was ist das?
Nope, definitely not feathers. Just some really
Question Evolution! 15 questions evolutionists cannot adequately answer
- Thread starter Mango Elephant
- Start date
- Status
was ist das?
Nope, definitely not feathers. Just some really
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
Luckymoose
The World is Mine
Go take a real biology class and witness evolution in real time.
A recommendation to those of you are asking questions about how birds began flying and the like, check out this series (not for the squeamish). It has some wonderful explanations about how certain quirks developed in some of nature's larger more complex animals and provides some really fascinating facts. If your questions about evolution are genuine and you are willing to learn about the area, it's a must watch series IMO. You may need proxies to view it outside the UK... not sure.
Midgard Eagle
Warlord
I don't believe in this thread. The English alphabeth has only 26 letters, and I don't believe you can get new information simply by arranging them in a new way.
Therefore, Chinese landscapers built North America.
"I don't understand how X works. Therefore, God!"
Therefore, Chinese landscapers built North America.
That's the problem, you're "just asking questions". As opposed to, oh, looking for answers?
"I don't understand how X works. Therefore, God!"
CELTICEMPIRE
Zulu Conqueror
Considering the fact that God created science, the belief in God is not anti-science at all.
Midgard Eagle
Warlord
Er, no.
Do you really see no difference between believing something someone says because that person has studied the matter objectively and empirically and had his work scrutinized ruthlessly by his peers, and believing something someone says just because that person is an authority figure who has had his ideas passed down to him by other authority figures?
Really? I find that hard to believe.
That is exactly what he is talking about. Even if the chance is infinitesimal, the fact that we are hear to ask it means it occurred somehow. As we have been discussing, there is not a unified theory of abiogenesis. However, any theory of abiogenesis is independent of the theory of evolution.
Despite that, we are still talking about possible abiogenesis hypotheses (I mentioned the soap bubble idea above). However, none of these are theories, because they are not predictive nor have the evidence to back them up that evolution has.
Antilogic
NO!
I'm asking of the way they changed from NON flying reptiles into FLYING birds.
1. The wings are a totally NEW ability which the reptiles DID NOT "know" how to use. ("Behavior")
2. Until there were (fully working) WINGS, the FEATHERS were just "sitting there", disturbing the mobility. ("Quantum leap" vs "Gradual evolution"). Also, they needed newly formed MUSCLES to actually fly.
1+2. I'm asking for a clear source on how this could happen GRADUALLY, over thousands of years.
LINKS ONLY, please.
Wow, I didn't realize all those pterodactyl/pterosaur skeletons (these terms refer to a whole group of species ranging in sizes) weren't actually flying reptiles and were just invented by those evil Darwinists to trick me. How about the archaeopteryx or anchiornis? Even some varieties of raptors had feathers--there are plenty of transitional fossils from birds to dinosaurs that we have found.
Still, on behavior, I'm not convinced you understand what you are asking. A bacteria with a flagellum and a light sensor can orient itself and move towards light sources (these are common in sea-borne single-celled organisms). They don't "know" anything because they don't have a brain or nervous system. Yet they still exhibit specific behaviors when exposed to environmental stimuli because it increases their chance of reproduction.
Wrong again, but that's no surprise. Most people here are probably recalling what was in their biology textbooks or what they did in bio lab classes from years past, which have loads of references in the back. They just don't think you are worth digging that book up and posting the references for, especially since you can do it yourself but seem to refuse to.
But here, I'll give you the links to three of the major journal-searching websites that those stuffy academics like to use: Springer, ScienceDirect, or Web of Knowledge. Using these sites is easier than looking for individual journals because there are thousands of them. You probably want to start looking at review papers first because the technical papers are only going to be focused on incredibly small details.
Problem is, these are usually restricted to universities, so I can't send you a link to an article I looked up (because you won't have the certificates I have to access it). If you have a university account, use your library's journal searching algorithm or login for the above sites. Or try the public library, I assume they also have access to them.
If you want a good site as to why these creationist arguments are BS (with references!), try TalkOrigins. The index on creationist claims is fairly complete and a good read.
EDIT: Good grief, the posts build up fast here.
Using PubMed is easier.
Oh, and i think i have a link somewhere....ah...that one...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect .
Might be, although I've never used it. Most of the research I would read or publish wouldn't be appropriate for that site.
mmhh? I thought most journals from Springer and ScienceDirect are indexed by PubMed too?
And what could be inappropriate there
?
Edit, something ontopic:
Oh well, can't be excluded.
Probability is low, but you never know.
I think it was a chemistry book where it was said, that a rhinozeros is a mixture of an unicorn and a...god, forgot it, something else.
And what could be inappropriate there
?Edit, something ontopic:
Oh well, can't be excluded.
Probability is low, but you never know.
I think it was a chemistry book where it was said, that a rhinozeros is a mixture of an unicorn and a...god, forgot it, something else.
Midgard Eagle
Warlord
It's a big universe, and it's been around for a long time. That's a lot of chances for life to start evolving. Sure, it seems incredible to us, but if our planet remained just a lifeless rock and some other planet thousands of light years away sprouted intelligent life instead, they'd probably say just the same thing.
It's like those coincidences you hear about in pop culture all the time, like someone happening to dream of their sister the same night she passes away. It's incredibly creepy until you remember that there's seven billion people in the world, and that it's thus statistically inevitable that this happens to countless people every single night.
Sure, it's improbable that life should arise on Earth. It's improbable that you should be born. Lots of things are highly unlikely, and happen anyway. That's just how statistics work.
You're completely misunderstanding the process of evolution. Evolution isn't a creation process, like a deity magicking the world into existence, it's a series of tiny, gradient steps, each of which has a function. Like this
:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEKyqIJkuDQ
Why
? Surely if you want to learn, any medium that transmits that knowledge to you will do?
You seem to be content with naive arguments as long as they're for your position, but require scholarly articles to refute them?
I can address this point anyway. First, it's the irreducible complexity fallacy all over again. Just because the precursor of one organ couldn't fulfill the same purpose as the organ does now, doesn't mean it was useless. We're fairly certain for example, that certain dinosaur species (of the distinctively reptile kind) had feathers, Velociraptors among them iirc. And interestingly you've already mentioned mating. The most important thing about finding a mate is getting sufficient attention. Being "that guy with all the feathers" may have been actually advantageous. Other intermediate stages might have involved those feathers being used to help jumping, or for gliding (there are species today who employ them this way).
Can we say for certain how the intermediate stages looked like? In general you don't get fossil records, so no. But we can refute the idea that all precursor states must have been useless, which is all that's necessary.
Because there's evidence for this. And intelligence is a fairly arbitrary concept, every animal possesses at least some level of intelligence. Some animals benefitted from higher intelligence (including humans), some didn't. Where's the inconsistency with evolution here?
Now I don't know how I should take that seriously. You're just throwing things around, seemingly only to obfuscate that you don't know what you're talking about.
Don't do that ever again. Randomly reading German on an English board freaks the hell out of me
Reminds me of the "Angel fossil" episode of the Simpsons
Circular logic much?
Midgard Eagle
Warlord
Yup. Take human females' breasts. Larger breasts give no natural advantage and aren't exactly practical to carry around, but guys appreciate them, so they're selected for.
Never underestimate the power of sexual selection.
kramerfan86
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
- Messages
- 3,572
I like how science is required to explain everything, with 100% accuracy, with sources and piles of evidence, and the moment it doesnt have detailed evidence its wrong. The religious alternative though gets to be right with less evidence. Scientists can easily argue with the same horrible logic: "oh well religion cant explain why we have fossils of proto-humans when the bible says man was simply created in God's image HA SCIENCE IS AUTOMATICALLY TRUTH!" "Oh well the Bible cant explain the origins of God, since you cant explain with 20 pieces of cited evidence religion=wrong".
bathsheba666
Fast 'n Bulbous
I know; we shouldn't laugh, it's really unkind.
Midgard Eagle
Warlord
I know, right? "I'm going to hold your views to a ridiculously high standard of evidence, but I can believe I believe based on "faith"!". Makes perfect sense.
- Status
Similar threads
