Do evolutionists really understand the complexity of things?

[OldWiseGuy]

Pretty good. The moth, after all, is part of the selective environment of the flower and the flower of the moth's. One might even say that the entire biosphere "co-evolved."

The odds of special creation are still better.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And if wings are so good for underwater creatures, why does almost no other aquatic animal have them? Only a few other diving birds, and they are nowhere near as at home in the water as penguins.

The pectoral fins of many fish, notably sharks, are quite winglike and serve the same function as the penguin's.

 

[Speedwell]

The odds of special creation are still better.

And your numbers are...?

 

[Speedwell]

The pectoral fins of many fish, notably sharks, are quite winglike and serve the same function as the penguin's.

Of course they do, having evolved in the same environment.

 

[rjs330]

Evolution didn't "decide" to make wings.

Here is a little thought experiment for you, which is more or less what the fossil record tells us:

A four-legged species found itself in an environment where running was important, where two-legged running was an advantage, where the forelimbs were not then used for very much but balance during running, where some variants began to use them for gliding short distances, then longer distances, then for continuous flight. All of this happened a small step at a time, with natural selection favoring slight changes. Each step in the process produced a creature with a small reproductive advantage in the particular environment in which it lived. Never did evolution "set out" to evolve a flying creature. Never were wings evolving as useless appendages until full flight could be achieved.

Yes but why do specific? What made the genes decide that they needed to evolve? Why wings? Why two legs,instead,of,four? How could DNA figure out that you would do better with two legs or wings if slow evolution was so long it couldn't be functional until complete? How would they know it was ever going to work?

Try this. If a creature was in an environment with four legs and two legs,would be,better, how would the genes know it would be better? If the creature started to evolve on purpose and the process took so long how would the genes know it was going to work? And what gave the genes the necessary knowledge to recognize the change? All this points to a design.

 

[rjs330]

Nope. Evolutionary ideas were used to predict an animal that had not been discovered. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xanthopan_morgani

http://io9.gizmodo.com/darwin-predicted-this-animals-existence-decades-before-1703223208



Nope. Only nested hierarchy can explain why dolphins and other cetacea have lungs instead of gills.

Actually creation explains it quite well.

 

[Speedwell]

Yes but why do specific? What made the genes decide that they needed to evolve? Why wings? Why two legs,instead,of,four? How could DNA figure out that you would do better with two legs or wings if slow evolution was so long it couldn't be functional until complete? How would they know it was ever going to work?

The genes don't "decide" anything. They produce a range of variants in the population with each new generation from which the environment selects the best adapted. The selected individuals then pass that adaptation to their progeny who reproduce it with variation for further selection. Each evolutionary step is complete and useful in itself. There is no such thing as wings evolving as useless appendages until capable of flight. Each generational step in the development of wings was useful in itself in some way in increasing the adaptation of the species to its environment.

 

[rjs330]

The genes don't "decide" anything. They produce a range of variants in the population with each new generation from which the environment selects the best adapted. The selected individuals then pass that adaptation to their progeny who reproduce it with variation for further selection. Each evolutionary step is complete and useful in itself. There is no such thing as wings evolving as useless appendages until capable of flight. Each generational step in the development of wings was useful in itself in some way in increasing the adaptation of the species to its environment.

Let's look at wings,specifically. What sort of evolution was needed in order for wings to need,to,be developed. Why wings? How did did the wings start? How could the gene produce something that would eventually be,useful. In order for the gene to continue to change it would need,to be useful,correct otherwise nature would find it unhelpful,and fail to develope it. Whereas creation has a purpose from the start. God made wings from the get go,so,the,birds could fly. There was a purpose. Evolution by,millions of years could,not,develope a purpose because something would have to,determine if the change was or would be beneficial.

 

[Speedwell]

Let's look at wings,specifically. What sort of evolution was needed in order for wings to need,to,be developed. Why wings? How did did the wings start?

As forelimbs.

How could the gene produce something that would eventually be,useful.

It doesn't need to be eventually useful, it needs to be immediately useful. Eventually useful is down the road, the consequence of immediately useful step after immediately useful step.

In order for the gene to continue to change it would need,to be useful,correct otherwise nature would find it unhelpful,and fail to develop it.

Right.

Whereas creation has a purpose from the start.

Supplied by God, just like with evolution. You are confusing purpose with function.

...because something would have to,determine if the change was or would be beneficial.

Natural selection determines if the variation is beneficial.

Pardon my saying so, and don't take this personally, but you don't seem to know anything at all about the theory of evolution. Have you ever thought of actually studying it?

 

[-57]

I too would have predicted a 'pollinator' with a long tongue, one created for that purpose. What are the odds that flower and moth 'co-evolved'.

Considering evolutionism is impossible...co-evolutionism is doubly impossible.

Imagine two extremely rare beneficial mutations occurring at the same time..one in a plant and another in a moth...in just the right place in just the right time....then do it again and again.

 

[Speedwell]

Considering evolutionism is impossible...co-evolutionism is doubly impossible.

Imagine two extremely rare beneficial mutations occurring at the same time..one in a plant and another in a moth...in just the right place in just the right time....then do it again and again.

Of course that wouldn't work. The theory of evolution doesn't claim any such thing.
When are you guys going to start arguing against the real thing? Or are you afraid to?

 

[-57]

Of course that wouldn't work. The theory of evolution doesn't claim any such thing.
When are you guys going to start arguing against the real thing? Or are you afraid to?

I believe you didn't see the "co" in co-evolutionism.

Secondly, why do you feel the ned to end your post with some sort of ad-hom attack such as "Or are you afraid to?" Seriously. Grow up.

 

[Speedwell]

I believe you didn't see the "co" in co-evolutionism.

Secondly, why do you feel the ned to end your post with some sort of ad-hom attack such as "Or are you afraid to?" Seriously. Grow up.

As you well know, co-evolution occurs when one trait or organism is part of the other's selective environment.

As you well know, evolution does not require mutations to occur at "just the right place and at just the right time."

As you well know, an ad hominem argument asserts the falsity of an opponents position on the basis of his character. It is not the same as a snarky remark or an insult.

But you didn't answer my question: when are you going to abandon your grotesque straw man and start arguing against the real theory of evolution?

 

[SteveB28]

Yes but why do specific? What made the genes decide that they needed to evolve? Why wings? Why two legs,instead,of,four? How could DNA figure out that you would do better with two legs or wings if slow evolution was so long it couldn't be functional until complete? How would they know it was ever going to work?

Try this. If a creature was in an environment with four legs and two legs,would be,better, how would the genes know it would be better? If the creature started to evolve on purpose and the process took so long how would the genes know it was going to work? And what gave the genes the necessary knowledge to recognize the change? All this points to a design.

No, no, no......you have the process entirely backwards.

Watch.....I'm going to assume that you are an American and that you have some knowledge of the sport of basketball.

Every year, the National Basketball Association teams recruit new players into their competition. How does this come about? Do the coaches and recruiters set out, 20 years before, to create or 'breed' the ideal basketball player.....athletic, tall, fast, great vision, etc?

No......they are presented with a large pool of thousands and thousands of hopeful candidates each year, from which they SELECT the ones with the characteristics that BEST FIT the environment into which they will be placed!

 

[-57]

As you well know, co-evolution occurs when one trait or organism is part of the other's selective environment.

As you well know, evolution does not require mutations to occur at "just the right place and at just the right time."

As you well know, an ad hominem argument asserts the falsity of an opponents position on the basis of his character. It is not the same as a snarky remark or an insult.

But you didn't answer my question: when are you going to abandon your grotesque straw man and start arguing against the real theory of evolution?

s I said before...I believe you didn't see the "co" in co-evolutionism.

 

[Kylie]

I too would have predicted a 'pollinator' with a long tongue, one created for that purpose. What are the odds that flower and moth 'co-evolved'.

I'd say they were quite good.

Do you have a good reason to think they DIDN'T?

 

[Kylie]

The pectoral fins of many fish, notably sharks, are quite winglike and serve the same function as the penguin's.

Sharks use their tails to propel themselves through the water. Penguins use their wings. Show me a fish that uses pectoral fins to move like a penguin does.

 

[Kylie]

Actually creation explains it quite well.

Care to actually explain your answer?

 

[rjs330]

As forelimbs. It doesn't need to be eventually useful, it needs to be immediately useful. Eventually useful is down the road, the consequence of immediately useful step after immediately useful step. Right. Supplied by God, just like with evolution. You are confusing purpose with function.
Natural selection determines if the variation is beneficial.

Pardon my saying so, and don't take this personally, but you don't seem to know anything at all about the theory of evolution. Have you ever thought of actually studying it?

Yes I have and that's why it makes,zero sense to,me. Your answers are why.

The complexity of,life and the universe make zero sense to me as an evolutionary process. Your answers are why.

What was immediately useful for the,small step for wings,to develope. If wings started as forelimbs what evolutionary process caused something to be useful in the formation of wings? Wings,would need,to,be more useful than forelimbs of a creature that was ground bound. But the wings would not be immediately useful because the,process takes so,long. Something would have,to,cause the unintelligent gene to start to form Something so drastic as a wing. And further More that wing would have to develop with feathers or skin membrane for the animal. All things would,have to come into,play for the complexity of the wing to be useful including the creature also developing the kind of bone structure for the wing and body otherwise fight could be impossible due the creatures weight. Combine that with the skin and muscle structure also developing at the same times in order for the creature to be,able to maneuver the wings and feathers or membranes to be,able to not only fly but guide oneself while doing so. Just the complexity of such an event to eventually become a bird or othe flying creature is enormous coming from a stand point of chance. It makes absolutely no sense to,me. Its an impossibility in my mind. And since we have no,observation or testable method to show that this is even possible it's far,more believable to,me,that God did it just,like he,said. Its far too complex to,have occurred in any,other fashion than by design.

Until evolutionists can prove it, it's a wild guess and an assumptive belief. Yes I used the word proof.

 

[-57]

Yes I have and that's why it makes,zero sense to,me. Your answers are why.

The complexity of,life and the universe make zero sense to me as an evolutionary process. Your answers are why.

What was immediately useful for the,small step for wings,to develope. If wings started as forelimbs what evolutionary process caused something to be useful in the formation of wings? Wings,would need,to,be more useful than forelimbs of a creature that was ground bound. But the wings would not be immediately useful because the,process takes so,long. Something would have,to,cause the unintelligent gene to start to form Something so drastic as a wing. And further More that wing would have to develop with feathers or skin membrane for the animal. All things would,have to come into,play for the complexity of the wing to be useful including the creature also developing the kind of bone structure for the wing and body otherwise fight could be impossible due the creatures weight. Combine that with the skin and muscle structure also developing at the same times in order for the creature to be,able to maneuver the wings and feathers or membranes to be,able to not only fly but guide oneself while doing so. Just the complexity of such an event to eventually become a bird or othe flying creature is enormous coming from a stand point of chance. It makes absolutely no sense to,me. Its an impossibility in my mind. And since we have no,observation or testable method to show that this is even possible it's far,more believable to,me,that God did it just,like he,said. Its far too complex to,have occurred in any,other fashion than by design.

Until evolutionists can prove it, it's a wild guess and an assumptive belief. Yes I used the word proof.

DNA is a huge code. Mans base pairs would stretch from Earth to Pluto if each base pair was 1 mile long. Only a small portion of it codes for a wing.
Considering mutations are random...the chance of one of them occurring and changing the portion of DNA reponsible for the wing is small. Then throw this in....beneficial mutations are even considered as rarer. Extremely rare. This pushes the odds way down of a beneficial mutation occurring and changing a forelimb into a wing.
Then you must remember, this has to occur over and over, many, many times to morph a forelimb into a wing. The odds alone say no way.
Evolutionism is impossible.