Question Evolution! 15 questions evolutionists cannot adequately answer

[Antilogic]

To illustrate this point : it's like firing an arrow while blindfolded and in your back in a field, and then painting a target where the arrow land.
Some will say "woah, he reached the very bullseye while blindfolded and firing in his back, it's incredible !".
People with two braincells will just say "well, if we're considering where the arrow landed as the starting point, it's pretty logical it was in the center".

A much cleaner analogy to use, and one I'll probably copy at some point.

 

[emzie]

Leoreth
I'll make it as simple as I can.
Provide proofs how birds learned to fly and fish started breathing air.
For a starter at least.
(Note: I won't accept general "proofs" like "they just did it over time". HOW is my question. In details!)

Take a bird and put it next to an incline. Encourage it to go up the incline (note: it can either fly up to the top or it can walk up the incline). What is observed? The bird chooses to walk up the incline, even a vertical 90 degree incline flapping its wings harder and harder as the incline's angle is increased to provide extra momentum. At a point, it's actually lifting itself by the power of its wing, by which I mean if you removed the incline right then and there, it'd stay where it is. Yet, the bird continues to "walk" when the surface is present.

It's not too hard to imagine a theropod using arms covered in feathers (which are seen in fossils) to give it extra momentum / "lift" while running up hills, or later on, running up trees to escape predators.

 

[civ2]

Akka
"CENSORED" not to get an infraction.
Now on topic:
I'm. Not. Speaking. About. The. Chance. Of. "Life appeared on Earth rather than on Mars".
I'm speaking about the chance of a single CELL (living, functioning, yet very simple ORGANISM) to appear ON EARTH, out of EARTH's materials, by a supposed SEQUENCE of chemical reactions that would END UP as that poor little cell!
Simplifying again:
You need a sequence of a million of molecules arranged in the RIGHT way, through multitude of reactions.
All I get is, "it just happened".
Well, DUH!!!

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.

contre
MUSCLES!!!
Birds have VERY different muscles that let them actually fly.

Moderator Action: self-censoring won't help not getting infractions for trolling/flaming. Only leaving out the parts in question will help that. Furthermore, more civility in this post is needed
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Why did God give Ostriches feathers then? Links only, please.

 

[emzie]

I'm not sure how to link to my brain or link to a lecture I sat in. Could you provide a link that will allow me to do that?

 

[Takhisis]

Neural suction!

 

[civ2]

You see...
Whenever I'm asking for a link that could be discussed, I get anything BUT it.
Why?
Cause you don't have one.
Why?
Cause you never ever were looking for any proof yourselves.
Why?
Cause you BELIEVE what scientists say to you, like some people believe what priests say.
Fanatical belief, that's what it actually is.

It's not an offensive comment, it's the sad truth...

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

I like how the guy who demands a ton of links can't even perform a literature search.

 

[Leoreth]

What's your talk about nebulae supposed to mean then?

 

[civ2]

1. I say that something is BS. (Simply doesn't make sense to me, not a claim of something DEFINITE.)
2. You declare it's scientific. (Which obviously implies it was RESEARCHED, which means there MUST be lots of info available, also on-line.)
3. So YOU must bring sources to prove YOUR claim. (By simply providing a few links with adequate info.)
4. I'm not CLAIMING, I'm UNCONVINCED.
5. So convince me, if you CAN.

 

[cardgame]

Comparing scientists to priests is a terribad analogy.

They're completely unrelated

 

[Leoreth]

1. I say that something is BS. (Simply doesn't make sense to me, not a claim of something DEFINITE.)
2. You declare it's scientific. (Which obviously implies it was RESEARCHED, which means there MUST be lots of info available, also on-line.)
3. So YOU must bring sources to prove YOUR claim. (By simply providing a few links with adequate info.)
4. I'm not CLAIMING, I'm UNCONVINCED.
5. So convince me, if you CAN.

You're challenging the commonly accepted scientific theory by a fringe theory. You must list the flaws you see in the theory of evolution so we can refute them, and at the same time present evidence for your replacement theory.

"You're wrong prove you're not" is not how it works.

 

[civ2]

Leoreth
I am doing it (birds as example).
Birds somehow got two unrelated, yet crucial for flying, features: wings (feathers, very optimized for flying) and muscles (which make them able to fly, again very optimized and narrow-adapted).
Evolution claims it happened over several (or thousand, no difference for me) generations.
I'm tired of repeating: How come these nice features enabled the protobird to FIND A MATE???
You should know that nowadays birds are VERY selective when looking for a mate.
Now imagine such a feathery guy looking for a (literally) chick.
"Just look at him, he's UGLY!!! What are those dangling things???"
"Yeah, his chest is overgrown. YUK!"
Etc.
No jokes, pure science.

 

[emzie]

Cause you BELIEVE what scientists say to you, like some people believe what priests say.
Fanatical belief, that's what it actually is.

Wow, I'm talking to myself? Guess I'm crazier than I thought.

Leoreth
I am doing it (birds as example).
Birds somehow got two unrelated, yet crucial for flying, features: wings (feathers, very optimized for flying) and muscles (which make them able to fly, again very optimized and narrow-adapted).
Evolution claims it happened over several (or thousand, no difference for me) generations.
I'm tired of repeating: How come these nice features enabled the protobird to FIND A MATE???

Feathers are found in fossils of theropods that could not fly. They're a preadaptation that were likely insulation (just consider how well a down comforter insulates someone on a cold night) that later on increased surface area and allowed for easier flight. I've already explained the evolution of strong pectoral muscles through incremental steps of being able to run up steeper and steeper inclines. I did it in a way that you can go replicate the results if you wish. All you'll need is a slow motion camera, a board, and a bird.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

there's just simply little to no evidence of evolution. Why do you laugh at us who question it.

 

[emzie]

there's just simply little to no evidence of evolution. Why do you laugh at us who question it.

Oh do go on. I eagerly await.

 

[useless]

I suppose all those bones are fake, all those finds are false and don't actually exist.

 

[timtofly]

How does non-inteligence evolve into inteligence then? Does not the DNA already have that information? Seems to me we are still trying to guess on what "just" happened instead of what "did" happen. One's imagination can really answer any question given. One's scientific observation is a different animal/species altogether. So if you want to give up your abiogenisis then is it so hard to give up your biogenesis also?

As long as the information is not there, then nothing NEW will happen. Are you saying that the Iraq war evolved from 9/11 and there was nothing any one could do to stop it? One day a person may swallow a watermelon seed and start sprouting roots? Even the last two years proved that change does not happen over night, and neither has the introduction of the "new world" produced humans with longer legs to avoid falling of the edge of the map or prevent drowning the more people go back and forth across the Atlantic. Now these are exagerated examples, but please, why do highly intelligent beings rely on imagination so much? Is imagination part of the scientic method, or just the result of modern reasoning?

Can you really say that the information was never there in the DNA? Can you honestly say that information is "born" from nowhere? Can random code produce random outcome or inteligent outcome? How does one tell if it is random or intelligent? Statitics? Yes the stock market will rebound, and there is hope for Greece. Even randomness will defeat entropy one day! Oops, they are not at war with each other. That is just my imagination speaking now.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

I suppose all those bones are fake, all those finds are false and don't actually exist.

how do fossils have feathers?

 

[emzie]

how do fossils have feathers?

Spoiler large image :

If you don't think feathers are very clearly defined on the arms, look at the tail.