diatryma that may have been the main predators on the early mammals in some areas (a Miocene flightless bird, Phorusrhacos, is depicted at left). Penguins and other diving birds do not fly in the air, but use the same basic flight stroke to fly under water. The living ratites (ostriches, emus, kiwis, and the extinct moa) are an ancient lineage of flightless birds. And of course, today we have such adept flyers as the swallows, hummingbirds, falcons, and the soaring albatrosses which demonstrate the great diversity of flight adaptations in birds.

 

[magicfan101]

just saying sexual selection does not win the argument. plz provide a process through mutations(genetic mistakes) that a butterfly could have gained the information to alter light waves. no information gaining mutation has been observed in a laboratory. its always a loss of functionality.

i also did some digging on y-chromosome adam and found out that it fits the creation account.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/268/5214/1183.abstract

DNA polymorphism in the Y chromosome, examined at a 729-base pair intron located immediately upstream of the ZFY zinc-finger exon, revealed no sequence variation in a worldwide sample of 38 human males. This finding cannot be explained by global constraint on the intron sequence, because interspecific comparisons with other nonhuman primates revealed phylogenetically informative sequence changes. The invariance likely results from either a recent selective sweep, a recent origin for modern Homo sapiens, recurrent male population bottlenecks, or historically small effective male population sizes. A coalescence model predicts an expected time to a most recent common ancestral male lineage of 270,000 years (95 percent confidence limits: 0 to 800,000 years).

they found no polymorphism in the samples they checked and guesstimated on how long it would take for change to occur.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

just saying sexual selection does not win the argument. plz provide the process on how through mutation a butterfly could have gained the information to alter light waves

Absolutely no need for the butterfly to have such information. The genes code for a particular colour scheme and pattern on the wings. If the scheme is good then "Yay! Moar Sechs", and if it is bad then "No! I die a virgin". Simples.

Of course this has already been explained to you many times, and of course you have consistently ignored it in favour of your baseless "God did it".

 

[sanabas]

But a gliding stage is not intermediate between a land animal and a flier. Gliders either have even longer wings than fliers (compare a glider's wingspan with an airplane's, or the wingspan of birds like the albatross which spend much time gliding), or have a wide membrane which is quite different from a wing (note the shape of a hang-glider or a flying squirrel). Flapping flight also requires highly controlled muscle movements to achieve flight, which in turn requires that the brain has the program for these movements. Ultimately, this requires new genetic information that a non-flying creature lacks.

If you're just going to c&p from known frauds, at least link to what you're copying. http://www.creationists.org/refuting-evolution-book-chapter-4.html

As for the bolded bit, ever seen a video of how a birds skeleton moves during flapping flight? Amazing just how similar it looks to some highly controlled muscle movements that land dwelling animals use.

I love that in order to demonstrate that a gliding bird can't be an intermediary between a land-bound proto-bird and a fully-flighted bird, it uses a bird that spends most of its time gliding as an example.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

just saying sexual selection does not win the argument. plz provide the process on how through mutation a butterfly could have gained the information to alter light waves

I am seriously dumbfounded by the utter lack of reasoning displayed here.

• Do you know the definition of argument from ignorance?
  
• Do you know the definition of argument from incredulity?
  
• Do you know the definition of irreducible complexity?

Before we go any further, you really must familiarize yourself with what these things are, and why they aren't valid.


Next, you're still stuck in brainlock over the idea of mutations providing new information. When a bit of data changes, that's different (read: new) information.

A series of changes adds up to a whole buncha new information. And, useful bits which allow a species to thrive, or bits which do not harm, are kept around until they become even more useful.

The butterfly, nor the cells involved, need to "know" a thing about what they are doing. That's why it is called mutation, not design.

Please understand that your pet theory that all mutations are degenerative has no evidence and has already been discussed, and is full of logical holes.

i also did some digging on y-chromosome adam and found out that it fits the creation account.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/268/5214/1183.abstract

most recent common ancestor


Most recent common ancestor DOES NOT FIT THE CREATION ACCOUNT.

It is NOT AN HISTORICAL FIGURE.

It is a marker that changes. It changes.

We've already discussed this in this very thread.

I've already discussed this in this very thread. Did you simply not read this thread?

 

[negZero]

just saying sexual selection does not win the argument. plz provide the process on how through mutations(genetic mistakes) a butterfly could have gained the information to alter light waves. no information gaining mutation has been observed in a laboratory. its always a loss of functionality.

Am glad you asked that, so I can say this without feeling like its spam. Name me 15 negative genetic traits that fit the criteria I posted early that are found in humans.

Butterfly thing has been answer half-dozen times already and am in no mood to report what everyone else has said to you. So go back to your ignoring ways.

i also did some digging on y-chromosome adam and found out that it fits the creation account.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/268/5214/1183.abstract

Science 26 May 1995. Thats from your link try getting something that isn't 15 years out of date (Adam has been moved up)

 

[sophie]

I find it obnoxious that magicfan has not responded to my two posts; one showing a clear, and gradual development from flightless reptiles to the birds of today, nor the two Berkeley quotes explaining the most logical explanations as to how, and why, flight evolved.

For this I demand pizza points pl0x

 

[magicfan101]

Next, you're still stuck in brainlock over the idea of mutations providing new information. When a bit of data changes, that's different (read: new) information.

A series of changes adds up to a whole buncha new information. And, useful bits which allow a species to thrive, or bits which do not harm, are kept around until they become even more useful.

try randomly shuffling the words on your post. the words change but the meaning and information is now lost.

Please understand that your pet theory that all mutations are degenerative has no evidence and has already been discussed, and is full of logical holes.

ive provided an entire list of genetic disease caused by mutations that is evidence

It is NOT AN HISTORICAL FIGURE.[/COLOR][/B]

It is a marker that changes. It changes.

We've already discussed this in this very thread.

I've already discussed this in this very thread. Did you simply not read this thread?

most recent common ancestor is an historical figure it only changes based on the underlining assumptions on the math model used.

 

[PeteAtoms]

try randomly shuffling the words on your post. the words change but the meaning and information is now lost.

If we rearrange the word "god" and get "odg," is information lost?
If we do the same and get "dog" is information lost or gained?

I'm not so sure you have a firm grasp on what 'information' is, but it could also be that I don't either (or neither of us do).

 

[negZero]

ive provided an entire list of genetic disease caused by mutations that is evidence

First off no genetic disease is found in the entire human population. Second off genetic diseases will eventully get breed out of our gene pool. Third how many times do we have to beat you over the head with this?

most recent common ancestor is an historical figure it only changes based on the underlining assumptions on the math model used.

When making your posts do you just use a random word generator, cause otherwise you don't seem to understand what math is and isn't.

 

[magicfan101]

I find it obnoxious that magicfan has not responded to my two posts; one showing a clear, and gradual development from flightless reptiles to the birds of today, nor the two Berkeley quotes explaining the most logical explanations as to how, and why, flight evolved.

For this I demand pizza points pl0x

your post depends on the assumptions laid on the fossil record. a perfect case where assumptions went wrong is the moas .

So the moas have turned out to be just remarkable in so many ways about basic evolutionary processes, and you think you've got the whole thing sorted out...and you've got to remember they only went extinct 650 years ago and we've got thousands if not tens of thousands of skeletons of these things, and we still couldn't work it out. And if you're looking at our ability to completely understand human evolution and Africa from the remnants of a few bits of bone and some teeth left behind and we can understand the series of steps between the species, certainly we can see the change, certainly we can understand the general process, but the specifics? If we can't get it right 600 years ago, how are we going to do it 500,000 years ago with a tiny amount of material

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2009/2642628.htm

 

[Brian Shanahan]

try randomly shuffling the words on your post. the words change but the meaning and information is now lost.

Actually as long as you have a set amount of characters the information stays the same. The context may change all right but information is just the sum of all the individual parts, in your case the letters or words (depending on the amount of jumbling)

most recent common ancestor is an historical figure it only changes based on the underlining assumptions on the math model used.

Not in any proper sense of the word historical. The most common recent ancestor most probably did nothing of note, it's is just that his Y-chromosone marker is the one we all have a link to in our genes. It's just that his genes were the ones which were the most fit of all the possible human genes around. This means that it is a near certainty that at some stage in the near future there is going to be another ancestral male who will oust him as the most recent (just like there will come along a person who will oust Robert Wadlow as the tallest man ever, or a species which will oust the Blue Whale as the largest ever). I would like to propose Ghengis Khan as a future "most recent common ancestor," due simply to his line's success at mating.

 

[magicfan101]

If we rearrange the word "god" and get "odg," is information lost?
If we do the same and get "dog" is information lost or gained?

I'm not so sure you have a firm grasp on what 'information' is, but it could also be that I don't either (or neither of us do).

God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. now lets randomly shuffle words.

odg is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient

dog is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. information changed but dog is no longer intelligible within the sentence.

 

[sophie]

As we have told you time and again, the fact that we don't know how every species ever evolved does not mean that evolution is not valid. This is not how science works. If you can find irrefutable, peer reviewed evidence that creates problems with evolution, not just in one species, but a problem which exists across all of life, then please, go for it.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. now lets randomly shuffle words.

odg is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient

dog is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. information changed but dog is no longer intelligible within the sentence.

Same amount of information in the three sentences, as you have acknowledged yoursef (see bolded words). No need to thank me for giving you a lesson in information theory. Just please (for the first time in your life!) use this new information to better yourself and improve as a human being.

 

[PeteAtoms]

God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. now lets randomly shuffle words.

odg is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient

dog is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. information changed but dog is no longer intelligible within the sentence.

So you want 'information' to mean anything you can squeeze into your predetermined paradigm and unfounded conclusion before you even consider it as such? No wonder you can't understand the information being provided to you, it doesn't fit your little world view, so it's obviously incorrect and not information.

I seriously don't know how to go about explaining why your wrong, where to begin? it's mind bottling (like your mind is in a bottle)...

 

[magicfan101]

First off no genetic disease is found in the entire human population. Second off genetic diseases will eventully get breed out of our gene pool. Third how many times do we have to beat you over the head with this?
.

i can not prove the entire human population has genetic disease unless everyone was tested but harmful disease can not be naturally selected out untill they are the expressed gene. which only happens when mother and father have an exact copy of that defect. so harmful mutations are slowly accumulating in a population
(another serious problem for evolution where are you going to find a partner with the exact same "good" mutations so it can be passed on to next generations. especially with mammals since they have so few offspring.)