Ostrich wings, Intelligent design. Goofed up?

[Astrid]

In reading the text, it sure seams like God didn't think much of His Ostrich creation.

"Inordinately fond of beetles"

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So for the Creationists, whats the deal with Ostrich wings? They cant fly, but fit well within Evolutionary Theory. Intelligent design? Maybe God accidentaly added a too many numbers on his calculater when he was trying to calculate the correct weight and wing ratio for optimum flight performance.

It's a perfect example of what mutation does, it destroys the original function of genes.

Birds lose flight, fish lose sight. This is exactly what is to be expected via the Darwinian process; natural selection acting upon random variation (mutation). And It's exactly what we observe occurring in nature, aka micro-evolution

What Darwinism can't explain, is how the bird gained flight, or the fish gained sight. i.e macro-evolution

 

[Astrid]

It's a perfect example of what mutation does, it destroys the original function of genes.

Birds lose flight, fish lose sight. This is exactly what is to be expected via the Darwinian process; natural selection acting upon random variation (mutation). And It's exactly what we observe occurring in nature, aka micro-evolution

What Darwinism can't explain, is how the bird gained flight, or the fish gained sight. i.e macro-evolution

What nobody can explain is how you come
up with such twaddle.

Or in what state of mind you then proceed
to just say things as if they were true.

Full good faith cant be it.

Im curious. What are you doing? Why?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What nobody can explain is how you come
up with such twaddle.

Or in what state of mind you then proceed
to just say things as if they were true.

Full good faith cant be it.

Im curious. What are you doing? Why?

Insults are the most graceless form of conceding defeat.

You may want to direct your thoughtful question to the Royal Society, one of the most esteemed academies of science in the world, they addressed this problem in a meeting recently. One of their members summing it up as Darwinism having 'no theory of the generative'. It can account for the degeneration of functional genes, which is what we observe empirically.

 

[Astrid]

Insults are the most graceless form of conceding defeat.

No doubt that is so.
Look at yourself.

Your claims are twaddle.
And rather than look at that fact,
reflecting on what reason you
could have for such a display, why,
skip all that bother, and try to attack the
messenger.

And that satisfies you as being a win.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No doubt that is so.
Look at yourself.

Your claims are twaddle.
And rather than look at that fact,
reflecting on what reason you
could have for such a display, why,
skip all that bother, and try to attack the
messenger.

If you have any substantive, scientific counter argument to the claim, I'd be happy to address that.

And that satisfies you as being a win.

Thanks!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What Darwinism can't explain, is how the bird gained flight, or the fish gained sight. i.e macro-evolution

Animals that glide are technically and mechanically flying, then all it takes is for the flight feathers to extend long with bone density becoming lighter. It's well documented in the fossil record.

Sight is one of the oldest and most well understood mechanics in biology. I absolutely fail to see how that eludes you.

Your unexplained explanations can easily be solved if you actually take the time and effort to learn.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Animals that glide are technically and mechanically flying, then all it takes is for the flight feathers to extend long with bone density becoming lighter. It's well documented in the fossil record.

As David Raup, curator of the Chicago Field Museum said; the fossil record shows us evolution occurred, if we define evolution as merely change over time, it does not tell us how that change occurred, and that is really the question

We certainly understand how mutation destroys flight- and why it does not restore that flight, even if 99.99% of the design is already there.
Because its always infinitely more probably to destroy functional information by random corruption than to create it.

Sight is one of the oldest and most well understood mechanics in biology. I absolutely fail to see how that eludes you.

Your unexplained explanations can easily be solved if you actually take the time and effort to learn

Again, we fully understand how mutations destroy sight, e.g. in blind cave fish

But enlighten us, how does random mutation endow a blind animal with sight?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

As David Raup, curator of the Chicago Field Museum said; the fossil record shows us evolution occurred, if we define evolution as merely change over time, it does not tell us how that change occurred, and that is really the question

We certainly understand how mutation destroys flight- and why it does not restore that flight, even if 99.99% of the design is already there.
Because its always infinitely more probably to destroy functional information by random corruption than to create it.

All this reads to me is just a massive argument from incredulity on your part alone.

Again, we fully understand how mutations destroy sight, e.g. in blind cave fish

But enlighten us, how does random mutation endow a blind animal with sight?

Here's a visual example of the evolution of vertebrate eyes. If you want something written, then the Wikipedia page, Evolution of the eye, explains it better for you. You can even change the language setting to Simple English to help you understand it better.

But I know that's not going to matter to you.
Seriously, Guy, your entire shtick is asking questions that you can easily look the answer for yourself, but you choose not to and ignore what people tell you.

 

[Astrid]

If you have any substantive, scientific counter argument to the claim, I'd be happy to address that.

Thanks!

No thanks.
You dont learn from anyone else,
you wouldnt from me either.

The science is all about you.

Romer's Comparative Vertebrate Anatomy
would be most useful, but it requires work.

Im not interestrd in how you try to "address" the
cumulative work of tens of thousands of actual
researchers, you lack any capacity to do so.


Your motives are unclear but understanding
evolution doesnt appear to be on the list.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

All this reads to me is just a massive argument from incredulity on your part alone.



View attachment 341825
Here's a visual example of the evolution of vertebrate eyes. If you want something written, then the Wikipedia page, Evolution of the eye, explains it better for you. You can even change the language setting to Simple English to help you understand it better.

But I know that's not going to matter to you.
Seriously, Guy, your entire shtick is asking questions that you can easily look the answer for yourself, but you choose not to and ignore what people tell you.

I'm familiar with this high school biology visual.

It starts with a limited but functional eye, complete with a retina/ network of interconnected photoreceptors, a fully integrated optical nerve, which transfers information which must then be interpreted to provoke a physical response.

......and then proceeds to show a superficial morphological alteration.

It does not of course address what sort of accidental mutations would be required to endow the animal with this eye to begin with.

A single photoceptor protein alone, is more sophisticated than anything on this slide. It must react to individual photons, activating a physical switch which creates a signal, and must reset to its initial position quickly enough to receive the next photon. A large integrated array of these is required to amplify the signal into anything useful- that's just scratching the surface but it's worth looking into if you are interested in this in more depth.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm familiar with this high school biology visual.

It starts with a limited but functional eye, complete with a retina/ network of interconnected photoreceptors, a fully integrated optical nerve, which transfers information which must then be interpreted to provoke a physical response.

......and then proceeds to show a superficial morphological alteration.

It does not of course address what sort of accidental mutations would be required to endow the animal with this eye to begin with.

A single photoceptor protein alone, is more sophisticated than anything on this slide. It must react to individual photons, activating a physical switch which creates a signal, and must reset to its initial position quickly enough to receive the next photon. A large integrated array of these is required to amplify the signal into anything useful- that's just scratching the surface but its worth looking into if you are interested in this in more depth.

See, it's claims like this that do not lead me to believe that you are. A single photoreceptor protein might be sophisticated, so what? That does not disprove that the eye evolved. That's just pointing out a photoreceptor protein is sophisticated. Also, if you have multiple photoreceptor proteins, then that means that it can react to multiple individual photons of light easier and quicker, thus allowing a much clearer image.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

See, it's claims like this that do not lead me to believe that you are. A single photoreceptor protein might be sophisticated, so what? That's just pointing out a photoreceptor protein is sophisticated. Also, if you have multiple photoreceptor proteins, then that means that it can react to multiple individual photons of light easier and quicker, thus allowing a much clearer image.

exactly- as improbable as it would be to accidentally mutate a functioning photoreceptor switch- even that miracle would have no selectable advantage- you'd need to spontaneously mutate an entire integrated array of them- never mind connecting them all with an optic nerve and processing capabilities.

That does not disprove that the eye evolved.

No it doesn't

But how quickly the argument shifts from 'Darwinism is supported by mountains of undeniable empirical evidence'

To- 'well it might have happened, prove it didn't!'

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

exactly- as improbable as it would be to accidentally mutate a functioning photoreceptor switch- even that miracle would have no selectable advantage- you'd need to spontaneously mutate an entire integrated array of them- never mind connecting them all with an optic nerve and processing capabilities.

But nothing mutates by accident. Mutations are in response to environmental pressures and genes that prove advantageous to those pressures being selected for in populations of animals. Not one person will make the claim that mutations happen by accident except for you.

No it doesn't

But how quickly the argument shifts from 'Darwinism is supported by mountains of undeniable empirical evidence'

To- 'well it might have happened, prove it didn't!'

Yes, the argument will shift since you are the one making a claim. Claims which you make time and time again about evolution but do nothing to back them up.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But nothing mutates by accident. Mutations are in response to environmental pressures

correct, but the result of the mutation itself is random, at least according to ToE

Yes, the argument will shift since you are the one making a claim. Claims which you make time and time again about evolution but do nothing to back them up.

The claim was that a functional eye can, and did, come into existence through random mutation.

That's a very difficult claim to back up through any experiment, observation, or mathematical probability- i.e. scientifically.

The claim that 'it must have happened' is demanded by the theory, not the empirical evidence.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm familiar with this high school biology visual.

It starts with a limited but functional eye, complete with a retina/ network of interconnected photoreceptors, a fully integrated optical nerve, which transfers information which must then be interpreted to provoke a physical response.

......and then proceeds to show a superficial morphological alteration.

It does not of course address what sort of accidental mutations would be required to endow the animal with this eye to begin with.

A single photoceptor protein alone, is more sophisticated than anything on this slide. It must react to individual photons, activating a physical switch which creates a signal, and must reset to its initial position quickly enough to receive the next photon. A large integrated array of these is required to amplify the signal into anything useful- that's just scratching the surface but it's worth looking into if you are interested in this in more depth.

Good grief, Guy. The general flow of the path to sight is laid out (without the biochemical or genetic specifics) by Darwin himself in 1859.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

correct, but the result of the mutation itself is random, at least according to ToE

Random is not accidental. It just means, in the sense of biological evolution, that mutations don't follow a set path, so to speak, in how, when and which mutations occur. They just occur.

The claim was that a functional eye can, and did, come into existence through random mutation.

That's a very difficult claim to back up through any experiment, observation, or mathematical probability- i.e. scientifically.

The claim that 'it must have happened' is demanded by the theory, not the empirical evidence.

And yet, it is the only claim that can be backed up by the evidence we have. Mathematical probability means squat if we already have the end result. To try and work it backwards is just bad logic. Like the whole of your comment: it's just bad logic.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Good grief, Guy. The general flow of the path to sight is laid out (without the biochemical or genetic specifics) by Darwin himself in 1859.

"laid out without biochemical or genetic specifics"

yes..

a.k.a. pulling it out of one's &%%

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Random is not accidental. It just means, in the sense of biological evolution, that mutations don't follow a set path, so to speak, in how, when and which mutations occur. They just occur.

random, accidental, unguided, unpredictable, chance, I think we agree on the substance here if not the semantics?

To try and work it backwards is just bad logic.

Well that was Darwin's approach, you look at small variations in species and extrapolate that back to cover all natural history.

It's a little like extrapolating Newtonian laws to try to explain the physics of the entire Universe as they did in Darwin's day, his theory of evolution was a natural product of a Victorian age understanding of nature in this sense.

Extrapolation is tempting, but scales matter, things do work differently at different scales..

 

[Hans Blaster]

"laid out without biochemical or genetic specifics"

yes..

a.k.a. pulling it out of one's &%%

Such things didn't exist yet. (Well, Darwin didn't know that Mendel had started genetics.)

What Darwin did was to envision a path that broke down the "impossibility" claim regardless of the path or the mechanism of variation generation.